Going to Trial on a Theft Charge

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Pennsylvania

In a large home improvement store, I planned to purchase two items. I went to self checkout and while at the self checkout, I paid for one item but changed my mind about the second larger item. Instead of leaving the large item in the way of other customers, I pushed it past the cashier in the self checkout area. There was a spot before the receipt checker where I was going to leave the item. Before I got to the spot to leave the item, LP stopped me and escorted me to their office where I was eventually charged with retail theft.

FACTS:
I did not leave the store.
I did not go past the receipt checker.
The video footage shows me paying for the one item and holding the receipt in my hand.

I was charged with:

Quote:

---

Quoting § 3929. Retail theft.

---

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of a retail theft if he:
(1) takes possession of, carries away, transfers or causes to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof;

---

The way I interpret this law, it must be proven that it was my intent to deprive the merchant of the merchandise. I was going to leave the item in a spot before I left the store. How can they prove my intent was to keep going?

This matter is in municipal court and all trials are by judge. Is it still reasonable doubt when you have a trial by judge? How strong of a case does the Commonwealth have?

Scenario #1: You have a lawyer. Your lawyer can't answer these questions. You need a different lawyer.

Scenario #2: You don't have a lawyer. You represent yourself at trial. You come back to complain about your unjust conviction.

Other scenarios are possible... they're just not probable.

Quote:

---

Quoting td_ht

---

I did not leave the store.

---

That may make it more believable that you did not intend to leave the store, but it's not a 'get out of jail free' card.

Quote:

---

Quoting td_ht

---

I did not go past the receipt checker.

---

It would be interesting to read the police report to see what the LPs and receipt checker had to say about the incident. Many shoplifters do manage to get past a 'receipt checker'.

Quote:

---

Quoting td_ht

---

The video footage shows me paying for the one item and holding the receipt in my hand.

---

Does anybody dispute that you paid for the one item?

Quote:

---

Quoting td_ht

---

The way I interpret this law, it must be proven that it was my intent to deprive the merchant of the merchandise.

---

Sure. And your choice to walk past the point of sale without scanning or paying for the item is circumstantial evidence that you intended to steal it.

Quote:

---

Quoting td_ht

---

I was going to leave the item in a spot before I left the store.

---

As it turns out, that was a mistake. You should not take unpaid merchandise past the point of sale.

Quote:

---

Quoting td_ht

---

How can they prove my intent was to keep going?

---

They just have to make the prima facie case, which they can do based upon circumstantial evidence. They don't need to find a real-live psychic to read your mind -- your intent can be inferred from your actions.

Quote:

---

Quoting td_ht

---

Is it still reasonable doubt when you have a trial by judge?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Quoting td_ht

---

How strong of a case does the Commonwealth have?

---

As we know essentially nothing about what happened, and absolutely nothing about the prosecutor's theory or evidence, we have no way of answering that.

The LP report says I LEFT the store whereas the video footage clearly shows I didn't. The police report is almost a carbon copy of the LP report. They didn't question me or view the footage before I was arrested.

And now I know to leave **** way before any point of sale.

You paid for one thing and headed for the door with the other.

The presumption of intent may be enough to get you convicted.

If you don't have a lawyer you'd better get one. This is not a DIY project and the prosecutor is not your friend. He wants a conviction and he'll be happy if you get up there without an attorney and say all the things that you've written here.

I can almost guarantee a conviction without an attorney.

I know how those self check out areas are laid out. All you had to do was turn around and go back into the store no matter who was behind you.

Heading for the door was a bad idea.

You are going to talk yourself into a conviction ..get a lawyer with a track record of defending retail theft matters...l

Pushing it past check out area is very bad problem ....

- - - Updated - - -

You get a lawyer season ed at defending retail theft issues ....no other logical choice

There's nothing of value you can get here; go to trial, let the prosecution present their evidence, you present yours, and let the chips fall where they may. All of your claims sound dubious, but I'd really have to see the video and actually watch what occurred to decide whether I think you're guilty or not. The judge/jury will get that opportunity and will render a verdict.