Criminal Defense Lawyer Defends Grand Theft Charges On Lindsay Lohan
Criminal Defense Lawyer Defends Grand Theft Charges On Lindsay Lohan
So, what exactly is grand theft? California Penal Code Section 487.
To prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors will have to prove that Ms. Lohan intended to steal the necklace. Intent can be proven several ways for grand theft. This gives the prosecutor a broad set of options. The prosecutor will try to prove that she took the necklace by at least one of these methods:Larceny, Embezzlement, Trickery, False Pretenses. Each option has a different set of demands for proof.
LARCENY
To prove grand theft by larceny the prosecutor must prove that LindsayLohan:
1. Took the necklace;
2. With the specific intent to either permanently deprive the owner of the necklaceor to temporarily deprive the owner of the necklace for a substantial period of time where the owner was denied a major portion of its value or enjoyment;and
3. That she physically took possession of the necklace and carried it away.The slightest movement is enough.
TRICKERY
California grand theft by trick requires proof that Lindsay Lohan:
1. Obtained the necklace from a person;
2. By means of making a promise that she didn't intend to keep or by other means of fraud or trick;
3. That the owner of the property didn't intend to transfer ownershipto Ms. Lohan; and
4. Ms. Lohan took the necklace while intending to permanently deprive the owner of the necklace, or intending to temporarily deprive the owner of possession of the necklace.
FALSE PRETENCES
California grand theft by false pretenses would require the prosecutor to prove:
1. That Lindsay Lohan knowingly and intentionally deceived a person by making a false or fraudulent representation;
2. That she did so intending to persuade the person to give her possession and ownership of the necklace; and
3. That she was given the necklace based on her false pretense(s).
EMBEZZELMENT
To prove grand theft by embezzlement, the prosecutor must prove that LindsayLohan:
1. Had a relationship of trust with the owner of the necklace;
2. That pursuant to that relationship, Ms. Lohan was entrusted with the necklace; and
3. That Ms. Lohan intended to deprive the owner of the necklace by taking it as her own.
Reports indicate that Ms. Lohan's attorney intends to litigate the theft charges. The grand theft issue itself may have no impact at all on any of Ms. Lohan's past cases or current probation circumstances. As long as Ms. Lohan was not on probation for her DUI at the time when the necklace is alleged to have been taken, a felony conviction for the alleged theft would most likely not be a violation of her current DUI probation. Her attorney will be able to obtain information regarding the date the necklace is alleged to have been taken and then represent Ms. Lohan accordingly in court.
Mary Masi is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Los Angeles.
Visit:www.marymasilaw.com
Accident Lawyers: Why need One Colorado Social Security Disability Lawyer: Choose the Right One Reasons for Investing in a Gaming Console Skin Know the Criminal Defense Lawyer Fees Just before Hiring an Attorney For Your Situation SEO for lawyers: Know what is there for you? How to search for a Lawyer Tax Liens Investing-Tax Liens Made Easy Bloomberg Television To Present Live Coverage Of The 2011 Annual Distressed Investing Summit and Turnaround Awards on March 6-7 Hip Recall Lawyers – The Urgent Need To Hire One Due Diligence Report: A Guide to Wise Investing Getting the appropriate Divorce Lawyer in Montgomery Why Investing In Xmas Lights Collection Makes Sense What questions you should ask a lawyer