Charged with Grand Theft Misdemeanor in San Diego California

[fml1983]

i don't have any proof. my word vs hers.

i couldn't take said items with me at time cause i wasn't able to fit my own property in my vehicle. took me 2 trips to get my stuff down there. and i live 6 hours away. again, i have text messages that she refuses to give me property back. i didn't wait for anything. as soon as i found out i had a warrant, from her and her boyfriend harassing me, i hired a lawyer. my ex and current boyfriend had made threats to have me murdered. i have text messages of her implying that if i were to see them at any point i "wouldn't be coming back" No civil stand by.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what discovery is for. Your lawyer has a subpoena duces tecum served on her requiring her to appear and answer questions and bring records of her finances showing among other things how she happened to have $2k hanging around.

The goal is to blow her out of the water before trial. The goal is to get her to contradict herself including about the TV, tell a lie you can prove to be a lie, or simply be unable to answer questions. The goal is to show the OP that they don't have a case.

Anything she says in that deposition can be used against her at trial.

The goal is to get her stumped and confused and to contradict herself and to lie. If she lies in that deposition it's perjury.

If it's bad enough, the DA could well dismiss the case before trial. An attorney from the DA's office will be at that deposition.

You need to play hard ball. You absolutely need a good lawyer.

This was not 2k in cash. list was of small amount of cash and other stuff including "slippers" stuff i wouldn't even want if handed to me for free by anyone. there is details in police report where ex lied to police and then changed her story. and its in black and white. things as obvious as this pointing to the fact that she is a liar is beyond me..

[cmre3456]

This was not 2k in cash. list was of small amount of cash and other stuff including "slippers" stuff i wouldn't even want if handed to me for free by anyone. there is details in police report where ex lied to police and then changed her story. and its in black and white. things as obvious as this pointing to the fact that she is a liar is beyond me..

So, your lawyer will depose her before trial and cross her all up. He will confront her with the inconsistencies. Anything she says can be used against her at trial. If she lies, again it's perjury. Keep all text messages on that phone.

If I were your lawyer I'd also depose that boyfriend to try to get different and conflicting stories from him. Yes, they can be excluded from each others' depositions so each won't know what the other said. Anything he says can be used against him in his trial testimony. There will be a written transcript of what each of them said, certified by a court reporter.

A good attorney will probably make fools of them.

[cdwjava]

i don't have any proof. my word vs hers.

i couldn't take said items with me at time cause i wasn't able to fit my own property in my vehicle. took me 2 trips to get my stuff down there. and i live 6 hours away. again, i have text messages that she refuses to give me property back. i didn't wait for anything. as soon as i found out i had a warrant, from her and her boyfriend harassing me, i hired a lawyer. my ex and current boyfriend had made threats to have me murdered. i have text messages of her implying that if i were to see them at any point i "wouldn't be coming back" No civil stand by.

And you reported these threats to the police? What did they say?

The DA rarely initiates reports and criminal prosecutions on his own - they typically must originate with a law enforcement agency.

The threats are most likely misdemeanor violations of PC 653m. Her comments via text would, if verifiable and affirmed (i.e. she admits to holding on to YOUR property until you pay or give her something) be potentially petty or grand theft, but it generally will require that she refuse to return it to you when you have gone to retrieve it. Since you have not gone to retrieve it, she really hasn't refused to turn it over, yet. And you still have the option of suing her for your stuff ... and she has the same option for the TV (and she would probably prevail ... though you might still be convicted of that one, anyway).

Your attorney can use her statements, inconsistencies, and whatever else she might have done or said to help cast reasonable doubt on her when/if she testifies at any grand theft trial against you.

- - - Updated - - -

So, your lawyer will depose her before trial and cross her all up. He will confront her with the inconsistencies. Anything she says can be used against her at trial. If she lies, again it's perjury. Keep all text messages on that phone.

If I were your lawyer I'd also depose that boyfriend to try to get different and conflicting stories from him. Yes, they can be excluded from each others' depositions so each won't know what the other said. Anything he says can be used against him in his trial testimony. There will be a written transcript of what each of them said, certified by a court reporter.

A good attorney will probably make fools of them.

As a note, pre-trial depositions in criminal matters in CA are very rare. Unless the OP has a lot of money to throw around, chances are a deposition is not going to happen. The defense will likely rely on previous statements made to the police and highlight those inconsistencies at trial.

[cmre3456]

-snip-


As a note, pre-trial depositions in criminal matters in CA are very rare. Unless the OP has a lot of money to throw around, chances are a deposition is not going to happen. The defense will likely rely on previous statements made to the police and highlight those inconsistencies at trial.

I admit I'm not in Calif. and I admit I don't know your ways. If it were me and if it were available, I'd want those depositions. In a way, you get two bites at the apple. First, you commit both of them separately under oath to statements. Then you can use that and anything which conflicts under oath at trial.

You can also have each excluded from the courtroom when the other testifies for the same reason. The plaintiff's attorney's job here is to make liars out of them, which it sounds like they are.

A problem with waiting for trial is that I've seen one testify, and then the judge calls for a break and the two aren't separated. They get to discuss how the one testified. I don't know if that can happen in Calif., but it's a bummer when it does. I would spend what it took and do what it took to separate them under oath at least once - once to get them to commit to statements at depositions, and the second time at trial to screw them over about it in front of the jury.

Please forgive me if I'm mistaken about what you can do in Calif.

$.02

[fml1983]

Note: i want to personally thank you guys for taking time out of you day to chat with me. THANK YOU!

Second In discovery she has the Used Television Valued at Around $1,000 note: Tv is a 3 year old tv. maybe worth $500 at best and what point dose actually value come into play? or she can say i took a dirty sock from the hamper and its worth $1,000 and i'm expected to pay it?

[aardvarc]

So you're saying there is an expiration date on her offer? or that her offer automatically gets retracted cause i couldn't come up with a clear consensus cause i was in an emotional state of shock at that given time? I've never in my life had anyone break into my home and steal things from me. i was in a state of shock and figuring out what was to be done right then and there was the least of my worries.

No, I'm saying that there isn't a clear consensus that there was a gift given or a contract between you that makes her liable to replace your television. Offers DO expire if they aren't acted upon. Because there was no definition of under what exact circumstances, if at all, she'd just give you her tv (remember that was only one possible option discussed between you), that it becomes gray area - of neither gift nor contract - leaving the door open for the third option of you having possession of the tv, being theft.

You being in shock doesn't impact the matter.

[cdwjava]

I admit I'm not in Calif. and I admit I don't know your ways. If it were me and if it were available, I'd want those depositions. In a way, you get two bites at the apple. First, you commit both of them separately under oath to statements. Then you can use that and anything which conflicts under oath at trial.

While available as an option, in theory, in 20 years I have yet to ever seen this used for criminal matters out here. I have heard about depositions being used, but only in civil matters. I can't nail it down for certain, but it may be that depositions on criminal matters are only permitted on state matters in very limited circumstances in CA. Mr. Knowitall may know for sure.

You can also have each excluded from the courtroom when the other testifies for the same reason. The plaintiff's attorney's job here is to make liars out of them, which it sounds like they are.

It is typical that witnesses will be excluded from the courtroom at least prior to their initial testimony. It would be difficult to keep them apart during a recess, or even before trial. Nothing will prevent witnesses from colluding on their testimony beforehand. Typically, their statements to the police and other parties are used for impeachment, but this has its limitations ... "The police officer got it wrong." (Which is why I carry a digital audio recorder, and my officers carry department issued personal video cameras).

- - - Updated - - -

Note: i want to personally thank you guys for taking time out of you day to chat with me. THANK YOU!

Second In discovery she has the Used Television Valued at Around $1,000 note: Tv is a 3 year old tv. maybe worth $500 at best and what point dose actually value come into play? or she can say i took a dirty sock from the hamper and its worth $1,000 and i'm expected to pay it?

The standard is "fair market value." If the value of that TV is less than its original retail, and it drops below $950 then it is petty theft.

The state will have to reasonably show that the item (sock, tv, whatever) was in her lawful possession, and then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you stole it.

[fml1983]

Isn't anything over $400 considered grand theft?

[cmre3456]

While available as an option, in theory, in 20 years I have yet to ever seen this used for criminal matters out here. I have heard about depositions being used, but only in civil matters. I can't nail it down for certain, but it may be that depositions on criminal matters are only permitted on state matters in very limited circumstances in CA. Mr. Knowitall may know for sure.

Well, it looks like Calif. only allows it in criminal cases under certain circumstances to "preserve testimony" of someone who may not be able to be at trial.

In Oregon it's the same except the judge can use other discretion. I've seen it done but it's not automatic. You need leave of the court.

Sorry about that. I should have done my homework. Still, it will be the attorney's job to put together all inconsistencies which can be proved.