I sold a diamond ring on Craigslist and now the buyer is threating to arrest me

[FlyingRon]

Just to muddy the water some more....Are we saying it might be a man-made diamond (CZ) rather than one made by nature? Remember, CZ is exactly the same composition as a real diamond -- carbon. But the bottom line is that this case will be very difficult to prove.

CRAIG, you're loopy. A Cubic Zirconia is not a man made diamond with the same composition as a real diamond.

It's not carbon it's Zirconium Dioxide. While it's visually close to a diamond, it is more dense and while fairly hard, it is still much softer than a diamond.

 

[JakeB]

does it prove it? No. Does it put enough question in a juries mind so they believe there was intent? I wouldn't want to be in the defendants chair with that against me.

A prosecutor would have to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that there is no other reasonable explanation for what happened. Jurors cannot convict anybody based on a question in their minds, and the case would never even get to a jury if that were the only evidence.

CraigFL's first post in this thread should be enough to convince you. Was he encouraging criminal fraud, or was he mistaken about contract law? It looks like the latter, and that is a reasonable alternative explanation for refusing to refund the buyer.

you are presuming there was no intent. How do you know the OP is legit? How do you know he was not intentionally attempting to defraud the buyer.

Here's the first quote I took issue with:

"At this juncture, it can be accepted as a mistake. Once OP is notified the ring is not a real diamond and refuses to remedy the problem, then, it does start to wander into criminal territory."

Let me clarify my point in case there's a misunderstanding: I'm not arguing that there was a mistake. I have no way of knowing. I'm arguing that if there was a mistake, then the notification of it, and the refusal to remedy it, do not wander into criminal territory.

 

[justalayman]

JakeB;2382975]
CraigFL's first post in this thread should be enough to convince you. Was he encouraging criminal fraud, or was he mistaken about contract law? It looks like the latter, and that is a reasonable alternative explanation for refusing to refund the buyer.

there is NO reason to refuse a refund based on what the OP stated. He sent a ring that "as far as (he) knew" was a diamond. Yet he presented it as a diamond and it apparently is not. That gives the buyer the right to demand a refund and no justification to refuse. So, once that happens and OP refuses, he is now definately in breach of the contract and if he continues to refuse, a DA may see this as enough to consider the situation more than simply a breach of contract.

and no, the DA does not have to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. He has to prove the totality of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Big difference. Circumstantial evidence can be enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, especially if the OP refuses to remedy the situation after he is made aware of the facts he feebly denies.

Let me clarify my point in case there's a misunderstanding: I'm not arguing that there was a mistake. I have no way of knowing. I'm arguing that if there was a mistake, then the notification of it, and the refusal to remedy it, do not wander into criminal territory

Of course we do not know the truth, positively but if you are arguing there was not a mistake, then this is definitely a criminal matter. Mistake= simple breach. Not a mistake= criminal conversion.

If the OP refuses to "make good on the deal", then it tends to show there was no mistake unless of course you believe ripping off a buyer is ok.

 

[JakeB]

If the OP refuses to "make good on the deal", then it tends to show there was no mistake

It also tends to prove that it was a mistake, but that the OP is unaware of his legal responsibilities. It also tends to prove that it was a mistake, but that the OP doesn't care about, or cannot live up to, his legal responsibilities, even if he is aware of them.

In short, the fact that the OP won't refund the money is of no real value to a prosecutor, who must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

And didn't I already address this? Oh yeah:

A prosecutor would have to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that there is no other reasonable explanation for what happened. Jurors cannot convict anybody based on a question in their minds, and the case would never even get to a jury if that were the only evidence.

CraigFL's first post in this thread should be enough to convince you. Was he encouraging criminal fraud, or was he mistaken about contract law? It looks like the latter, and that is a reasonable alternative explanation for refusing to refund the buyer.

 

[JakeB]

and no, the DA does not have to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whoa, I just noticed this.

You are 100% incorrect. A prosecutor must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and intent is one such element.

 

[justalayman]

Whoa, I just noticed this.

You are 100% incorrect. A prosecutor must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and intent is one such element.

BS. All he has to prove is in totality that it is accepted beyond a reasonable doubt the crime was committed. There is no requirement for each individual item of evidence be held to that standard, especially since nobody makes that determination. Evidence is presented by the prosecution and the defense gets a chance to refute it. The judge or jury listens to both sides and makes whatever determination they do.

 

[CdwJava]

Absent some proof of intent, no DA is going to prosecute this. There are just too many loopholes for reasonable doubt to be raised.

The standard for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the state has proven their case en toto to such a level is up to the trier of fact. Yes, intent can be inferred, but no DA I have never encountered would go to trial on the possibility that the state might be able to convince a jury that the defendant might have had the criminal intent to defraud the guy. They are going to want to have a pretty firm case to point at.

I don't see that this is a case a DA is going to pursue. Absent a confession or some past history of a similar nature, I see reasonable doubt written all over this.

- Carl

 

[JakeB]

BS. All he has to prove is in totality that it is accepted beyond a reasonable doubt the crime was committed. There is no requirement for each individual item of evidence be held to that standard, especially since nobody makes that determination. Evidence is presented by the prosecution and the defense gets a chance to refute it. The judge or jury listens to both sides and makes whatever determination they do.

I didn't say it before (even though I thought it), but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Seriously, you are way off base. When I'm talking about proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm talking about the elements of a crime, and you're responding as though I'm talking about evidence. And that's the second time you've written something like that. You're really mixed up.

Here's an Arizona law:

13-1802. Theft; classification; definitions

A. A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly:

3. Obtains services or property of another by means of any material misrepresentation with intent to deprive the other person of such property or services;

Do you see the word "knowingly"? The OP wouldn't be guilty unless he knowingly misrepresented the ring. That is an element of the crime of theft, and it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here's the Arizona Supreme Court (State v. Portillo):

It is well established that the Due Process Clause protects criminal defendants against conviction "except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of every element of the crime charged.

If the prosecutor can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the OP had knowledge that the ring was fake, then he cannot be convicted.

And as an FYI, when I used the word "intent" in my prior posts, I was generically referring to the required state of mind (the mens rea) in general. I think that's what Carl meant as well. The law itself may use words like "intent," "knowledge," "purpose," or something else along those lines, but that's what I'm talking about.

 

[justalayman]

Carl, given the situation, (the buyer is a cop), I would suggest a case such as this could get special attention if the cop knows the DA. In a small community such as I live in, politically motivation does cause certain crimes to be looked at less stringently, others more so. Not saying he will take up the case, just that, depending on the actions of the seller, the DA could be swayed to look at it given the right circumstances. If the seller has a history of anything that hints at this, it would go a long way to prove it was the original intent.

jakeB; since the jury does not decide that intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt individually, it is all wrapped up in the totality of the case. In other words, the prosecution is going to present their case, defense rebuts, jury makes the call as to it being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You will never know whether the jury. If the jury convicts, then, by default, the intent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, can you prove it? No. Can you demand they rule independently on intent? I do not believe so. They rule with their conviction or not guilty finding.

The OP wouldn't be guilty unless he knowingly misrepresented the ring. That is an element of the crime of theft, and it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right, and since we are not mind readers, the sellers actions after the sale and notification are evidence that can show there was intent. Of course, this alone is not going to be the nail in the coffin. I never said it was. It is one point that can be used to show the seller did in fact know, or should have known the ring was not a real diamond. Another point that would come out is where the seller got the ring and how much he paid for it. Was it ever proven to be a diamond or did he accept the guys word that sold it to him out of his trunk for $12.95.

Those little bits evidence can be used to show the seller did know or should have known it was not a diamond and then when he posted that it IS a diamond, that then does go a long way to proving intent.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, given the situation, (the buyer is a cop), I would suggest a case such as this could get special attention if the cop knows the DA.

Actually the buyer claimed he "worked" for the police department - that is a HUGE difference. Most of the time, when I hear someone say they work FOR a police department, they are NOT a cop. That is not a universal truth,but it is often used to try and intimidate others. he could be a custodian for all we know.

Plus, if the buyer used official computer networks to run a "background" check on someone who sold him some property, that "officer" just broke a few state and federal laws ... I doubt he is going to want that to come out.

In a small community such as I live in, politically motivation does cause certain crimes to be looked at less stringently, others more so. Not saying he will take up the case, just that, depending on the actions of the seller, the DA could be swayed to look at it given the right circumstances.

It, too, live and work in a small, political, county. But, if the elements are not there, the elements are not there. If the two parties live in the same county, a prosecution MIGHT be more likely, but no matter, the elements of the offense would still have to be proven. INTENT is the key here, and from what has been written, that is a matter of pure speculation. Without a history of past conduct of a similar nature, or an admission that the seller believed the product might not be a diamond, this is going to be a civil matter.

If the seller has a history of anything that hints at this, it would go a long way to prove it was the original intent.

As I have said. Provided the history is provable and resulted in convictions. Mere accusations would be iffy.

The DAs I have known do not like to have to INFER intent. They want to be able to PROVE intent. The seller's advertising of what he thought was a diamond is not proof of fraud by itself. Without some other action or past action(s), the label as a diamond can be written off quite easily as stupidity, carelessness, or even that the seller was a victim of a previous fraud. This case has a built in case for reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt as to the intent, then the rest of the case goes south. A first year law student could probably raise significant doubt as to intent. I just don't see a criminal case going to trial here unless there are details that have yet to be mentioned.

I have been around numerous similar claims and this sort of this is PRECISELY why I advise everyone to avoid Craigslist and eBay unless they are willing to take a bath on the sale. We get reports of such fraud and outright theft with some frequency. The problem is following up on the allegations, proving the case and then convincing a DA that it would be worth pursuing across the state or the country. Unless the buyer and the seller are in the same locale, these cases are very often not pursued unless they involve substantial sums of money and quite obvious fraud.

- Carl

 

[JakeB]

since the jury does not decide that intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt individually, it is all wrapped up in the totality of the case. In other words, the prosecution is going to present their case, defense rebuts, jury makes the call as to it being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You will never know whether the jury. If the jury convicts, then, by default, the intent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, can you prove it? No. Can you demand they rule independently on intent? I do not believe so. They rule with their conviction or not guilty finding.

Again, you're way off base.

First, the judge won't allow a jury to deliberate if he doesn't believe that the prosecutor has presented evidence that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that intent was proven. The judge will dismiss the charges instead.

Second, if the prosecutor has introduced sufficient evidence, then the judge will provide the jury with each element of the crime (including the element of intent), and he will instruct the jury that in order to convict it must find that each individual element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right, and since we are not mind readers, the sellers actions after the sale and notification are evidence that can show there was intent. Of course, this alone is not going to be the nail in the coffin. I never said it was. It is one point that can be used to show the seller did in fact know, or should have known the ring was not a real diamond. Another point that would come out is where the seller got the ring and how much he paid for it. Was it ever proven to be a diamond or did he accept the guys word that sold it to him out of his trunk for $12.95.

Those little bits evidence can be used to show the seller did know or should have known it was not a diamond and then when he posted that it IS a diamond, that then does go a long way to proving intent.

Now you're making up new facts, and I'm not going to argue about that. I already stated: "I'm not arguing that there was a mistake. I have no way of knowing. I'm arguing that if there was a mistake, then the notification of it, and the refusal to remedy it, do not wander into criminal territory." And since then I've also argued: "A prosecutor must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and intent is one such element."

 

[justalayman]

The DAs I have known do not like to have to INFER intent. They want to be able to PROVE intent.

- Carl

it is very difficult to prove intent. It requires proving what a persons thoughts are, in many situations and simply is not provable. One of the simplest situations would be a speeding ticket. Can you prove a person intended to speed? Doubtful unless the speed is extreme. A limited speeding violation can simply be blown off as "I didn't intend to speed. I just was not aware of < how fast I was going; the speed limit on the road; and other such stories> Has that swayed the prosecution of a speeding ticket? And if you want to argue that a speeding ticket is not a criminal charge, remember Texas where everything seems to be a criminal charge rather than a infraction.

Intent requires attempting to establish a persons frame of mind as much as their actions. Those items together result in intent or lack of it.

I do agree what we have seen only allows speculation but since we are not in court, I get to speculate. I was simply trying to give possibilities and depending on the entire gathering of facts, it could be possible for the OP to be prosecuted. That was my entire point until jake came in and wanted to argue the facts of the case, which we simply do not have.

 

[justalayman]

E=JakeB;2384252]Again, you're way off base.

First, the judge won't allow a jury to deliberate if he doesn't believe that the prosecutor has presented evidence that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that intent was proven. The judge will dismiss the charges instead

. sure. post 3 cases where the JUDGE prevented a case from going to the jury because he believed intent was not proven. It is not the judges call to state that intent was not proven. It is the juries decision, just as all other aspects of the case. A judge is not the trier of facts, the jury is. Once a judge places themselves in the position as the trier of facts, it alters the intent of the courts and is not accepted lightly.

Second, if the prosecutor has introduced sufficient evidence, then the judge will provide the jury with each element of the crime (including the element of intent), and he will instruct the jury that in order to convict it must find that each individual element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

and again, it is the trier of facts place to make the actual determination as to if the duty was met, not the judges. in fact, the judge cannot infer that the duty was not met. It would mean the judge would be attempting to sway the jury's decision.

Now you're making up new facts, and I'm not going to argue about that. I already stated: "I'm not arguing that there was a mistake. I have no way of knowing. I'm arguing that if there was a mistake, then the notification of it, and the refusal to remedy it, do not wander into criminal territory." And since then I've also argued: "A prosecutor must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and intent is one such element."

Facts? Boy are you lost. I never state those are facts. They are obviously merely suggestions of possibilities and were never stated not intended to be anything else.

See, right there; you had made a decision on intent. You were wrong. What you did is exactly what I said can happen in a court room.

thank you for proving my point.

 

[JakeB]

. sure. post 3 cases where the JUDGE prevented a case from going to the jury because he believed intent was not proven. It is not the judges call to state that intent was not proven. It is the juries decision, just as all other aspects of the case. A judge is not the trier of facts, the jury is. Once a judge places themselves in the position as the trier of facts, it alters the intent of the courts and is not accepted lightly.

A judge will dismiss a charge if the prosecutor has not proven a prima facie case. I'm not interested in arguing about it. I've already argued against too many of your legal inaccuracies.

and again, it is the trier of facts place to make the actual determination as to if the duty was met, not the judges. in fact, the judge cannot infer that the duty was not met. It would mean the judge would be attempting to sway the jury's decision.

That doesn't refute anything that I wrote. Intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and a jury must make that individual and specific determination. Your "totality of the case" crap is wrong.

Facts? Boy are you lost. I never state those are facts. They are obviously merely suggestions of possibilities and were never stated not intended to be anything else.

See, right there; you had made a decision on intent. You were wrong. What you did is exactly what I said can happen in a court room.

thank you for proving my point.

I don't know what this means so I can't intelligently respond to it.



As a final thought, where speeding is a crime, it is strict liability. There is no requirement to prove intent.

 

[CdwJava]

it is very difficult to prove intent. It requires proving what a persons thoughts are, in many situations and simply is not provable.

True enough, but in many cases the mens rea is simple or is legally implied. In many cases the state does not have to show that the defendant intended to commit a crime only that he committed the act. Fraud, however, is generally a SPECIFIC intent crime, thus the state has to show intent. Maybe they can. But, with what the OP has written, I don't see it. And, as long as he does not confess nor have a criminal history with similar offenses, he should have little to worry about in the long run.

And if you want to argue that a speeding ticket is not a criminal charge, remember Texas where everything seems to be a criminal charge rather than a infraction.

Well, in my state a traffic ticket is a criminal charge of a sort, and it is also an infraction.

There are many possibilities, but based upon my real experience with similar cases, I cannot imagine a DA pursuing this - or the police spending a lot of time on this - unless something very telling breaks. The cops are likely to roll their eyes and say,"Civil." But, maybe the OP is a career criminal or has admitted to someone close to him - or even the cops - that he had some reason to believe the jewelry might not be a diamond. But, as it is, reasonable doubt is built into this all over the place at both ends of the transaction. I just don't see where it is a case the state would want to pursue on its own dime.

- Carl