Sample Case Memo

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: Daire Brian Iwrin

FROM: Ian Haney, Paralegal

DATE: August, 5th 2014

RE: People v. Kant

OFFICE CLIENT: Sam Kant

OFFICE FILE NUMBER: H081108

DOCKET NUMER: Pending

STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT:

You have requested for me to analyze the case of Sam Kant utilizing the facts, Criminal Statute §143.03(a), Criminal Statute §143.00 and the case State v. Gross.

FACTS:

The client, Sam Kant, stands charged with petit larceny following an arrest at Bilmart. On Wednesday, June 9, 2014, Mr. Kant wrongly bought a pack of Hoover’s Beans. On Thursday, June 10, 2014, Mr. Kant returned to Bilmart to exchange the Hoover’s Beans, upon which he faced a long line at the customer service desk. Thereupon, Mr. Kant retrieved the wanted Handell’s Beans, placed them in his cart, and returned to the customer service desk to formalize the exchange. Yet, the line remained long and, locating a cart he understood to be filled with other returned items, Mr. Kant placed the previously purchased Hoover’s Beans into the return cart. Next, he proceeded towards the exit doors, with the Handell’s Beans, where he was stopped by security. In

Kant’s counsel, we will auspiciously assert that typical retail practice and case law, supports a specific application of the intention element. In State v. Gross, the defendant was charged with petit larceny when he failed to pay for two rib eye steaks hidden underneath his shirt as he approached the exit. The court found: (1) the defendant demonstrated the requisite intent to deprive an owner when he acts in a manner contrary to those which would be taken by an ordinary person, under ordinary circumstances for the situation involved, and (2) actions that are inconsistent with and ultimately adverse to the owners interest may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the nature of the defendants acts may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite the defendant remaining on the