What is the difference between burglary, robbery, and theft?

Here is the shortest answer to that question….
First, burglary is the intent to break into a building without consent with the intent of committing a crime inside (including theft).   Burglary is a specific intent crime, requiring that the burglar knowingly intend to commit a crime while inside.   A person does not have to forcibly enter a building to commit burglary; going in through an unlocked window or door can still fulfill the “breaking” element of burglary.

Theft simply involves taking something from someone else with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. Embezzlement is a form of theft in which an employee diverts money intended for his employer or other employees for his or her own use. Likewise, fraud is also a form of theft, involving using trickery to permanently deprive someone of his or her property.

Finally, robbery is anotherspecific intent crime, requiring both theft and a form of violence or threat of violence used to deprive someone of their property. The most common example of a robbery is a convenience store holdup, in which a robber threatens to shoot a cashier unless the cashier hands over the loot.

In all three cases — theft, burglary, and robbery — the government must prove that the defendant intended to permanently deprive someone of his or her property; generally, this element can be proven through the jury’s use of common sense or other circumstantial evidence suggesting the defendant meant to take the property forever. For instance, if a person steals someone else’s car and then claims it wasn’t a theft because he meant to return the car when he was done, the government can admit evidence that the defendant removed the VIN number to suggest he planned to permanently deprive the owner of his vehicle.

Family Member or Friend in Jail?

Get them Out NOW!

We are your 24 Hour Broward Bail Bonds

For more information email browardbail@gmail.com

source

Federal Judge Throws Out Florida’s Drug Law

A federal judge ruled July 27 that Florida’s drug law was unconstitutional, leaving thousands of criminal cases up in the air. US District Court Judge Mary Scriven of Orlando threw out the Florida Drug Abuse Prevention and Control law on the grounds that it violates due process because it does not require prosecutors to prove a person knew he or she possessed illegal drugs.  In 2002, Florida legislators amended the state’s drug law, eliminating the requirement that prosecutors prove mens rea, or criminal intent, as part of obtaining a conviction. Florida was the only state in the nation to not require mens rea as part of a drug conviction.

“Not surprisingly, Florida stands alone in its express elimination of mens rea as an element of a drug offense,” Scriven wrote in her order. “Other states have rejected such a draconian and unreasonable construction of the law that would criminalize the ‘unknowing’ possession of a controlled substance.”

The ruling came in the case of Mackle Vincent Shelton, 33, who was convicted in 2005 of drug charges in Osceola County. Shelton, who is currently serving an 18-year prison sentence for cocaine delivery and other charges, appealed his conviction on the grounds that the jury wasn’t required to consider intent in order to convict him.

In his instructions to the jury in Shelton’s case, the trial judge told jurors that “to prove the crime of delivery of cocaine, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: that Mackle Vincent Shelton delivered a certain substance; and, that the substance was cocaine.” The state did not have to prove that he knew he was carrying or distributing cocaine or any controlled substance at all.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), which filed an amicus curiae brief in the case, pointed out that without the criminal intent requirement, “a Federal Express delivery person who unknowingly delivers a parcel containing a controlled substance, would be presumed a felon under Florida’s drug law.” Joining the NACDL in filing the brief, which was favorably cited by the court, were the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the ACLU of Florida, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Calvert Institute for Policy Research, and 38 professors of law.

Florida defense attorneys applauded the ruling, saying the impact could be huge. Several told the St. Petersburg Times they intended to file motions seeking dismissal of pending drug cases, citing the judge’s order.

“It has one of the largest potential effects on criminal law in the past decade,” said St. Petersburg lawyer Jeff Brown. “We’re talking hundreds of thousands of drug cases.”

“In declaring the statute unconstitutional on its face, it appears that all drug prosecutions in the state are at risk,” said Tampa defense lawyer Eddie Suarez.

That’s tough, said Tampa attorney James Felman, who represented Shelton. Legislators should not have written an unconstitutional law removing mens rea, he said. “It takes the presumption of innocence and throws it in the garbage can,” Felman said. “I think the legislature must immediately fix the statute,” he said. “This is not a close call. No state has ever done this before. Legally, it’s beyond the pale.”

“This is a victory for the most fundamental notions of fairness and justice in our system — the idea that no one should suffer a conviction unless the state proves criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt,” said NACDL executive director Norman Reimer. “As I previously said about this case, the country has been drifting away from the moral anchor of a clearly defined mens rearequirement in its criminal laws. Laws like these would run it aground.”

Orlando, FL

United States

by Phillip Smith, July 29, 2011, 03:49pm, (Issue #695)

source

VIDEO: How to Refuse a Police Search

You have the Right to Refuse a Police Search