Los Angeles Theft Defense Lawyers 

Specific Intent: A person must not only have stolen the property in question, but they must also have intended to steal it. Let’s say a person is shopping. They look at jewelry admiringly and briefly decide to try it on. Their friends appreciate how they look, so the jewelry is kept on a little longer than it otherwise might. They walked further into the store. The defendant put the jewelry into a handbag ,fully intending to return it. Instead, they accidentally walked out, and security alarms were triggered at the front door. 

There was no intent to steal the jewelry. If a defendant has a clean record, this line of defense is more likely to succeed. 

Lack of Asportation: Asportation is a legal term that requires three things–that the property be separated from its rightful owner, that it be in complete possession of the person charged with the crime and that the property be moved.

If asportation cannot be established, this still might be a burglary case–perhaps there was intent to commit theft, but the property was never possessed by the person charged. An example might be the person charged with embezzling at work. Did the money ever get to their bank account (or its intended location)? If not, they might be defended on the grounds that asportation has not been proven by the prosecutor. 

Claim of Rightful Ownership: You can’t be guilty of stealing something that’s already yours. If you loaned your lawnmower to a neighbor, got frustrated waiting for it to be returned and went into their garage to get it, you aren’t guilty of theft. There might be a trespassing issue, but it’s not theft. 

What’s more, even if the accused person simply thought the property belonged to them, that is a valid defense. Now, this belief has to be proven. Simply telling the court “I thought it was mine”, won’t be sufficient. But what if there are texts and emails showing someone clearly believes a piece of property is theirs? What if witnesses come forward to say that this person genuinely believed the property belonged to them? Even if that belief is considered unreasonable, it’s a valid defense to theft if sincerely held and provable. 

What’s Not a Defense: Let’s assume that someone did steal a piece of property and that all the criteria for guilt noted above are provable beyond a reasonable doubt. But the person charged returned the item in question. Strictly speaking, this cannot be used as a defense. 

Now, that doesn’t mean returning it isn’t worthwhile or that it might not have some impact. A judge may consider it at sentencing. The District Attorney may take it into account when deciding whether to file charges in the first place. A demonstration of good will never hurts. But it is not, in the strictest legal sense, a defense against the charge of theft .

Shevin Law Group has nearly thirty years of experience handling cases like these. Our attorneys understand what defenses are viable and what’s needed to make them work. We fight hard for our clients, and we counsel them at every step of the way. If you’re facing theft charges, you may have more options than you realize. 

Call us today at (818) 918-5838 or contact us online to set up an initial consultation.