# The Store Thief "Riddle" **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 1, 2021, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-store-thief-riddle/951708 "2021-10-01T02:24:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2021, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-store-thief-riddle/951708/242 "2021-10-14T23:24:21Z")
I said larceny was committed in the amount of $100. Full stop. I didn’t say it was all in cash. So I don’t know why you would pursue that factual element as if it were relevant to the question of larceny in this case. Do you think that to be convicted of, say, grand larceny in (and here I’m just picking a state at random) West Virginia the $1,000 or more in property stolen actually needs to be cash, otherwise it’s not grand larceny? ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2021, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-store-thief-riddle/951708/243 "2021-10-15T01:08:11Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > I was specifically replying to your comment that being a long-time customer would not be an effective criminal defense against the charge of theft. No-one has said it would be. If I’m mistaken about that, you can cite the post. Well, sure, that’s what you responded to, but what you said was: No-one in this thread has made any assertion that a net calculation of loss would, or should, influence criminal charges. And they have. They still are. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2021, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-store-thief-riddle/951708/244 "2021-10-15T01:24:16Z")
> [@tofor](#): > > Those who say in the OP that the store lost $100 and nothing else can be the answer must, to be consistent, say the store lost $100 in this scenario too. But those answers would not be consistent at all. In your example, the store has an inventory surplus. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2021, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-store-thief-riddle/951708/245 "2021-10-15T19:32:11Z")
# net calculation of loss > [@SciFiSam](#): > > Well, sure, that’s what you responded to, but what you said was: > > No-one in this thread has made any assertion that a net calculation of loss would, or should, influence criminal charges. > > And they have. They still are. I still fail to see # a net calculation of loss being used as a justification to change criminal penalties. Maybe you could cite this calculation, since I appear to have missed it. > [@UltraVires](#): > > Really? You think that someone can escape the harsher penalties for stealing a gun just by taking money out of the gun store cash register and then “paying” for the gun? Sorry, no, I misunderstood your question. I can absolutely believe that a judge would allow prosecutors to deliberately charge the wrong offense for the benefit of extra jail time. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2021, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-store-thief-riddle/951708/246 "2021-10-16T16:23:45Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > I can absolutely believe that a judge would allow prosecutors to deliberately charge the wrong offense for the benefit of extra jail time. Okay, I ask it a different way. We live in Fakeland where the penalty for stealing a gun is a mandatory minimum 10 years in prison. The theft of $500 cash is, like most places, a misdemeanor petit larceny with a maximum of one year in the local jail, with the possibility of a simple fine. Our thief and the owner live in Fakeland. The thief wants to steal the gun but doesn’t want to do 10 years, and will risk the misdemeanor penalty. So, instead of stealing the gun directly, he gets the idea to steal $500 from the gun store till, and then “purchases” the gun with his stolen loot. Putting aside your distrust in judges and prosecutors, you do not believe that a legitimate case could be made that the thief stole the gun and not the cash? IOW, a crafty thief can escape the penalties that the people of Fakeland have enacted simply by restructuring his theft in this manner? I say that this is a very silly proposition, and the law would easily and correctly recognize this scheme as the theft of the gun. Likewise, in our hypo, the thief has stolen the item and not the cash. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2021, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-store-thief-riddle/951708/247 "2021-10-16T16:40:06Z")
You’ve presented a scenario, the outcome of which may well depend upon technical distinctions of law that may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Is Fakeland operating under the common law? I think not completely, as theft of a firearm is presumably not a common law crime distinct from any other act of larceny. So how’s the statute written? What are the elements of the crime laid out in the statute? What was the intent of the legislature in writing the statute? Do we know? Is there any prior jurisprudence in interpreting this statute? Is larceny also defined by statute? Or just on the matter of larceny–and whether the money was even “stolen” in the first place–has Fakeland ever tackled the question of what happens when someone, say, takes an item off a store rack, and then without leaving the store, makes to return it to the store, claiming to have previously purchased it but lost the receipt, and seeking a refund? Can such a person be said to have committed larceny, or merely to have attempted it if they are intercepted by store security before the refund effort succeeds? Or have they not even attempted larceny? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2021, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-store-thief-riddle/951708/248 "2021-10-16T16:44:13Z")
This makes it needlessly complicated. Pretend Fakeland is Iowa. It follows the common law except as modified by statute. Larceny is defined as the common law defines it. Larceny of a gun is a statutory crime with a mandatory minimum of 10 years. In any event, under common law principles in our original question, one cannot say that the thief committed larceny of the $70 because he did not have the requisite intent to deprive the owner of it indefinitely. He intended to return it to the till, solely to confuse some people into believing that the $70 was the object of his theft when, as we know from looking at the facts, the object of his theft that he did intend to deprive the owner of indefinitely was the item. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2021, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-store-thief-riddle/951708/249 "2021-10-16T16:55:04Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > In any event, under common law principles in our original question, one cannot say that the thief committed larceny of the $70 because he did not have the requisite intent to deprive the owner of it indefinitely. He intended to return it to the till, solely to confuse some people into believing that the $70 was the object of his theft when, as we know from looking at the facts, the object of his theft that he did intend to deprive the owner of indefinitely was the item. So, interesting bit of legal nerdery here, but that’s debatable, and it’s why I brought up the notion of taking an item off a store shelf and seeking to “return” it as if it had been purchased. In some jurisdictions at least, that is larceny. See [People v. Davis](https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-davis-31960). From the Lexis summary: > [@](#): > > CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY > > A jury convicted defendant of petty theft on the ground that defendant did “steal, take and carry away the personal property” of a department store in violation of [Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)](https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=60741573-a897-4a81-a27e-3af6e66bb56c&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3V1K-5B00-0039-44WC-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=4861&pdteaserkey=&pdislpamode=false&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&ecomp=-t4hk&earg=sr0&prid=a64bc556-f68a-482d-a5e2-f2c30386d96c#) (theft by larceny), and upon waiver by defendant of further jury trial, the trial court found an allegation of a prior theft-related conviction to be true ([Pen. Code, § 666](https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=60741573-a897-4a81-a27e-3af6e66bb56c&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3V1K-5B00-0039-44WC-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=4861&pdteaserkey=&pdislpamode=false&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&ecomp=-t4hk&earg=sr0&prid=a64bc556-f68a-482d-a5e2-f2c30386d96c#)). The trial court denied defendant’s motion to treat the offense as a misdemeanor and sentenced him to state prison. Defendant had entered the store and picked up a shirt from a store display, carried it to a sales counter, claimed to own it, and asked for a “refund” of cash or credit, unaware that his conduct was observed by a store security agent, who instructed the clerk to give defendant credit for the shirt. After the clerk gave defendant a credit voucher, the agent detained him as he left the counter with the voucher. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. MA010835, [Frank Y. Jackson](https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=60741573-a897-4a81-a27e-3af6e66bb56c&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3V1K-5B00-0039-44WC-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=4861&pdteaserkey=&pdislpamode=false&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&ecomp=-t4hk&earg=sr0&prid=a64bc556-f68a-482d-a5e2-f2c30386d96c#), Judge.) The Court of Appeal, Second Dist., Div. One, No. B101946, affirmed, holding that defendant could properly have been convicted of theft by larceny. > > The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction; that defendant satisfied the elements of theft by larceny by (1) taking possession (2) of personal property (the shirt) (3) owned by the store (4) by means of trespass and (5) with intent to steal the property, and (6) carrying the property away. Defendant’s intent to claim ownership of the shirt and to return it to the store only on condition that the store pay him a “refund” constituted an intent to permanently deprive the store of the shirt within the meaning of the law of larceny, and hence an intent to feloniously steal that property within the meaning of [Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a)](https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=60741573-a897-4a81-a27e-3af6e66bb56c&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3V1K-5B00-0039-44WC-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=4861&pdteaserkey=&pdislpamode=false&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&ecomp=-t4hk&earg=sr0&prid=a64bc556-f68a-482d-a5e2-f2c30386d96c#). Since the store could not have been deemed to consent to defendant’s taking possession of the shirt with the intent to steal it, defendant’s conduct also constituted a trespassory taking under the larceny law. (Opinion by [Mosk](https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=60741573-a897-4a81-a27e-3af6e66bb56c&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3V1K-5B00-0039-44WC-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=4861&pdteaserkey=&pdislpamode=false&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&ecomp=-t4hk&earg=sr0&prid=a64bc556-f68a-482d-a5e2-f2c30386d96c#), J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.) That is, his intent to return the $70 on in exchange for an item (like, a sort of “reverse” refund) could be analogously described as an intent to permanently deprive the store of the money itself. He intended to “claim ownership” of the money by exchanging it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-store-thief-riddle/951708.md?page=12)