State v. Ellis
618 So. 2d 616, 1993 WL 141250 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of theft is complete when an individual takes property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it, regardless of whether that individual later, due to fright or a change of heart, attempts to return the property.
Facts:
- Ora G. Ellis was observed by a security officer concealing women's sportswear, valued at $259, under her clothing and in her purse while inside a J.C. Penney store in a Shreveport shopping mall.
- Ellis then exited the J.C. Penney store and walked approximately 10 feet into the mall.
- The security officer, holding a walkie-talkie radio transmitter, followed Ellis out of the store and directly approached her.
- Upon seeing the officer approaching, Ellis ran back into the store.
- Inside the store, Ellis threw the concealed sportswear under a rack displaying other clothing.
- Afterward, Ellis physically resisted, threatened, and yelled at the officer, stating, 'You have nothing on me!!! I'm not going to jail!!!'
Procedural Posture:
- Ora G. Ellis was convicted by a jury of felony theft in a trial court.
- Ora G. Ellis, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
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 defendant's action of returning concealed merchandise after leaving a store and being approached by security negate the initial intent to permanently deprive the owner, thereby reducing the crime from felony theft to attempted felony theft?
Opinions:
Majority - Marvin, C.J.
No, a defendant's action of returning concealed merchandise after leaving a store and being approached by security does not negate the initial intent to permanently deprive the owner, and therefore does not reduce the crime from felony theft to attempted felony theft. The court affirmed that theft is complete when an individual takes property with the intent, at the time of the taking, to permanently deprive the owner of that property. Subsequent actions, such as attempting to return the property due to fright or a change of heart, do not undo the completed crime. The jury is tasked with determining whether the requisite intent was present, drawing reasonable inferences from the circumstances of the conduct (LRS 15:271). In this case, the jury could reasonably infer that Ellis intended to permanently deprive the store of the sportswear when she concealed it and departed. Her act of running back into the store and disposing of the clothing when approached by the officer was a deliberate attempt to avoid apprehension with incriminating evidence, which further supports the inference of initial intent to steal, rather than indicating a genuine change of heart that would mitigate the crime to mere attempt. The court noted that Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:10 and 14:67 define the intent for theft as existing when the circumstances indicate the offender actively desired to permanently deprive the owner.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental principle in criminal law that the crucial point for establishing criminal intent in theft is the moment of the taking itself. It affirms the jury's authority to deduce intent from a defendant's actions and the surrounding circumstances, particularly when subsequent acts (like returning property) appear to be motivated by an effort to evade capture rather than a genuine change of heart. This precedent prevents defendants from escaping full liability for theft simply by abandoning stolen goods once detection becomes imminent.
