Cjad 425 Discussion 5

Posted: April 4th, 2019

cjad 425 Discussion 5 Write an outline for a legal analysis using the Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion (IRAC) format based on the following fact pattern and issues:

Vic Victim sold a house to Dan Defendant for $15,000. As part of the sale, Victim agreed to provide Defendant with $5,000 in materials for the house. To make this transaction easy, Victim and Defendant agreed that Victim would add Defendant as an authorized user on Victim’s Hardware Store credit card. Defendant would then go to Hardware Store and purchase the materials and provide Victim with a receipt. Defendant never provided Victim with a receipt for materials, but Victim noticed on his next credit card bill that a purchase had been made at Hardware Store for $10,000. The purchase included miscellaneous items such as food, toys, gift cards to restaurants, and tools. Victim confronted Defendant and asked for repayment or for return of the items purchased. Defendant refused. Victim called police and reported the issue.

You work for a county prosecutor’s office in the State of Missouri. The local police officer in charge of Defendant’s case sent over a charge for receipt of stolen property. Your boss wants to know whether you think Defendant is guilty of receiving stolen property. Write an outline of the issue, rule(s), analysis, and conclusion.

The following materials have been provided*:

Section 570.030.1 RSMo

State v. Garcia, 587 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019)

Please note that this is the same case you will be reviewing for Paper 1: Legal Analysis. This is your chance to get some feedback prior to writing. As you respond to two peers, be certain to provide constructive reviews, offer suggestions for improvement, highlight strengths, etc.

I. Issue
Is Dan Defendant guilty of receiving stolen property under Missouri law when he used Vic Victim’s credit card to purchase items unrelated to the $5,000 materials agreement and refused to repay or return the purchased items when confronted by Victim?

II. Rule(s)
Section 570.030.1 RSMo defines the offense of receiving stolen property as knowingly receiving or concealing stolen property, with the intent to deprive the owner of its value. The state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

A. The property was stolen
B. Defendant knew or believed the property was stolen
C. Defendant received or concealed the stolen property
D. Defendant did so with the intent to deprive the owner of the property’s value

State v. Garcia, 587 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) held that evidence of unexplained possession of recently stolen property can be used to infer that the defendant knew or believed the property was stolen.

III. Analysis
A. The property was stolen

Victim did not authorize the purchase of items other than the agreed-upon $5,000 materials.
The purchase included miscellaneous items such as food, toys, gift cards to restaurants, and tools, which were not related to the agreed-upon materials.
The purchase exceeded the $5,000 materials agreement by $5,000.
Defendant did not provide Victim with a receipt for the purchase, indicating an attempt to conceal the nature of the purchase.
B. Defendant knew or believed the property was stolen

The purchase included items unrelated to the agreed-upon materials, which would not have been purchased if Defendant had not known the credit card belonged to Victim.
Defendant did not provide Victim with a receipt for the purchase, indicating an attempt to conceal the nature of the purchase.
Defendant refused to repay or return the purchased items when confronted by Victim, indicating knowledge that the items were obtained unlawfully.
C. Defendant received or concealed the stolen property

Defendant used Victim’s credit card to make the unauthorized purchase, thereby receiving the stolen property.
Defendant did not provide Victim with a receipt for the purchase, indicating an attempt to conceal the nature of the purchase.
D. Defendant did so with the intent to deprive the owner of the property’s value

Defendant’s purchase of miscellaneous items unrelated to the agreed-upon materials suggests a lack of intent to fulfill the contract.
Defendant’s refusal to repay or return the purchased items when confronted by Victim indicates an intent to deprive Victim of the value of the purchase.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the analysis, Defendant is likely guilty of receiving stolen property under Missouri law. The state can prove that Defendant knowingly received and concealed stolen property, with the intent to deprive Victim of its value. The evidence suggests that Defendant knew or believed the property was stolen, and that Defendant’s actions were intentional and unlawful.