The defendant, Lai Lee, is charged with one count of Petit Larceny (PL § 155.25) and has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the complaint as facially insufficient. In order to be facially sufficient…, the facts and any accompanying depositions of an information must provide reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense charged, as well as non hearsay factual allegations of an evidentiary character which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged and defendant’s commission thereof. “Reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense” exists when evidence or information which appears reliable, discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it.

The requirement of nonhearsay allegations has been described as “much more demanding standard” than showing reasonable cause alone.” However, it is nevertheless a much lower threshold than the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the law does not require that the information contain the most precise words or phrases most clearly expressing the charge, only that the crime and the factual basis therefore be sufficiently alleged.

Finally, where the allegations of facts contained in information “give an accused sufficient notice to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading.”

Facts

Store Detective Lauryna Petrauskiene observed the defendant, while inside the store, remove one (1) handbag, one (1) pair of tights and one (1) jacket from a rack and conceal one (1) handbag, one (1) pair of tights and one (1) jacket by placing said items inside defendant’s bag and then Store Detective Lauryna Petrauskiene observed the defendant walk past more than one open register and move to another floor in the store in possession of the property and without paying for it. Thereafter, defendant was stopped, and Store Detective Lauryna Petrauskiene recovered said items, valued at $944.00, from defendant’s bag, property which belonged to the above-named store and for which the defendant had no receipt.......

1. State the elements of larceny.

2. Summarize the court’s arguments to support the proof of each of the elements of larceny.

3. Did the court stretch the original meaning of the elements? Explain.

4. Is the decision good public policy? Explain.

5. Should the court, or the legislature, change the meaning of the elements of larceny to fit modern conditions? Explain your answer.