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

[ProSePA]

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,

You have now attempted to compare a crime requiring intent with a crime that does not require intent, which is not going to help your argument. As JakeB posted, the crime of theft requires that intent be 'knowingly' and this is an element of the crime that must be proven. Speeding tickets, parking violations, sale of alcohol to a minor, and statutory rape are all examples of strict liability crimes.

strict-liability crime: A crime that does not require a mens rea element, such as traffic offenses and illegal sales of intoxicating liquor. (
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004))

This is just a segment of one of Arizona's speeding statutes:


A.R.S. § 28-701.02

A. A person shall not:

1. Exceed thirty-five miles per hour approaching a school crossing.

2. Exceed the posted speed limit in a business or residential district by more than twenty miles per hour, or if no speed limit is posted, exceed forty-five miles per hour.


As you can see there is no mens rea requirement in that statute so the state needs only to prove that you committed the Actus reus and once that is established beyond a reasonable doubt you are guilty. JakeB's posts do a good job at explaining the need to prove the concurrence of the elements when prosecuting a crime.

 

[JakeB]

Thanks for the support, ProSePA.

You've inspired me to address this other nonsense that I previously blew off:

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.

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
Rule 20

Rule 20. Judgment of Acquittal

a. Before Verdict. On motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the court shall enter a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in an indictment, information or complaint after the evidence on either side is closed, if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. In an aggravation hearing, after the evidence on either side is closed, on a motion of a defendant or on its own initiative, the court shall enter a judgment that an aggravating circumstance was not proven if there is no substantial evidence to warrant the allegation. The court's decision on a defendant's motion shall not be reserved, but shall be made with all possible speed.

b. After Verdict. A motion for judgment of acquittal made before verdict may be renewed by a defendant within 10 days after the verdict was returned.

 

[justalayman]

so now you want to speak to evidence. Aren't you the one that made a huge issue that it was not evidence that was being spoken about. It was elements.

Please make up your mind.

regardless, read what you underlined again:

if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction

.



A judge is going to be hard pressed to make such a ruling generally. They will generally let the jury take it and make the call. After all, you have to remember that the judge originally stated there is enough evidence to allow the case to proceed to trial.

The lack of evidence is going to have to be quite blatant before a judge makes such a call.

As JakeB posted, the crime of theft requires that intent be 'knowingly' and this is an element of the crime that must be proven.

Oh really? Then explain that to the person I saw arrested for shoplifting when something was forgotten in the shopping basket. I know for a fact there was no intent but guess what happened?

Carl:

Fraud, however, is generally a SPECIFIC intent crime, thus the state has to show intent

. fraud is not the only possible crime.

 

[CdwJava]

Fraud is the most likely crime ... yes, I suppose it could also be possession of stolen property (if they can prove that the seller was in possession of stolen property), burglary or theft if the seller stole it, and maybe a couple other things ... but, everything I can think of would require a specific intent.

Sorry, but this would be a bear of a case to prosecute if the facts are as presented and I doubt it WOULD be prosecuted. I don't see it. If we're talking about theory, sure, the case could be prosecuted ... it likely would not be a winner for the state because of the reasonable doubt inherent to the situation, but it COULD be prosecuted.

- Carl

 

[JakeB]

so now you want to speak to evidence. Aren't you the one that made a huge issue that it was not evidence that was being spoken about. It was elements.

Please make up your mind.

Does a prosecutor have to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes, and we do not need to discuss evidence in order to arrive at the answer.

Can a judge dismiss criminal charges rather than allow a jury to deliberate? Sometimes, and we do need to discuss evidence in order to arrive at the answer.

So, sometimes it's appropriate to discuss evidence, and sometimes it's not. You'll get the hang of it one day.

A judge is going to be hard pressed to make such a ruling generally. They will generally let the jury take it and make the call. After all, you have to remember that the judge originally stated there is enough evidence to allow the case to proceed to trial.

The lack of evidence is going to have to be quite blatant before a judge makes such a call.

Yesterday you didn't even know that a judge had the power to rule on the evidence, and today you're an expert on when he exercises that power? Too funny.

 

[justalayman]

Fraud is the most likely crime ... yes, I suppose it could also be possession of stolen property (if they can prove that the seller was in possession of stolen property), burglary or theft if the seller stole it, and maybe a couple other things ... but, everything I can think of would require a specific intent.

Sorry, but this would be a bear of a case to prosecute if the facts are as presented and I doubt it WOULD be prosecuted. I don't see it. If we're talking about theory, sure, the case could be prosecuted ... it likely would not be a winner for the state because of the reasonable doubt inherent to the situation, but it COULD be prosecuted.

- Carl

if arizona has such a law, conversion or criminal conversion would be more applicable. They are in essence fraud but generally listed independently.

and I still am not arguing that this most likely would not be prosecuted but there is a possibility, just as you stated. That is what I stated from the beginning.

 

[justalayman]

Does a prosecutor have to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes, and we do not need to discuss evidence in order to arrive at the ans

I'll tell you what, jake; I'll admit you are right IF we lived in a perfect world where there were no possibilities of a prosecutor, judge, or jury ever thinking in any terms that were not simply black or white.

I come from a world with an imperfect legal system where innocent people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit and some of them have even been executed. A world where the OP's actions, if not supported by some reasonable justification that would make a reasonable person believe the diamond were real, can be prosecuted and found guilty.

So, you want to argue that by the book, this guy has nothing to worry about? Fine, but your argument also presumes he was honest here on this forum. While I will not claim he is lying, I will state it is possible.

I will continue to argue that in the real world, this guy could be prosecuted and found guilty if he maintains the argument he presented here.


Oh, and to the partial question I left above:

yes, it is always crucial to consider evidence because that is what proves anything, including intent, unless of course, you are a mind reader, which apparently you believe you are.

evidence is what is used to show intent when the defendant isn't nice enough to simply state; "yes, I intended to rip off that guy"

 

[JakeB]

I'll tell you what, jake; I'll admit you are right IF we lived in a perfect world where there were no possibilities of a prosecutor, judge, or jury ever thinking in any terms that were not simply black or white.

I come from a world with an imperfect legal system where innocent people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit and some of them have even been executed. A world where the OP's actions, if not supported by some reasonable justification that would make a reasonable person believe the diamond were real, can be prosecuted and found guilty.

So, you want to argue that by the book, this guy has nothing to worry about? Fine, but your argument also presumes he was honest here on this forum. While I will not claim he is lying, I will state it is possible.

I will continue to argue that in the real world, this guy could be prosecuted and found guilty if he maintains the argument he presented here.


Oh, and to the partial question I left above:

yes, it is always crucial to consider evidence because that is what proves anything, including intent, unless of course, you are a mind reader, which apparently you believe you are.

evidence is what is used to show intent when the defendant isn't nice enough to simply state; "yes, I intended to rip off that guy"

You still don't understand my posts for some reason.

First and foremost, the vast majority of my input had nothing to do with arguing the facts, nor have I presumed that the OP was honest. I mainly argued the law:

(1) A person cannot be convicted of theft, or fraud, or some other similar crime based upon a mistake of fact. Those crimes require specific intent. That is the law. You disagreed and you are wrong.

(2) Every element of a crime, including intent, must be individually proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecutor. That is the law. You disagreed and you are wrong.

(3) If a judge does not agree that a reasonable person could conclude that every individual element of a crime, including intent, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then the judge must acquit the defendant. That is the law. You disagreed and you are wrong.

(4) In order to convict a defendant, a jury must specifically find that every individual element of a crime, including intent, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the law. You disagreed and you are wrong.

Those are 80% of the issues we've disagreed about, and yet they aren't arguments about facts. They are arguments about the law. You were blatantly wrong precisely because we aren't arguing about facts. There's no room for subjective opinion with regard to those issues, and so any disagreement by you is just uninformed blabbering.

The one other issue we disagreed about (the other 20%) was my statement that the failure to refund the money was weak evidence of intent. That is an argument about the facts, and the only argument about the facts that I ever made in this thread. You're free to disagree with it and I can't definitely call you wrong, though I can point out (as I did) the grounds for reasonable doubt, and the difficult burden the prosecutor must overcome in order to convict.

 

[justalayman]

I'm done arguing anything with you jake. In a black and white world, you are correct. In a real world (which is where I live), that correctness and level of absolutes do not exist.


while you want to argue the black and white letter of the law, all this started because I stated it is possible the OP could be subjected to prosecution, depending on the entire presentation of facts. I stand by that position. It was stated with intentional ambiguity because the facts are not known; the OP's intent is not known; the truth is not necessarily known.

As a result, it is impossible to determine what can and cannot be undertaken by the courts and along with that, impossible to determine what the legal system will do because of the situation.

I apologize for not spending much time researching anything concerning this but it was because I really did not give a damn about arguing with you.


So, until you can understand that a person can be convicted of a crime, when in fact they did not commit the crime, therefore there could not ever have been any intent to commit such a crime but with mens rea still be requisite for a conviction, this discussion has reached it's conclusion, at least for me.

 

[JakeB]

while you want to argue the black and white letter of the law

Too funny. Earlier you wrote:

That was my entire point until jake came in and wanted to argue the facts of the case, which we simply do not have.

You're still all mixed up.

So, until you can understand that a person can be convicted of a crime, when in fact they did not commit the crime, therefore there could not ever have been any intent to commit such a crime but with mens rea still be requisite for a conviction, this discussion has reached it's conclusion, at least for me.

Oh, but I do understand that (very well in fact).

I also understand that because the prosecutor is required to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and because a judge can dismiss charges if the prosecutor has failed to prove a prima facie case, and because a jury is specifically instructed that each individual element of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there is a very high probability that there would never be a prosecution, let alone a conviction, in this particular case if the only evidence of intent is the failure to refund the money. And I understand all of that despite the fact that innocent people are sometimes convicted.

And you've certainly backpedaled recently. Your early posts imply a strong case if there's no refund, while your later posts imply that you're only arguing about a remote possibility of a prosecution.

 

[justalayman]

Too funny. .

enjoy playing with yourself jake.

 

[Spiral]

Oh really? Then explain that to the person I saw arrested for shoplifting when something was forgotten in the shopping basket. I know for a fact there was no intent but guess what happened?

Being arrested for something and being tried and convicted are two massively different issues.

 

[justalayman]

Being arrested for something and being tried and convicted are two massively different issues.

fine,for you benefit, I will add that they were convicted of the crime. Happy now? I figured the result would have been self evident considering the conversation but I now realize you have to explain the entire situation to some people.

I guess you are in that group.

 

[JakeB]

Then explain that to the person I saw arrested for shoplifting when something was forgotten in the shopping basket. I know for a fact there was no intent but guess what happened?

How do you know that for a fact? And if you know it, why didn't anybody else know it?

Regardless, that story is meaningless for purposes of this thread. It doesn't counter the law, and it doesn't even counter the opinions that the OP wouldn't be prosecuted/convicted. You haven't given any facts in your story. What did the person take? When was he caught? Where was the item found? Did he buy other items? How was he caught? What evidence did the prosecutor present to prove intent?

I'll tell you right now that proving intent in a shoplifting case is probably generally easier than in the OP's case, but I'd like to hear the facts.

 

[justalayman]

=JakeB;2386402]How do you know that for a fact? And if you know it, why didn't anybody else know it?

I know it for a fact because I know the person. As I told the other yahoo that wanted to be a big shot and bother me, based on the general content of the thread and what I posted, even a moron would be able to guess what happened. Did you guess right?

Regardless, that story is meaningless for purposes of this thread. It doesn't counter the law, and it doesn't even counter the opinions that the OP wouldn't be prosecuted/convicted.

it proves that a person can be convicted for a crime that would require intent when there, in fact, was no intent to steal.

You haven't given any facts in your story.

irrelevant

.What did the person take?

ibid

When was he caught?

ibid

Where was the item found?

ibid

Did he buy other items?

ibid

How was he caught?[/QUOTEibid

What evidence did the prosecutor present to prove intent?

the only evidence was that an item was innocently left on the cart and not scanned.

I'll tell you right now that proving intent in a shoplifting case is probably generally easier than in the OP's case, but I'd like to hear the facts.

Fine, if you want to go to a more serious situation because shoplifting is such a meager crime; research innocent people that were sentenced to prison, or even executed for crimes they did not commit. Obviously there could not have been any intent since they did not commit the crime but lo and behold, those people sat in prison, or even died because intent was inferred to such an extent that the judge and the jury believed the prosecutor.

Like I said, in a black and white world, you would win, hands down. In the real world, all bets are off. The courts try to do the best they can but it is not black and white and mistakes are made because intent is implied and as long as that implication is believable, an innocent person can be convicted.

So please, take this for what it is meant and let this thread die:

I doubt the OP would be prosecuted. It may be able to successfully prosecute the OP for a crime if the facts bear the proof (although agreed (long ago in this thread)) that it is unlikely. Intent is an intangible that can not be proven so unless the person simply admits to it, it is only implied. Other than that, the proof is merely evidenced by actions, implication, and evidence in general and how those making the decision view those actions etc. As such, there are mistakes made, both ways.

All my intention in this thread was to point out that it might be possible to prosecute a person in the position of the OP depending on the facts.