Theft Without Consent Case Study

The elements that define theft without consent are as followed: that a theft occurred by another person; the defendant received the stolen property; and when the defendant received the property he or she knew it was stolen. Texas criminal code defines receiving stolen property. The definition is as follows. A person commits an offense if he or she unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property. Appropriation of property is unlawful if it without the owners effective consent, as well as if the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another. So in cases of theft, the actus reus is the unauthorized confiscation of someone’s property. The mens rea part is the intent to permanently deprive the
person from their possessions. In the case of the stolen property, the speakers were stolen from John L. Clough by an unknown person. The property was believed to be stolen by an employee by the name of Ricky Burton. The property later was found at a pawn shop, which was pawned by a woman name Olga Sonnier.
Sonnier was not an employee of John L. Clough at any time. She had pawned the speakers for two acquaintances, due to a lack of identification by the acquaintances. Sonnier was not the one who physically stole the property from another, and also had no way of knowing the property was stolen. With this being said, the defendant had no way of knowing the owner did not consent to the reception of the property. As a defense attorney this is how I would argue for acquittal for the defendant. We are not able to prove the defendant was the person in question that physically stole the property my John L. Clough. This would eliminate much of the guilt that Olga Sonnier is guilty of theft. Olga Sonnier also simply pawned the property for two of her friends. This is just simply an act she did in the case of her friends not having the proper form of identification. While Sonnier was in possession of the stolen items at one point, during the transaction at the pawn shop, she had legitimate reason to be in the possession of such items. They were given to her, by the person who she believed was the owner of the speakers, to
pawn. Olga Sonnier simply pawned the speakers at a discounted value for what she believed was the owners of the speakers, given her reason to be excused from the burden of guilt and acquitted from the charges of theft. Olga Sonnier, has no direct connection to the original theft from John L. Clough. She did not take goods from him. She did not know the property was taken from him without consent. She was to believe the the speakers were the property of the two unidentified men, and her only role was to pawn the speakers due to the lack of identification. All times she was in possession of the property she had a justifiable reason to, and had all reasons to believe the property she was in possession of did not come from ill-gotten gains. This is how I would defend Olga Sonnier is I was the defense attorney.