Tampa criminal court case results
- mother & son cleared of theft charge in tampa
- facts: The defendant was walking through Sweetbay Supermarket on Dale Mabry Highway with his mother. His mother had just been through a recent divorce, and had no money to pay for any items. The Sweetbay manager saw the defendant, and his mother both loading the items from the grocery cart, into his car. The officer reported to the client's house after getting his tag number from the manager. After reading Miranda to the client and his mother the officer took their statements. According to the officer's report, "the defendant said he was unsure if his mother had paid for the groceries, but that he knew she did not have any money to pay for the items they selected." As a result of his statement, both he and his mother were arrested. The client's mother pled guilty to the theft, and her son pled not guilty.
- defense: The law in the state of Florida with regard to principal or accomplice liability is fairly straightforward.
- A defendant will be treated as if he did all the acts performed by the others involved in the perpetration of a crime if:(1) the defendant had a conscious intent that the crime be done, and (2) the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and did incite, cause, encourage, or advise another person to actually commit the crime. Charles v. State, 945 So.2d 579, (4th DCA 2006). In our case, the State Attorney could prove that our client was present in the store, and that he wasn't sure if his Mom had money to buy the items. That is not enough. The State had no information proving that the defendant had the "intent" that the crime be done, and really no reliable information that the client incited or encouraged his mother in any way.
- results: The State dismissed the charges on the day of trial.
- related articles:
-
Cases by Practice Area
