Defendant borrows victim's truck. Next morning victim's truck is not back. Victim asks defendant, who says, "I brought it back and left the keys in your house. Your wife must have taken it to work." Truck is found in possession of another, who tells officers he bought truck from Defendant. Has a witness to the transaction.
Theft or unauthorized use?
I vote theft.
I'd say that selling it to someone definitely shows intent to permanently deprive, not just use it, so I'd go with theft too.
Theft. How was the victim ever going to get it back? The transfer to a third party, under color of legitimate sale, goes far beyond "oops, I forgot to tell you that I borrowed it..." If the transfer of the truck to the buyer was for anything approaching value, I don't think there's a question about intent to deprive.
Thanks I was leaning towards theft, and found that UUMV is a lesser included (at least in some cases).
Also depends on the value of the truck. If it is worth under $1,500, then go with UUMV.
I would go with theft, simply due to the consent "borrowing" issue that he allowed the guy to drive his car, but not sell it.
$1700 blue book value for a similar vehicle in fair condition.
I've got a juvenile defendant who ran off with Mom's car in a suicide attempt. He took the car, called her on the phone and told her to look outside. The car was gone. He then used in a suicide attempt a short time later.
The kid has a fairly extensive history (most of it involving mom, though all of them are misdemeanors)and needs to placed outside the home.
The car is brand new 2011 Toyota Camry (purchase in April 2011, taken by defendant last week). Purchase price was slightly under $29,000--F3 level, which is what I would like to file. However, the lower charge UUMV seems to fit better.
Sounds like a uumv.
|Powered by Social Strata|
© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.