Court dismissed appeal against conviction for theft, rejecting argument that stolen goods were returned.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe court dismissed the defendant's appeal against the first-instance conviction for theft, upholding the original judgment. The defendant argued that the stolen items had been returned to the victim, which should mitigate the severity of the crime. The court rejected this defense, ruling that the return of goods does not negate the commission of the theft itself.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedCriminal Code § 150; § 151: The return of stolen property after the crime is committed does not preclude a conviction for theft, as the act of unlawful taking remains the defining element of the offense.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedFull text
!"# $%"
&'(&(()
*&+&, $-
.//- 0+&+1%23
2
44 5 !") ('6&&7 52 - ) ) 48 -) 5 3 1)
( - / )
3 -1%2 : ( &(;(&&(( "
4 0 &+ 2' 1%2 35- 2 - 2
12) 8- 1 8238 %/ *, 7 &( ((&'(("
0+&+1 '&6 2 & 4%3%%) ( (
2 -) 8- 1 82%38 7 - - - -)
& --3 $8 - !#" !" $ %&% '()* + , *'()-.)+/0012))) * + 0
01)&&))'%45()11 6 ,
&&1)&'442()(7 ,
%1)))(%2.20 $ .)
*&+
0
8 9 0 :
9 %.)) * + 0 0 1)&&))'%2)))14 6 ,
/ &2)))%5(5(0 , /
0 , /
9 0 ,,
, /
/ ; 50 , &0 * ,, +
0 , 0 , , / , 1., 0
/
;1.0, 0
' //- ) ) - ((&'(( - "
4 0 +&+ 1 0 '&6 2) 1 &(&(&;( (+'4 1 5- -2/ 3% 1 2 3
8 )& 2) ) ) 1 2 3 82 )22 4 )
8- < -= 2'+><) 2
-0& 2152 &(&(&(%%2+? - 1048--( 232) 5 8- 1 1 5- 4 )
- 3 - )4 - 0+&+ 1%2 3 @ 3 ( $ 9 - ( //- 0+&+1%2
44 1 -2
1
44 ( -
44 %5%% %2 //- 3 1
13--3 $8 -8 - -//- 1
3 @ 2218--
44 4 94
( 8 3 21%%( 0 +&+
% - 4 85 4 9
//- 3 ' 4%3%% *'A;,) ( ( ?(* , 2 -( B --0 ;38
% 8- 1 82 *&, (( 2
2 ) 4 928 -
44 -)
8 5 218 -
4 35 3 -( $ 91//- 3 1 -) -1%%3-8 -
441-( ;
0 5)
44 1%2 -"0-&'6&+;%
-(//- 3) 4 9 1 1 -
2 ) - 1%%3- 8 -
44 1-)
-35
448 (3 2 ( 5) 5 //- - 0 +&+ 1%2 3 @ 3
41 58
44 ( "0; 246)6 5 3% 18 - ) //-8 ); 4 2 %%( $ 2 %% ' 22 - +; ( 2 1 -5 2"0- &+?&+6)?)?6)'? $-
+