ASSIGNMENT: Review the facts of the Sam Kant case from Memo One. For this

assignment, Mr. Kant stands charged with petit larceny rather than shoplifting. Please

thoroughly apply the law provided below, based on your lessons and reading material

regarding legal analysis and writing. In preparing your memorandum, please consult the

sample Legal Memorandums from PCD and Statsky. Discuss whether or not you think

Mr. Kant could be convicted of petit larceny pursuant to the law provided. Please note,

this is a closed memo and no outside research should be conducted. Apply only the law

as provided below.

For the purposes of this assignment, Sam Kant stands charged with Petit Larceny under

Criminal Statute 143.03(a) which provides the following:

A person is guilty of petit larceny when he deprives the owner of property.

Petit larceny is a class "A" misdemeanor

Criminal Statute 143.00 Larceny; Defined

(1) A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive

another of property, or to appropriate the same to himself, he wrongfully takes, obtains

or withholds such property from an owner thereof.

In State v. Gross (2001) the defendant moved for dismissal of petit larceny charges

because he had not yet left the store with the merchandise in his possession.

Defendant, Gross, removed 2 rib eye steaks from the plastic wrapping in which they

were encased, placing them below his shirt and under each armpit, and was

apprehended after having passed the last point of purchase, but prior to reaching the

exit doors.

The court held that: (1) a defendant demonstrates the requisite intent to

deprive an owner when he acts in a manner that is contrary to those which would be

undertaken by an ordinary person, under ordinary circumstances for the situation

involved, and (2) actions that are inconsistent with and are ultimately adverse to the

owner's interest may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3)

the nature of these acts may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

despite the defendant not having left the premises.