"He gave it to me!"

Major Major

Critical Thinker
M
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
432
Has anyone encountered a case of theft where the defendant offered a defense that the victim had voluntary given the allegedly stolen article to him?
 
TheGoldcountry said:
Museums are full of things that people "donated" to them.
Click to expand...

LOL. One of my kids went to Greece a few months back, and sent us pictures from a museum there where they had plaster replicas of missing artifacts, with some catty passive-aggressive placards explaining which country stole their **** that they would very much like back.

My wife and I went to the Louvre in France, and I sent her pictures of the genuine Grecian artifacts, with the placards explaining how they were a generous gift from the people of Greece.
 
Last time I checked, modern Greeks have very little ethnic connection to the culture that produced those artifacts. Ironically, they have a much closer ethnic connection to the culture that decided to use the Parthenon as a munitions store and got it mostly blown up.

Anyway, to the OP's point, I'm sure there are many such defenses documented in case law.

And yes, I've encountered at least one such case myself. My cousin and I settled the matter privately, though. Turns out parents can do binding arbitration.
 
I was on a jury where that was what the defendant claimed in a statement to the police. When asked why he thought the victim would give up his leather jacket just like that, he said "Perhaps it was the way I asked him.". Most of the jury didn't think this was an indication of guilt, nor were the injuries suffered by the victim in this 'way of asking'. :boggled:
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I was on a jury where that was what the defendant claimed in a statement to the police. When asked why he thought the victim would give up his leather jacket just like that, he said "Perhaps it was the way I asked him.". Most of the jury didn't think this was an indication of guilt, nor were the injuries suffered by the victim in this 'way of asking'. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Cool story, bro. Tell us more. Was one of the jurors John Cusack? Or perhaps Henry Fonda?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I was on a jury where that was what the defendant claimed in a statement to the police. When asked why he thought the victim would give up his leather jacket just like that, he said "Perhaps it was the way I asked him.". Most of the jury didn't think this was an indication of guilt, nor were the injuries suffered by the victim in this 'way of asking'. :boggled:
Click to expand...
Is there a course online to master this way of asking?
 
I imagine it happens a lot.

Obviously freely given consent is an absolute defense against theft claims, though proving a gift was given voluntarily may be hard to prove.

Fraud makes things a bit murkier.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I was on a jury where that was what the defendant claimed in a statement to the police. When asked why he thought the victim would give up his leather jacket just like that, he said "Perhaps it was the way I asked him.". Most of the jury didn't think this was an indication of guilt, nor were the injuries suffered by the victim in this 'way of asking'. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Makes sense. This isn't so much a theft case as a robbery case. Did the accused take the property using bodily force or threat of same.

Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that what is on the surface a request (i.e. "I like that jacket and wish you would give it to me") constitutes a taking by putting someone in fear of violence is going to be murky. Criminal intent is the intent of the accused rather than a potentially paranoid alleged victim who could take a simple request as a deadly threat.

Like the Bernie Goetz legend. Someone asks him for a cigarette and he comes out blasting.

Or the kicking off point of "Trading Places" where Eddie Murphy bumps into Dan Ackroyd. Eddie tries to give back the briefcase Dan dropped and Dan starts screaming for the police because he assumes the black poor person is robbing him.
 
Then there is the "Wallet Inspector" scene from the Simpsons.

Which isn't robbery or technically even larceny because the item was given voluntarily. Under common law definitions it's false pretenses but now individual jurisdictions vary and the law in general is less hard core about the semantics of property crime.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I imagine it happens a lot.

Obviously freely given consent is an absolute defense against theft claims, though proving a gift was given voluntarily may be hard to prove.

Fraud makes things a bit murkier.
Click to expand...

The declared value of the voluntarily given gift may draw the attention of government revenue personnel, though this may be a minor afterthought.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The declared value of the voluntarily given gift may draw the attention of government revenue personnel, though this may be a minor afterthought.
Click to expand...

The way the gift/estate tax works in the US is that the donor is the person paying the tax so in a case like that this would be quite petty and cruel. Which is totally on point for the IRS just that the exclusions for this tax are massive so there is roughly zero chance it is a taxable event.
 
I inherited a handgun which I presume was issue from my dad's Army days that I found in the bottom of a toolbox in the garage after my mom passed about 20 years ago. Unloaded, made in 1919 I think, with serial number.

I thought it might be an antique so I shopped around for a buyer through legal means but they sounded kinda shady so I passed. Still have it. Pretty sure there's not a body on it but not sure what do with it besides keeping it in a brown paper lunch bag in my bedroom hutch.

To OP, yeah probably happens all the time... "Yeah I know him and told me you can have this if you want". That's where real investigative police work comes in to corroborate it if it's worth it.
 
Suddenly said:
Then there is the "Wallet Inspector" scene from the Simpsons.

Which isn't robbery or technically even larceny because the item was given voluntarily. Under common law definitions it's false pretenses but now individual jurisdictions vary and the law in general is less hard core about the semantics of property crime.
Click to expand...

I would say it is theft because just handing an object to somebody so they can inspect it does not imply you are giving it to them permanently.
 
jeremyp said:
I would say it is theft because just handing an object to somebody so they can inspect it does not imply you are giving it to them permanently.
Click to expand...

I believe there's a crime called "conversion" that covers that, and that it's generally treated the same as theft if adequately proven. The difference is just the situation you describe, where the property was voluntarily handed over without an agreement or intent of transferring ownership, but the other person keeps it against the victim's will.
 
Last edited:
jeremyp said:
I would say it is theft because just handing an object to somebody so they can inspect it does not imply you are giving it to them permanently.
Click to expand...

Which is basic fraud. Whether it be the wallet inspector or a Nigerian Prince needing a bridge loan to get to his fortune. The object is given freely rather than being taken.
 
gnome said:
I believe there's a crime called "conversion" that covers that, and that it's generally treated the same as theft if adequately proven. The difference is just the situation you describe, where the property was voluntarily handed over without an agreement or intent of transferring ownership, but the other person keeps it against the victim's will.
Click to expand...

Conversion is more when an item is given freely without there being fraud and then later it gets misused. Like I borrow your car with every intent of giving it back and then at some point decide to sell it to a chop shop to get money to pre-order Civ VII and start saving for the irrationally powerful hardware the game will probably require.

It's more of a civil doctrine though.

There is also embezzlement when a person in the course of business has possession of an item and then converts that for personal use. Which is basically conversion but not completely.

Then there is when a person is given money as an agreement to perform a task like building someone a deck and then through general incompetence and mismanagement simply is unable to deliver. That's just not a crime. But when part of that mismanagement includes a person's heroin addiction it can get a little contentious.

To be sure, it's almost all semantics with little real world affect except to amuse me when I read criminal complaints and/or when I want to annoy people.
 
Suddenly said:
Conversion is more when an item is given freely without there being fraud and then later it gets misused. Like I borrow your car with every intent of giving it back and then at some point decide to sell it to a chop shop to get money to pre-order Civ VII and start saving for the irrationally powerful hardware the game will probably require.

It's more of a civil doctrine though.

There is also embezzlement when a person in the course of business has possession of an item and then converts that for personal use. Which is basically conversion but not completely.

Then there is when a person is given money as an agreement to perform a task like building someone a deck and then through general incompetence and mismanagement simply is unable to deliver. That's just not a crime. But when part of that mismanagement includes a person's heroin addiction it can get a little contentious.

To be sure, it's almost all semantics with little real world affect except to amuse me when I read criminal complaints and/or when I want to annoy people.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction. I looked it up and "conversion" is a tort, rather than a crime, with remedy in civil courtrooms. So I see how fraud would be a better term for the criminal counterpart.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom