Lee v. State
59 Md.App. 28, 474 A.2d 537 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person commits theft in a self-service store when they exercise unauthorized control over merchandise by concealing it, even if they are apprehended before leaving the premises, because the act of concealment demonstrates an intent to deprive the owner of the property.
Facts:
- Joe William Lee, Jr. was in a pharmacy-liquor store.
- An employee observed Lee displace two bottles of cognac from a shelf.
- Lee concealed one of the bottles in his pants.
- Lee held the other bottle of cognac in his hand.
- When an employee approached him, Lee returned both bottles to the shelf.
- Lee then fled the store.
Procedural Posture:
- Joe William Lee, Jr. was charged with two separate counts of theft under $300.00.
- A trial was held in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.
- The Circuit Court convicted Lee on both charges.
- Lee, as appellant, appealed the convictions to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person's concealment of merchandise in their clothing while inside a self-service store constitute sufficient evidence to convict them of theft, even if they do not remove the merchandise from the store's premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, Judge
Yes, a person's concealment of merchandise while inside a self-service store is sufficient evidence for a theft conviction, even if they are apprehended before leaving. The court reasoned that while a self-service store owner gives temporary, limited consent for customers to possess items, that consent is exceeded when a customer exercises dominion and control over property in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights, such as by concealment. Under Maryland's modern theft statute, the common law element of 'trespassory taking' is satisfied by this unauthorized control, and the requisite 'intent to deprive' can be inferred from the act of concealment and other furtive behaviors, like fleeing when confronted. The crime is completed at the moment of concealment, making it immaterial whether the perpetrator successfully removes the goods from the premises.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the crime of theft by shoplifting is complete inside the store, shifting the legal focus from the physical act of leaving the premises (asportation) to the offender's intent as demonstrated by their actions. By establishing that concealment alone can satisfy the elements of theft, the court makes it easier to prosecute shoplifters who are caught before they exit the store. This ruling modernizes the application of larceny principles to the context of self-service retail, recognizing that the key criminal element is the exercise of unauthorized control inconsistent with the store's ownership rights, not merely the removal of goods from a specific location.
Unlock the full brief for Lee v. State