I’m being charged with stealing something that I’m positive belongs to me…isn’t there something I can do?
Massachusetts recognizes a “claim of right” defense to property crimes. The law states that “If the defendant took another person’s property in an honest belief that they (or another person on whose behalf the defendant was acting) had a legal right to it, then the jury must find the defendant not guilty, even if that belief was in fact mistaken. The jury will consider all of the evidence in the case (including any reasonable inferences) in making that determination.
How does the law handle cases of “pickpocketing” and “purse-snatching”?
An ordinary pickpocketing usually is a larceny from the person rather than an unarmed robbery, even if the victim realizes what is happening, because no intimidation is involved and the “force” utilized is not the kind of violence necessary for robbery. But a purse snatching of which the victim is aware involves sufficient force to constitute robbery, even if done so quickly as to deny the victim any opportunity to resist.
I’m being charged with an aggravated offense based on the other person’s age…how does that work?
Larceny from the person of a victim who is 65 years or older (G.L. c. 266, § 25[a]) is an aggravated form of a larceny offense. Essentially this means the jury will have to find that the victim was 65 years of age or older. The jury may consider the victim’s physical appearance as one factor in determining age, but appearance alone is not sufficient evidence of age unless the victim is of “a marked extreme” age, since “judging age on physical appearance is a guess . . . .” Commonwealth v. Pittman, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 514 (1987).
I didn’t know the property at issue belonged to someone else…do I have a defense?
Probably yes. If you paid for the property and had no notice that it belonged to anyone else, you will be considered a bona fide purchaser. In order to protect bona fide purchasers, G.L. c. 266, §87 provides that “it shall be a defense to prosecution for conversion of leased or rented property that the defendant was unaware the property belonged to an-other or that he had a right to acquire or dispose of the property as he did.”
If I get convicted, will I owe money for the property in addition to fines and other punishment?
Yes. Upon the defendant’s conviction under § 87 or similarly applicable statute, the law requires the judge, in addition to any sentence imposed, to order restitution to the owner for any financial loss.
Can I be convicted of stealing and receiving the same property?
No. A defendant cannot be convicted both of stealing and receiving the same goods, since receipt of stolen property requires that the property already be stolen at the time of receipt. A defendant may be charged with both crimes; if the evidence would support either, it is for the jury to decide “under clear and precise instructions” of which to convict. Each crime should be charged in a separate count or complaint.
A conviction for receipt of stolen property, however, does not require the Commonwealth to rule out the possibility that the defendant was the thief. If there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for receipt of stolen property, such a conviction may stand even if there is also evidence that the defendant may be, or is in fact, the thief, since the jury is free to reject the evidence tending to prove theft and to infer receipt from the fact of possession.
Aren’t there some new laws that change the threshold value for property crimes in Massachusetts?
Yes. On April 13, 2018, the Governor signed “An Act Relative to Criminal Justice Reform” as well as “An Act Implementing the Joint Recommendations of the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Review” (the “CSG Act”), which became effective on January 13, 2019. With respect to property crimes, The threshold between a misdemeanor and felony has been increased from $250 to $1,200 for the crimes of larceny (G.L. c. 266, § 30), misuse of credit cards (G.L. c. 266, §§ 378 and 37C), receiving stolen property (G.L. c. 266, § 60) and malicious or wanton destruction of property (G.L. c. 266, § 127). The $250 threshold, however, remains the same for larceny from an elderly or disabled person. (G.L. c. 266, § 30(5)). The crime of shoplifting (G.L. c. 266, § 30A) has also been amended to increase the threshold amount of $100 to $250; if the retail value of the goods is less than S250, the offense can only be punished as shoplifting, not larceny under $1,200. (Act §§ 136-144, 146-148). Note: The value of the property damaged or destroyed, which is the difference between the misdemeanor and felony charge, is determined by the loss suffered by the victim (usually the reasonable cost of repair or replacement) and not the reasonable value of the entire property or the portion thereof that is damaged. See Commonwealth v. Deberry. 441 Mass. 211,220-222 (2004).