How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "deprive" in the context of the theft of a shirt from a display in a department store?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Davis, 19 Cal.4th 301, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 965 P.2d 1165 (Cal. 1998):

For example, in State v. Martin, supra, 1996 WL 761215, the defendant took four shirts from a display in a department store, carried them to a sales counter and asked for a refund, saying they had been gifts to her sons; the clerk gave the defendant a receipt for a refund; and a store security agent who had observed the defendant's course of conduct detained her before she left the store. The defendant was convicted of violating an Ohio statute declaring guilty of theft whoever shall knowingly "obtain or exercise control over" the property of another, without consent and "with purpose to deprive" the owner of the property. (Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 2913.02, subd. (A).) 12 On appeal, the reviewing court held the defendant's conduct came within the terms of the statute: the court reasoned that "By claiming she had ownership of the shirts, [defendant] exercised control over the shirts in a manner which was contrary to the store's ownership. In effect, there was a verbal concealment and exertion of control by [defendant]." (1996 WL 761215 at p. 4.)

[19 Cal.4th 315] Turning to the issue of the defendant's intent to "deprive," the court stressed that the Ohio statutory definition of that term included the act of withholding property "with purpose to restore it only upon payment of a reward or other consideration" (Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 2913.01, subd. (C)(1)). 13 The court reasoned, "Under the foregoing definition, if the defendant takes the property of another and does not intend to give it back until consideration is paid, the defendant has 'deprived' the victim first, of the property, and second, of the consideration." (State v. Martin, supra, 1996 WL 761215 at p. 4.)

Weaving these two themes together, the court concluded: "By telling the sales associate that the shirts had been given to her sons as gifts, [defendant] exercised verbal control and concealment, thus, exerting control over the shirts for the purpose of obtaining consideration from the store." (State v. Martin, supra, 1996 WL 761215, p. 4.)

Other Questions


How have courts interpreted the meaning of the California Civil Code in the context of "Liberal interpretation"? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "interpretation" in the context of a section of the California Workers' Comp. Act? (California, United States of America)
Does counsel who fail to respond when given the chance to respond to arguments in an adversarial context deprive the trial court of the opportunity to consider their arguments in a similar context? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the interpretation of a motor vehicle insurance contract in the context of an arbitration? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of defamatory statements in the context of defamation claims? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the word "reconstitutionally modified" in the context of Proposition 73's contribution restrictions? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "gang" in the context of a criminal charge? (California, United States of America)
For the purposes of section 1202.4, subdivision (f) of the California Criminal Code, how have courts interpreted the meaning of the term "criminal conduct" in the context of a criminal conviction? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "surrounding the interrogation" in the context of the Miranda rights? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.