Criminal Law Questions? Ask a Criminal Lawyer.
Thank you for using Just Answer.While the elements the prosecutor must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt can vary slightly by state, generally, in order to obtain a conviction, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant took personal property of another person and carried it away, (2) that the taking was against the will and without the consent of the owner, (3) that the taking was with intent to steal.
Beyond a reasonable doubt means that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If the jurors or judge have no doubts as to the defendant's guilty, or if their only doubts are unreasonable, then the prosecutor has met their burden of proof, and a defendant should be found guilty.I'm not quite sure what you mean by what's the standard of proof to convict --the definition I gave you about is essentially the standard. If you're asking if there is a percentage by which it is measured or something similar, the answer is no, there's no percentage or mathematical formula. That said, my professional opinion is that because it's the highest burden of proof in this country, it's not met when there is 50%, or 51% certainty of guilt. I would say it is far closer to 99%, or 100% certainty that a judge or jury should have in order to find a person guilty.If you need clarification or additional information, please REPLY and I'll be happy to assist you further. Thank you.
The statement to the employee likely cannot be surprised if it was made voluntarily. Anything you said to police likely could if you were not given Miranda once in custody and before questioning if you did not voluntarily waive said rights.Yes, you'll want the videotape. Your lawyer will make a "Demand for discovery" to the prosecutor, which will ask them to provide any evidence they claim to have against you -witnesses, videotapes, etc.
What state is this in?
No attorney can obviously guarantee you any type of outcome. In the case of petit larceny, the absolute maximum sentence allowed by law is o one year in prison. While I would not be concerned if this was a first offense, prior arrests and convictions will hurt you if convicted -as can the amount you alleged to have taken (e.g., taking $100 versus taking almost $1,000).For those who are accused of petit larceny who have prior contacts with the criminal justice system, the ability to make predictions about the possible outcomes is diminished. Much will depend on the nature of the prior criminal history, the extent of the prior criminal history, and the background and personal situation of the accused -all things your attorney will discuss with you if they haven't. The likelihood of an ACD settlement, while perhaps legally permissible, will diminish dramatically --but I can't rule it out and say it couldn't happen. There is always a chance.
Nevertheless, a non-criminal (disorderly conduct) settlement may still be in the cards depending on the circumstances of the case and the value of the property in question. A disorderly conduct charge is usually handled with community service, a fine, and sometimes a one day class on anti-theft.
Yes, that's correct, but goal for your lawyer is to negotiate a plea - which the judge accepts - that includes no jail time.
If you have no further questions, please remember to leave positive feedback, as that is the only way experts on this site are paid for their time and expertise. Thank you.