Property Crimes: Memorandum to Defense Counsel
Issue
Dear Mr. Whalling,
I am writing to you about Mr. Carson, who, as you know, was arrested for armed robbery. Since you usually deal with property and maritime law, I have prepared a memorandum for you on the laws relating to crimes against personal property.
Facts
Larceny, robbery, embezzlement, false pretenses, and larceny by trick are different from a legislative point of view. Larceny implies that the defendant really had to steal something; only intent is not enough for the prosecution (The United States Department of Justice, 2020c). This is non-violent theft, which involves taking possession of someone else’s property. Unlike larceny, robbery involves the taking of someone else’s property with the use of violence or threats of its use (Arizona State Legislature, n.d.). Embezzlement implies that the defendant was in a special position of using trust and took advantage of it to misappropriate other people’s property and use the special position for personal gain (The United States Department of Justice, 2020b). False pretenses are associated with the use of dishonesty and deceit to obtain any material value for personal gain (The United States Department of Justice, 2020a). Larceny by trick is different in that the defendant who used the trick can only get someone else’s property but not ownership of it (The United States Department of Justice, 2020c). Crimes against personal property are condemned and punished in society.
Penalties for crimes against personal property clearly draw the line against such conduct. The main reason is the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. Such crimes are also quite common, so they are strictly regulated by law. An example of a defensive line strategy would be to prove that there was no mercenary intent to commit a crime. You can also prove that the crime was committed out of motives for survival in a difficult financial situation, which will mitigate the punishment. It is also considered important that the murder of the victim did not occur, it is necessary to indicate this fact when building up a protection line. It is necessary to focus on the fact that the accused did not resist, admitted his guilt, and repented.
Discussion
It is most likely that Mr. Carson committed an armed robbery. According to the laws of Arizona, Mr. Carson violated 13-1904 provision (Arizona State Legislature, n.d.). An armed robbery is classified if, in the course of the robbery, the defendant is armed with, threatens to use, or uses a deadly weapon or an imitation of a weapon (Arizona State Legislature, n.d.). Mr. Carson was armed with a revolver and threatened to use it to take possession of the customer’s personal belongings. The most successful defense strategy in this case may be to reveal the true motives of Mr. Carson’s act. You can point to the fact that Mr. Carson was forced to commit such a desperate crime because of financial difficulties and also that he had no intention of killing the victim. In this case, Mr. Carson’s sentence could be reduced, especially if he had no previous troubles with the law.
Summary
Mr. Carson’s crime is serious because it involves the use of life threats with a weapon. If it is not possible to reclassify the charge or the case fails in court, the punishment will be 12 years in prison (Portman, 2021). That is why it is necessary to emphasize the strategy of proving other motives, not using the weapon, and not committing a murder. I hope you, Mr. Whalling, will be able to achieve a fair decision in this case.‌