 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
State v Delmarter
S. Ct. WA 1980
Author:- Sam Biers
Facts: Defendant went into the drugstore to purchase some cough syrup, he claimed that he dropped some change behind the counter. The Pharmacist found defendant inside the restricted pharmacy area, crouched down on the floor, in front of but facing away from a camouflaged cash drawer. The pharmacist confronted defendant, a struggle ensued which resulted in the assault conviction. Defendant broke away and fled from the store with his two companions. A camouflaged cash drawer, resembling a shelf containing medications, was behind the prescription counter approx 17 feet from the door used to enter the pharmacy area. Inside was $1800 cash and some narcotic drugs.
Issue: Whether defendant intended to steal from camouflaged cash drawer at time he was seen behind prescription counter in pharmacy was sufficient to sustain conviction for attempted theft in the first degree?
Holding: (1) knowledge by the defendant of the value of property involved is not an element of the crime of attempted first-degree theft, and (2) any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of attempted first-degree theft beyond a reasonable doubt, including specific intent, from the evidence.
Procedure: Defendant was convicted of simple assault and attempted theft in the first degree, he appealed attempted theft. Ct of App affirmed, pet. for review granted. The S Ct Affirmed.
Rule: If with intent to commit a specific crime, a person does any act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that crime. Theft is to wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property of another with intent to deprive him of such property.
Ct Rationale: Knowledge of the elements is not a requirement for a conviction. Intent to commit a specific crime is. The DF intended to commit theft. Df took a substantial step toward the commission of that crime. DF entered a known restricted area intending on stealing narcotics. There is both sufficient evidence to that end and of the particular element of the crime of theft. Whether the Df knew the value of the items he was attempting to steal is irrelevant. Market value of the drugs in the safe was 15000 while the cash alone was $1800, either was sufficient. The aggregate of Df’s conduct infers his intent.
PL A: The Df had intent to steal, property in excess of $1500, and took a substantial step in the commission of that crime.
Def A: There is no evidence to support which evidence the Df intended to take. Df had no knowledge of the cash drawer, but was attempting to steal narcotics from the shelf.