Shoplifting Lawyer in St. Louis

Defining Shoplifting in Missouri

Although shoplifting sounds like a modern term, it originated in England during the 1600s and initially referred to stealing from shops and warehouses. The modern version of shoplifting is less clearly defined. In fact, Missouri does not have a dedicated shoplifting statute.

Instead, it lumps shoplifting with other forms of stealing. Thus, while shoplifting has no legal definition in the state, it usually meets certain characteristics. For instance, shoplifting involves stealing from an open store. If the store is closed, the theft would likely be combined with burglary and would probably not qualify as shoplifting.

Additionally, shoplifting usually occurs when the offender conceals the goods on their body, in a bag, or among their purchases. However, concealment does not always occur. The accused might switch price tags on the goods so that they underpay for the product. They might even try the product on and exit the store wearing it openly.

Finally, shoplifting does not typically involve battery or the use of a weapon. The use or threat of force would potentially raise the crime to robbery — a violent crime that can come with a harsh sentence.

It’s important to note that you can commit shoplifting on impulse or as the result of prior planning, and shoplifting charges can be filed even if you return the item. Thus, stealing a phone and then returning it for cash or store credit still constitutes shoplifting.

Shoplifting is not limited to low-value items, either. Jewelry, electronics, and gift cards are commonly stolen because they are small and have a high value.

Laws Against Shoplifting in Missouri

You can find all of Missouri’s theft offenses in Chapter 570 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Rather than splitting theft offenses into multiple statutes, the state only has one stealing statute that covers most forms of theft, including fraud, extortion, and shoplifting. This law defines stealing as follows:

• Someone appropriates, or takes possession of, property
• The property is possessed or owned by someone else
• The accused deprives the possessor or owner of it
• The accused does so without the consent of the possessor or owner

To be convicted of shoplifting, prosecutors must prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. This means the prosecution will work to gather and present evidence to demonstrate you committed each of these actions.

There is nothing in the statute that requires the possessor or owner to be a store. This stealing statute can cover any type of stealing, including shoplifting. Moreover, the law does not require that the item be concealed. Whether you have been accused of hiding the item in your bag or openly wearing it as you walk out of the store, prosecutors can still pursue charges of shoplifting against you.

Keep in mind that the term “deprive” has a specific meaning in the statute and can include any of the following acts:

• Permanently withholding the property from the owner
• Returning the property only upon payment of compensation
• Using or disposing of the property that prevents the owner from recovering it

As a result, prosecutors can file shoplifting charges with a wide range of allegations, from claiming you opened the package and used it without purchasing it to asserting you intended to sell the property.

This often leads prosecutors to present evidence that implies the accused’s intent. For example, walking out of the store with goods in your pocket may imply you intend to deprive the store of them.

Other Offenses Related to Shoplifting

The Missouri Revised Statutes also include two offenses related to shoplifting. Suppose that you shop for items and pay knowing your form of payment is no good. In this situation, you could face both stealing charges and additional charges for the bad payment.

Passing Bad Checks

The offense of passing bad checks occurs when you write a check for payment, knowing that your account has insufficient funds. You can avoid charges by paying the check within ten days of receiving notice that the check was dishonored.

Credit or Debit Card Fraud

Similarly, the offense of credit or debit card fraud happens when you use a credit or debit card to pay for goods, knowing that any of the following is true:

• The card is stolen or forged
• The card has been revoked or canceled
• You are not authorized to use the card

These charges would be stacked on top of the charges for stealing. Regardless of the specific charges you face, though, our attorneys can help you fight them.

Possible Defenses Against Shoplifting Charges in St. Louis, MO

Shoplifting charges might seem like the end of the world. However, our attorneys at Combs Waterkotte can raise defenses to weaken the prosecution’s case or overcome their assertions. Some possible criminal defense strategies we may leverage for shoplifting cases include the following:

Lack of Intent

Prosecutors must prove you intended to deprive the shop of the goods. We can defend you by establishing that you lacked the required intent. This defense could arise in a few situations. For example, suppose that your child put the item in your pocket without your knowledge. In this case, you did not have the intent to deprive the owner of the item.

Similarly, you might lack intent if you suffer from dementia and forgot that you put the item in your basket and, as a result, did not pay for it. This defense might also work if you were intoxicated at the time of the offense.

Claim of Right

We can assert a claim of right if you acted with the honest belief that you had the right to take the item or that the owner consented or would have consented to your taking it.

A claim-of-right defense might occur when you pay for something at the cash register but make an honest mistake and take the wrong item. For example, if you paid for a $40 bag of concrete at the hardware store but accidentally took the $80 bag from the store’s yard, you might be able to raise a claim-of-right defense if you made an honest mistake.

Error of Fact

Our team can also raise an error of fact as a defense if the mistake was reasonable. Imagine that you took a pen from a store because the bin had a sign that said “free.” However, the sign also had fine print saying you had to buy something else to get the free pen.

If you can show your mistake was reasonable, you can argue that you thought you had the store’s consent to take the pen.