• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Case Scenario - Mens Rea

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Edward83

Junior Member
To whom it may concern,
A friend was once convicted of grand larceny. They were placed on house arrest and subject to terms of probation. The house arrest was served and ended on or about 1 month ago. Probation was set to end on or about June 1, 2010.

The defendant was receiving social assistance and living with a friend. The friend as well as the defendant agreed to terms of room and board for a sizeable portion between the amount of 80 and 90% of the social assistance cheque.

The friend/landlord and her significant other left on vacation for two weeks leaving the defendant with little to no food in the house. Having recently given the landlord the amount of social assitance stated above had no means of feeding ones self.

The defendant upon searching for food or means to obtain food came upon the amount of or about $200 laying inside a kitchen cupboard. The defendant used this money for transportation and food. The defendant intended to inform the landlord of the action at the first available moment when they returned and furthermore would promise to return the money on a specific date.

The landlord and their significant other returned from said vacation 2 weeks later-late in the evening and the defendant was asleep. Upon waking up the defendant learned that the money had already been discovered as missing and at that point had informed the landlord and the significant other of the situation and the intent of repayment.

Understandibly the landlord was shocked and kicked the defendant out, while ending their friendship.

The defendant then immediatly informed his probation officer of the situation and furthermore reported to the local law inforcment office of the actions. During his conversation with his probation officer he learned that the situation had already been reported to the local authorities. The officer to whom he spoke said the defendant did not need to come down and write a statment however the defendant chose willingly to do this.

Upon finishing the statment the defendant was immediatly placed under arrest for breach of probation. The defendant is now being held on $5000 bail.

As it stands now the defendant is being charged with breach of probation and theft under $5000.

A few points I was wondering as the case was presented to me are:

a) can he be held and charged for breach of probation for a crime he has not
been commited of as 'theft' is a crime but not a direct breach of his probationary terms per se
b) How strong of a case does the defendant have with regards to mens rea with mitigating circumstances
c)Can a person be entraped by someone other than a law enforcment officer
d)As per the definition of 'Room and Board' [Lodging and meals earned, purchased for a set fee, or otherwise provided]
having provided the landlord with his end of the deal (the social assistance cheque) is he not entitled to his meals as per the contract; how is he to obtain these meals with no food or means to obtain food.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


tranquility

Senior Member
The mens rea for larceny is the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof. It seems he had the mens rea for the crime. Mitigation is another issue.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
I've never seen probation where it wasn't a violation to commit another crime while on probation.

There's no entrapment here by law enforcement or anybody else.
 

thejacl

Junior Member
The mens rea for larceny is the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof. It seems he had the mens rea for the crime. Mitigation is another issue.
Why do you think he had the mens rea? He clearly did not intend to permanently deprive the owner. It was stated that he had a specific date to repay the owner.
 

Isis1

Senior Member
Why do you think he had the mens rea? He clearly did not intend to permanently deprive the owner. It was stated that he had a specific date to repay the owner.
he took without permission. he didn't write an IOU. he didn't contact the owner of the money prior to taking it. without permission means malice.

doesn't matter the need. he took something that did not belong to him.

did the owner specifically say it was okay to pay him back on a certain date? has he paid him back yet?
 

tranquility

Senior Member
And yet....
he didn't.

If it were only the case of what one says, all would not be stealing just by saying they'd return the money. The intent was at the time of the taking. The guy did not have the money. He took money not his. He can certainly try to convince the court/PO he didn't have the requisite intent, but I think he did.
 

BOR

Senior Member
A few points I was wondering as the case was presented to me are:

a) can he be held and charged for breach of probation for a crime he has not
been commited of as 'theft' is a crime but not a direct breach of his probationary terms per se
b) How strong of a case does the defendant have with regards to mens rea with mitigating circumstances
c)Can a person be entraped by someone other than a law enforcment officer
d)As per the definition of 'Room and Board' [Lodging and meals earned, purchased for a set fee, or otherwise provided]
having provided the landlord with his end of the deal (the social assistance cheque) is he not entitled to his meals as per the contract; how is he to obtain these meals with no food or means to obtain food.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
You seem to be familiar with the term mens rea, so you should know the culpable mental state for theft is either Knowingly/Intentionally, you did not list your state.

Did he take the whole 200.00?? You seem to be arguing his defense if one of "Justification/Necessity"??

He needed 200.00 for food? If he would have taken 20 or 30, you may slip in that defense, but how can he justify 200.00?
 
Last edited:

tranquility

Senior Member
The argument (as I understand it) is *not* necessity (which is a sure loser), but intent. The OP is saying there was an intent to a repayment of the money at the time of the taking.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Absolutely T. Mens rea might be hard to prove. If the OP left a note it wouldn't even be a question though:).

I would suggest the relationship between the two parties would be important. Since the LL took no solace from the claim of an intent to repay, I would suggest the situation of loaned or borrowed money might have been addressed before.

as well, as others have stated: if the amount taken was reasonable for the claim of intended use, OP's argument might be given some weight. The fact that OP took $200 for "transportation and food" is such an unrealistic explanation that OP really will have a difficult time arguing the claim of why they borrowed the money. Credibility is gone now.

and the real killer: OP better have some receipts totaling $200 to prove his claim.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top