Is this Strict Liability?

[PhlawedPharmacy]

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

 

[tranquility]

The attorney should look up case law, which is the only way to be sure.

Putting something in your pocket with the intent to take it would be embezzlement. You don't have to get it home for the crime to be completed.

 

[seniorjudge]

fraudulently or knowingly and willfully

These require a state of mind; thus, the statute is not strict liability.

That's my GUESS.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

It does not sound like a strict liability offense. It requires acting fraudulently or knowingly, which is a mental state, or that you embezzled. I think that embezzling always implies a mental state. So either way you must at least act knowingly to be guilty of the misdemeanor form of this offense.

As for the part B, that is simply an enhanced punishment option. Intentionally is a higher mental state than knowingly, and requires additional proof. Part B adds an option for increased punishment by showing it was done intentionally, it doesn't lessen the proof necessary for the basic offense.

 

[tranquility]

For any larceny (embezzlement is a type of larceny when the person steals something entrusted to them) the term of art is taking and asportation. (With the intent to permanently deprive the owner.) There's a lot of very old case law on what this means but, basically, it means move it from where it should be. Moving it from the bottle, table, counting rack--whatever, to your pocket, will assuredly meet the test if you had the intent at the time you moved it there.

Intent is always hard. We cannot get into a person's mind. Without testimony from the accused, we can only infer based on the actions they took. If I saw someone slip something that wasn't theirs into their pocket, I'd infer they were going to take it. I might change my mind if a good reason as to why they did that was presented, but if I were on a jury, that's what I'd infer from the action.

Since determining if the person had the requisite intent is a matter of fact for the jury to decide, you better start working on a reason and find some way to present it without you testifying. As to the "gray", I don't have the facts about what happened.

Why did you put the pill(s) in your pocket? That's what you're going to have to convince the jury of, why?

 

[tranquility]

May I ask why I have to get the answer out there without testifying personally?

Once you testify to anything, you testify to everything. No defense attorney will have their client testify. When you start, any question can be asked. If you are guilty in any way, the problems in your story will be shown to the world and doubt will be set free. The reason you don't testify is tactical.

There would be no better witness for me than myself, of that I can discern easily, and there's nothing really relevant that anyone else could say either.

Ask your attorney. He will advise you *not* to testify.

To answer the question, the lab coat has come to be associated as the uniform of the profession, but as with any uniform, it was borne of practicality. On top of our usual dress, the industry provides us with bigger, better pockets to carry out the duties which of course all involve medicines. One uses a pocket for usual reasons, basically whenever you would find utility in or have a need to have something with you while simultaneously not impeding your hands for a more imminent task.

This is not an answer, this is rubbish. WHY did YOU put the drug in you pocket at that particular moment? Usual reasons? Stuff it. Utility? Please.

WHY did YOU?

Now lets say you don't personally ascribe to, or necessarily even would have believed that there is an undercurrent movement in society that believes pockets are somehow taboo and you use them without thought... casually, blatantly, in front of audiences etc.

Bla, bla, bla, WHY did YOU?

However, over a long period of time, there is an instance where you are NOT wearing the coat, and there is no one around and then you do the same thing. THIS would be the footage said to exist, essentially unfairly and without context or exculpatory footage showing other times and also the usual ends where the medicine is ultimately put into practice.

Uh-huh. WHY did YOU?

So far, I've seen no explanation. No purpose. Only rubbish. Try again.

Having not seen the footage personally, I don't know if it is obvious something is going in, something is coming out while a bottle is in my hand, or if I'm quieting a cell phone or even repositioning keys sticking into my leg, I just don't know. But I'll need to cover all bases as they also claim that particular medicine was not dispensed that day. The latter also has many proper explanations not quite so heinous.

Liar. "Proper explanations"? Tell me your story. By saying there are many possibilities, I think you are not telling the truth. Give me THE explanation. Not what might have happened, not what could have happened, what DID happen.

If this is your justification and purpose for testimony, bring your toothbrush when you go to court. You are spending time in jail.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Have you been charged with the crime or not? If so than you are entitled to look at the charging instrument which will give the date that they allege you did this. Through the discovery process you should also be able to look at the video.

 

[seniorjudge]

My attorney would of course be present, but what worries me is that he's already advised me that the investigator is "offering a deal" where adjudication could be withheld, and that sort of shakes my faith on the attorney since he should know only the D.A. could even entertain such an offer, and they haven't even been apprised of the charge yet!

Take the deal (if it includes protection of your license). You will probably also be required to attend some kind of drug rehab. Just guesses, you understand.

I do have a question regarding jurisprudence however. Tranquility basically turned me out like a b!tch there, and I really appreciate it actually. It gives me insight as to the tactics the prosecutor is likely to use. Since I can offer multiple explanations, it of course seemed to me that they would have to debunk all of them. However, using the practice he just did, constantly refocusing it back on me, calling me a liar, saying bullsh!t, I can see how that would be effective in mopping up all uncertainty in real time; basically keeping them from gaining traction.

Tranq's postings will seem like a sweet lullaby sung by Mother Teresa when you get to court.

So that leads me to ask, what is typically better, generating over 200 other explanations that are also possible, or simply holding your ground on 1 specific alternative even if you yourself are not completely certain that's what was going on? All I really know is nothing was ever stolen, there's no link to any misuse, and I test 100% clean 100% of the time.

The government has the full burden of proog; the more you waffle the worse you look.




By the way: You intend the natural and probable consequences of your actions.

Putting something in your pocket means you clearly intended to conceal it and carry it off the premises.

(Qua shoplifting.)

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: Can you tell me if the latter is one of those strict liability issues I began asking about?

A: No. You do not want to accept this fact, but putting something in your pocket is a clear intention of concealing it and removing it from the premises. This fact is used for numerous shoplifting cases. If I slip a bag of peanuts in my pocket and do not move, I can be convicted of shoplifting.




The rest of your questions appear to be vague and rhetorical.

 

[seniorjudge]

Being a guest in a department or grocery store is a completely different issue. I'm talking about a place where you turn the lights on and off at the beginning and end of the day just like home, where you are surrounded by the TOOLS of your trade, not merchandise that you have no reason or cause to be in that type of possession with, like a hammer and nail to a carpenter, your "belt" is a coat. It is a completely different thing with a completely different mindset.

THEFT is rare. In most people's worlds, this is an unlikely assumption with almost everything else considered first. I think it is possible that you guys can no longer accept that as a simple product of common professional myopia, like my wanting to put a pill down someone's throat when a bowl of chicken soup would probably be just fine.

I feel like an upbeat, optimistic, looking at the best of people person stuck in a jaded and cold environment no longer open to common sense, and ironically and hopelessly convinced it is common sense that justifies it. But I digress, I bring nothing new to the table in this assessment of the system. But as one professional to another, take it as an encouraging pep talk to remain true to your ideals and preserve a sense of fairness.

As one professional to another, let me tell you that you need to keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer do the talking.

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

NC Law

If a defendant chooses not to waive their right to a quick and speedy trial, what is the generally accepted time-frame that most judges would have little choice but to dismiss a case on the basis of that right being violated?

Thanks.

 

[Zigner]

NC Law

If a defendant chooses not to waive their right to a quick and speedy trial, what is the generally accepted time-frame that most judges would have little choice but to dismiss a case on the basis of that right being violated?

Thanks.

Why did you delete your earlier question?

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

This is a fact finding endeavor moreso than to immortalize the situation. This particular question I don't think really requires broader context, at least in the sense I am asking.

 

[Zigner]

This is a fact finding endeavor moreso than to immortalize the situation. This particular question I don't think really requires broader context, at least in the sense I am asking.

For the sake of immortalizing this:

Is this Strict Liability?
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NC

§ 90‑108. Prohibited acts; penalties.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person:

(14) Who is an employee of a registrant or practitioner and who is authorized to possess controlled substances or has access to controlled substances by virtue of his employment, to embezzle or fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapply or divert to his own use or other unauthorized or illegal use or to take, make away with or secrete, with intent to embezzle or fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapply or divert to his own use or other unauthorized or illegal use any controlled substance which shall have come into his possession or under his care

(b) Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Provided, that if the criminal pleading alleges that the violation was committed intentionally, and upon trial it is specifically found that the violation was committed intentionally, such violations shall be a Class I felony. A person who violates subdivision (7) of subsection (a) of this section and also fortifies the structure, with the intent to impede law enforcement entry, (by barricading windows and doors) shall be punished as a Class I felon


Question: Is this a strict liability statute? The verbiage of 14 seems to imply several times that "mens rea" is required, however, B may imply otherwise.

Attorney doesn't seem sure. He also seems to think that putting something in a pocket may fit the entire definition of "embezzle" even if nothing is taken. I would appreciate any other legal and educated opinions. My research reveals that strict liability mostly has a home in the civil realm and nuisance crimes, or where animals or explosives are involved.

I have several other questions but wish to keep it manageable. Thanks!What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

It is considered bad form to erase the original question...

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

Fair enough. Any insight on the question?