 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
State v Saylor
S. Ct. Kansas, 1980
Author:- Sam
Biers
Facts: A K-Mart store security officer observed the df, as he made numerous trips through the store placing items in his shopping cart. The officer observed the df move about in one particular area, but was unable to see exactly what he was doing. She saw him take a bottle of glue to the area, use it, and then return it to a counter. The df then made a minor purchase and left the store. On investigation, she found in the hardware department a cardboard box which should have been located in the toy department and which ordinarily would contain a $13.97 plastic pig toy chest. The cover of the box had recently been resealed with glue. The officer did not move or otherwise touch the box. The df went to the hardware department where he placed the box in a shopping cart. The df was arrested outside the store in the parking lot. There the box was opened and found to contain several chain saws, metal rules, cigarettes, heavy duty staple guns, and record albums, with a total value in excess of $500.
Issue: Whether reliance on false representation, made by Df’s words and actions to the checkout clerk, was sufficient to sustain conviction for theft by decption?
Holding: Yes
Procedure: Defendant was convicted before District Court, of theft by deception, and he appealed. The Ct of App reversed and remanded with directions to grant defendant new trial on lesser included offense of attempt to commit theft by deception. State petitioned for review. The Supreme Court, Judgment of Ct of App reversed, Judgment of D Ct affirmed.
Rule: In order to convict a defendant of theft by deception the state must prove that the defendant with the required intent obtained control over another's property by means of a false statement or representation. To do so the state must prove that the victim was actually deceived and relied in whole or in part upon the false representation
Ct Rationale: Reliance on false representation was established by evidence that cashier at check-out counter who relied upon the false representation made by defendant as to contents of box he purchased, and instruction on attempted theft was not required, defendant obtained control over property by deception, evidence showed that defendant had committed theft by obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property. under the consolidated statute a conviction of theft may be upheld even though the burden of proof is not sustained as to the particular subsection specified in the information, if the evidence supports the conviction of theft under any one of the other subsections. The primary purpose of the consolidated theft statute was to eliminate the complexities of pleading and proving the vague historical distinctions in the various types of theft.
PL A: The DF obtained control over another's property by means of false statement or representation, the victim was actually deceived and relied in whole or in part upon the false representation.
Def A: There had been no actual reliance by or actual deception of the corporate victim, K-Mart, the defendant could only be guilty of attempted theft by deception.