buddy arrested after college football game

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

My buddy (let's call him Billy) was really drunk and while leaving the stadium he tried to steal a t-shirt that a kiosk was giving away for signing up for a credit card. Billy grabbed what he could get his hands on, which ended up being a reusable shopping bag, and took off. A guy working the kiosk saw him and took off after him. The guy caught Billy and tried to drag him to the cops, so Billy broke free and jetted again. While trying to disappear into the crowd he was caught again. This time the guy was more aggressive, so to break free Billy punched him in the face and ran. A cop was nearby and Billy was summarily arrested.

Probably wouldn't be as big a deal, but the bag had some lady's car keys, purse and cell phone in it (he thought it was a few t-shirts in there). also, since Billy tried to keep holding onto the bag the first time he was caught by the kiosk guy, one of the charges in now robbery 4 (ten years max sentence).

What is his best course of action (assume he hires a decent lawyer)? Does a lawyer have a shot at arguing some of the charges down (there's ~ 8 charges)? He's an otherwise upstanding guy with no criminal history. He's also a former service academy (Annapolis/West Point) student that transferred out after his junior year. He's now in a well-respected graduate program.

Can he argue a "mistake-of-fact" with regards to accidentally taking someone's purse and phone when he in fact thought the bag merely contained t-shirts? Can he bank on the fact that, for most cases, the justice system will work to protect "normal" people who are involved in isolated incidents?

He needs a very good lawyer.

Mistake of fact only gets you off when the mistake changes your knowledge that you were committing a crime. He knew he was committing a crime. Being mistaken about the contents of the bag he was stealing doesn't alter the mens rea.

FlyingRon said:

He needs a very good lawyer.

Mistake of fact only gets you off when the mistake changes your knowledge that you were committing a crime. He knew he was committing a crime. Being mistaken about the contents of the bag he was stealing doesn't alter the mens rea.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Can you comment on the broader situation/questions?

No, he can not argue a mistake of fact. At best, his intent is mitigating.

Stop playing lawer and have Billy get an attorney. Either this is homework or you are asking things so beyond your ability to understand without weeks or months of work to be a waste of my time to answer.

I agree.

Your friend will, most likely, go to prison.

Some of the charges may be dropped... but certainly not all.

To put it in a nutshell, your friend's life sucks.

tranquility said:

No, he can not argue a mistake of fact. At best, his intent is mitigating.

Stop playing lawer and have Billy get an attorney. Either this is homework or you are asking things so beyond your ability to understand without weeks or months of work to be a waste of my time to answer.

Click to expand...

An attorney has since been acquired, so I will stop "playing lawyer". I was merely trying to assess the situation, not attempting to represent him.

This is not homework. While I sincerely doubt this is beyond "[my] ability to understand without weeks or months of work," I do nonetheless appreciate your acerbic criticism of my comprehension. Further, I am loathe to take up your inestimable time seeking free counsel on this free legal advice discussion board. My apologies; please have your secretary double bill me for the hours.

cyjeff said:

I agree.

Your friend will, most likely, go to prison.

Some of the charges may be dropped... but certainly not all.

To put it in a nutshell, your friend's life sucks.

Click to expand...

What a downer. Thanks for your input.

It took me weeks and some classmates months to understand what it was. It's not easy to explain and required briefing dozens of cases and lot's of time in study and consideration. True, I probably could have done it in couple of days. But, I work for a living, dood, and couldn't spend 10 hours a day in study.

Mistake of fact runs through many places in criminal law. I mentioned the mens rea place and pointed out that is not going to get you anywhere. Do you want me to explain why? That I can do by going through the elements of larceny fairly quickly and what he had the intent to do. He intentionally took and carried away the property of another with the intent to permantly deprive the owner of it. I assume from your clumsy question of mistake of fact, buddy thought he was only taking something free to take and, once taken, HE was the owner, right? The mistake was either that he didn't know another's property was in the bag or that he didn't know that if they were giving thing away he was unaware they can chose how to do so and in what amount. Right?

In the former, we get to the concept of transferred intent and in the later we get to stupid. He stole the shirts and because of that he stole what else was in the bag.

Go research what I wrote and ask any specific question you like. We will now wait to see how long it takes you to ask an intellegent question based on understanding and not ignorance. (Plus, I gave you a jumpstart on many of the issues. This should be quick, right?)

tranquility said:

It took me weeks and some classmates months to understand what it was. It's not easy to explain and required briefing dozens of cases and lot's of time in study and consideration. True, I probably could have done it in couple of days. But, I work for a living, dood, and couldn't spend 10 hours a day in study.

Mistake of fact runs through many places in criminal law. I mentioned the mens rea place and pointed out that is not going to get you anywhere. Do you want me to explain why? That I can do by going through the elements of larceny fairly quickly and what he had the intent to do. He intentionally took and carried away the property of another with the intent to permantly deprive the owner of it. I assume from your clumsy question of mistake of fact, buddy thought he was only taking something free to take and, once taken, HE was the owner, right? The mistake was either that he didn't know another's property was in the bag or that he didn't know that if they were giving thing away he was unaware they can chose how to do so and in what amount. Right?

In the former, we get to the concept of transferred intent and in the later we get to stupid. He stole the shirts and because of that he stole what else was in the bag.

Go research what I wrote and ask any specific question you like. We will now wait to see how long it takes you to ask an intellegent question based on understanding and not ignorance. (Plus, I gave you a jumpstart on many of the issues. This should be quick, right?)

Click to expand...

While I do appreciate the reply, the harshly bitter tenor of your posts is distracting and not at all useful to anyone, least of all me and my friend. Save your righteous indignation for the next poor sap to stumble through here.

I'm seeking informed legal opinions on this matter. I have no legal training and I won't pretend that I have any understanding of the law, which, oddly enough, is why I ended up here on this free legal advice board.

While the tone of my original post was informal, the questions were straightforward and in no way "clumsy". Thanks for your input that mistake of fact doesn't apply. However I could have done without your asinine assumptions regarding my "clumsy" question. Perhaps next time you will model you replies after your third paragraph - which was both thoughtful and helpful - as you attempt to explain in a more professional and less disparaging manner why a legal concept doesn't apply. Further, if you're going to take even the smallest amount of your precious time to reply at all, why not address the meat of the post as opposed to only rudely shredding a non-applicable concept? Thanks for letting my know it doesn't apply, but you could have been more thoughtful and thorough in your reasoning.

My friend screwed up. He committed a crime and he knows that. I know that. If you can't offer any pertinent advice other than "stop playing lawyer" or "get a lawyer", then I would thank you to pass on replying in the future.

I will research what you wrote. As for the rest of your antagonistic fourth paragraph, maybe, tranquility, you should pop a Quaalude and relax a little. Or maybe you should change your screenname to "turbulence".

While I do appreciate the reply, the harshly bitter tenor of your posts is distracting and not at all useful to anyone, least of all me and my friend. Save your righteous indignation for the next poor sap to stumble through here.

Click to expand...

I will promise to save my indignation for the next drunken accused felon's buddy to stumble through here. I will try to hold my tongue when such have already received the correct answer and still want additional comments on a free board.

I'm seeking informed legal opinions on this matter. I have no legal training and I won't pretend that I have any understanding of the law,

Click to expand...

And yet, you propound legal theories in your question.

While the tone of my original post was informal, the questions were straightforward and in no way "clumsy".

Click to expand...

Yet, it was clumsy in the way mistake of fact was focused upon. It showed a lack of legal skill and was ill contrived. When one uses jargon one should know its import. Here you used legal jargon which focused everyone on the issue you thought important. It wasn't and you may have lost a fresh look at the facts from posters who read your post. "Clumsy" seems entirely appropriate.

However I could have done without your asinine assumptions regarding my "clumsy" question.

Click to expand...

What assumption was that? (Beyond the fact you were playing lawyer.) And, if that is to what you refer, what are you doing? Even knowing what happened and talking about what your friend was thinking make me believe he told you something. The hardest part to the prosecution will be intent. Having people like you ask around about things, if it comes to the notice of the State, will help them do that because of the increased amount of facts regarding what friend thought. You are not helping him and have a possibility of hurting him. What ARE you playing at?

Perhaps next time you will model you replies after your third paragraph - which was both thoughtful and helpful - as you attempt to explain in a more professional and less disparaging manner why a legal concept doesn't apply.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I'll file it appropriately.

Further, if you're going to take even the smallest amount of your precious time to reply at all, why not address the meat of the post as opposed to only rudely shredding a non-applicable concept? Thanks for letting my know it doesn't apply, but you could have been more thoughtful and thorough in your reasoning.

Click to expand...

I could have written pages at all the posibilities. However, the only real advice possible is for your friend to get an attorney. He needs one.

Also, you need to know this is law school study time for finals. Lots of law students ask questions to get a leg up on a concept they don't understand. A general rule here is we don't do homework. Your facts were suspicious for a number of reasons. If an essay, it would be what students call a "racehorse" with a number of issues which should be quickly identified and dealt with. Such attitude is the risk you take when you pretend to know more than you do.

My friend screwed up. He committed a crime and he knows that. I know that. If you can't offer any pertinent advice other than "stop playing lawyer" or "get a lawyer", then I would thank you to pass on replying in the future.

Click to expand...

I get to write as much as you do. If you don't like the only good advice I can give which is to stop playing lawyer when you're not one and to have your friend get a real one, then you are a fool. What do you think someone will or could say? Do you think you will come up with the ironclad defense argument your friend's attorney misses?

"You can't always get what you want
And if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"--Rolling Stones

I will research what you wrote.

Click to expand...

Super. Anything you need help on, post to this thread and I'll let you know what I think. Maybe, if you study on this particular issue, you can be the one to teach me.

As for the rest of your antagonistic fourth paragraph, maybe, tranquility, you should pop a Quaalude and relax a little.

Click to expand...

But, that would be a felony to even possess. It seems you are a bit casual about serious crimes. Perhaps you should listen to grown-ups rather than try to teach them.

Or maybe you should change your screenname to "turbulence".

Click to expand...

Actually, you misunderstand why I chose the screen name. It's more as to why We the People do ordain and establish than a comment on my attitude. It's a comentary as to why we even have law. A social contract kind of thing.

Thanks for breaking that down, Dr. Jack-style. It was both informative and irritating. Kudos. As I tried to cut through the overwhelming expanse of blather, I found an alarming lack of text germane to my original questions. I don't much care for you cavalier attitude, but I'm willing to engage you in this manner in the hope that you remove your head from your behind. Not only would that be helpful for me, but it would also benefit those that may come here in the future - with legitimate concerns - who might otherwise be put off by your acrimonious disdain.

I didn't know the only advice handed out here was "get a lawyer". I wouldn't have bothered posting anything if I knew the recommendations would be so hollow.

You can't seem to get past one of my original questions. I don't know how much more transparent I can be with regards to my utter lack of legal knowledge. I have admitted I don't understand the field and I have surely demonstrated as much. The question about the mistake of fact was both sincere and innocent. I wasn't "propound[ing] legal theories". Next time please just exercise some maturity, inform me that it doesn't apply (and possibly why it doesn't apply), and address the meat of the post. If you feel the need to spew your irrelevant vitriol, please, do me a favor and just move along.

I've addresses the purported clumsiness of my questions, so I will leave you to reread my post on that issue.

The asinine assumptions I spoke of were,

I assume from your clumsy question of mistake of fact, buddy thought he was only taking something free to take and, once taken, HE was the owner, right? The mistake was either that he didn't know another's property was in the bag or that he didn't know that if they were giving thing away he was unaware they can chose how to do so and in what amount. Right?

Click to expand...

I've already clearly explained that Billy knows he is in the wrong. He knows he committed a crime. The quoted text is just another example of your irrelevant drivel. Since we both know he never thought either of those things in your quote above (If you haven't noticed, I've pointed out as much several times thus far. Have another read of it.), it's readily apparent that you only included it to collar a cheap shot again Billy/me/the situation. I'm sure you thought it was a great supplement to your thus far insightful legal analysis, but it wasn't material in the least.

Your fourth paragraph is largely incomprehensible, but I gather that you think I'm doing him a disservice by advertising his situation on the board. Fear not. I have changed enough of the minor details of the narrative while retaining the essential elements necessary for analysis. It may or may not have been a kiosk. The items they were giving away may or may not have been a t-shirt. His name may or may not be Billy. I'll end the suspense with respect to his name: it's not Billy (as I've already hinted at).

I was not aware that law students use this place to cheat. Thank you for helping me at least party understand your salty disposition.

What do you think someone will or could say? Do you think you will come up with the ironclad defense argument your friend's attorney misses?

Click to expand...

Well, you've already indicated you,

could have written pages at all the posibilities

Click to expand...

I was just hoping for a few tidbits to better understand the situation and to relay any useful information to Billy. As exciting it is to argue with someone with limited reading comprehension, the only reason I came here was for some legal analysis. He's already acquired an attorney (as I have yet again already pointed out), but since said attorney is not available 24/7, naturally Billy is looking to get as much information as possible. Anything he does learn will of course be discussed with his attorney.

Anything you need help on, post to this thread and I'll let you know what I think.

Click to expand...

Since you continue to refuse to address the meat of the original post other than to say "get a lawyer," I won't be seeking your assistance in the matter any further. I'm just spinning my wheels by continuing to engage you in dialogue, and I have the uneasy feeling that you derive some amount of satisfaction from that.

But, that would be a felony to even possess. It seems you are a bit casual about serious crimes. Perhaps you should listen to grown-ups rather than try to teach them.

Click to expand...

The line about the Quaalude is my feeble attempt at light-hearted humor. It was not meant to be taken seriously. My stock-in-trade is mathematics, so surely you understand my clumsiness when it comes to jocularity.

As for listening to grown-ups, I fulfill any legal definition of such an entity. To jump to the conclusion that I was underage brings into question you own legal acumen. Further, the flippant nature of the context in which you advised I "listen... rather than teach [grown-ups]", undermines whatever gravitas you've established for your persona around here.

It is interesting that your screename is taken from the US Constitution, for both the relevance of such a great document to this discussion board, and supreme irony that your own personal constitution is far from tranquil.

Okay... if you two are done seeing who can pee farthest...

Your friend needs an attorney. It is not an excuse that he stole a bag with far more value than he thought... any more than it is an excuse that you didn't know there was a child in the SUV you stole.

Your friend is screwed and is looking at some serious jail time... and needs to sell everything he has to JUST completely screw up his life.... if he doesn't, he won't see the light of day for several years.

But, cyjeff, can't you READ? He's already told us (at least me) that is unwelcome advice. No matter how many may point it out to him, he still wants his questions answered in the manner he deems appropriate.

I was just hoping for a few tidbits to better understand the situation and to relay any useful information to Billy.

Click to expand...

Um..you shouldn't be talking with Billy about this. You don't have privilege. Anything he says can be used against him. You speak of reading comprehension, but you don't seem to really comprehend. You are not an attorney. People should not talk about criminal acts they are accused of with those who are not attorneys. Goodness gracious, sakes alive, there is NOTHING good which will come of it. And, while the State is not highly likely to care enough to find out about it, if they do, the information you've shared so far is enough to put him away. To keep up my reputation in this thread, my pedantic, petulant, caustic and legally correct analysis of your continued seeking of knowledge conveyed in a way you may understand:

[value of your postings to friend] = 0
[risk of your postings to friend] > 0
Do the math

And, as a final hurrah, let me give you some things to look up. Based on the above formula, don't reply--even if it is in thanks. If you relay it to Billy after looking up the concepts and learning about them, DON'T discuss it. Discussing his story with him gets to the above formula unless the discussion has the goal of "adapting" his story. If that is the goal, YOU are now part of a criminal conspiracy (a felony) and may have committed some direct and inchoate crimes.

Mens rea is the issue. For any larceny (including grand theft and/or robbery), specific intent is required. Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. (Or, by the admission of the accused--review above formula.) One can be so drunk so as to not have the ability to form the intent required for a specific intent crime. The value of the item stolen may, according to the state, affect the level of punishment. (Issue to review with state-specific case law, is the transferred intent of stealing something different from what you planned to steal, also apply to the value and increased penalties?) The difference between grand theft and robbery is the use of force or fear. Both require taking from the presence of another (Grand theft can be either above a certain amount OR from the presence of another. Purse snatching is a grand theft, if the victim tries to hold on, robbery.) What did Billy believe when he used force to escape? What specific intent will be inferred from the surrounding facts? Maybe he was far enough away and just thought someone was beating him up for running through a crowd. Twice. Punching someone in the face will probably also include a battery charge as well. (And, will lead to civil liability for any damage to the other person. Billy should be ready to get sued on top of all this.) The value of the items in the bag is more important to the level of the punishment then the conviction. The value will be argued too, but in reality, the length of the sentence will probably not change too much. A felony conviction for robbery, kinda hurts future employment opportunities and that should be the main concern.

What is his best course of action (assume he hires a decent lawyer)?

Click to expand...

To remain silent and not talk to anyone but his lawyer about this.

Does a lawyer have a shot at arguing some of the charges down (there's ~ 8 charges)?

Click to expand...

Trials are expensive for the State too. Not having to try Billy seems worth something--even though this one could be a slam dunk and prosecutors love to win in court.

He's an otherwise upstanding guy with no criminal history. He's also a former service academy (Annapolis/West Point) student that transferred out after his junior year. He's now in a well-respected graduate program.

Click to expand...

Punishment only. This will be mitigating. But, I don't see how a felony conviction in a crime of moral turpitude is not the end result.

Can he bank on the fact that, for most cases, the justice system will work to protect "normal" people who are involved in isolated incidents?

Click to expand...

See above answer.

How was that for substantive? You got what you wanted. I think you will now do a disservice to your friend (maybe to yourself) and speak with him about it, but, you have been throughly warned.

Final advice. Billy should say nothing about this incident to anyone but his attorney.

I understand completely.

Everyone comes here for the silver bullet that would make Billy's life magically go back to before he committed multiple felonies.

If we don't provide that magical answer, we must not know what we are talking about.

Billy decided to steal. Billy then ran with the stolen goods. Billy then assaulted the person pursuing him for the stolen goods. Billy then tried to evade the police.

Billy wants to know if he can get a break because he didn't know he was stealing a great deal more than he THOUGHT he was stealing.

Billy is an idiot. Billy just screwed up his whole life to the point where he should drop out of college to stop wasting money. In fact, Billy is going to be lucky if he ever finds a job that doesn't involve a paper hat.

Billy's friend is also an idiot for getting into a pissing match with volunteers that know a heck of a lot more about the legal system than Billy or Billy's friend.

does that cover it?

does that cover it?

Click to expand...

Except for the fact I am still debating over whether to delete my prior post. I do not think my warning will be headed and am a bit embarrassed I finally gave him what he wanted and not what he needed.

For the first time in thousands of posts, I wrote something which I think will legally hurt others. And, I did it because my buttons were pushed and out of petulance. I'm sorry for that and may stop posting for a bit to consider the issue. My only defense is it was correct, what the "client" wanted and not illegal in any way. Still, I am conflicted.