I think "theft" is not only hyperbolic, it's also going to be damned near impossible to prove - if the idiot keeps his mouth shut.
At it's simplest, in order to prove an item was stolen you first have to establish that a particular person owned it prior to being stolen.
Yes, most property laws say that a property owner owns everything IN the ground along with anything ON it; that much is indisputable.
But the prosecution will be tasked with proving that the coins in the guy's pockets came from the owned property in question. If the guy claims he dug them at a site other than the owned site (perhaps even a "curb strip" at the property), then the prosecution has no rebuttal unless there is indisputable evidence to the contrary such as an eyewitness who saw him dig a particular coin from a particular spot on the owned property.
.
I'm not defending the guy's "trespass", and if "stupidity" were a crime he should have been charged with that in the first degree.
Fact is, if the guy had been forthcoming instead of lying about everything he probably would have just been told to leave or issued a summons for trespass. He got his own ass arrested, and rightfully so.
I'm no lawyer, but I have zero doubt that even a PD will get the theft charges thrown out with no trouble. Trespass is a done deal and the state won't want to waste time trying to prove theft for a few dirty coins - assuming said coins are the typical common pieces we dig up.
The kid will take a deal.Looks bad because lied about his Identity. I would of charged him with"interfering with a police investigation"and providing false statements" and "theft" and "trespassing"all 2C charges .
They don't care about the theft charge the just established probable cause for interviewing the suspect. They will throw out the theft but the other charges will stick
Theft of Movable property 2C:20-2
If someone is criminally indicted for theft, at trial the judge will read to the jurors the following jury instructions of the law:
The following charge is to be used when the factual circumstances indicate an unlawful taking of personal property and the value of the property is in dispute. In other instances, reference must be made to 2C:20-2b to determine the degree of theft. See Charge # 2.291 on GRADATION OF THEFT OFFENSES. Note that 2C:20-2b(2) makes some offenses of the third degree regardless of the value of the property).
The indictment charges the defendant with (here read the indictment) . The statute on which the indictment is based is 2C:20-3a which reads in its pertinent part as follows:
A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises control over movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof.
(If appropriate, here define "movable property, "property" and "property of another.")
You cannot find the defendant guilty unless you determine that the State has proven the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, the State must prove that the defendant unlawfully took (here describe property listed in indictment). In order to prove an unlawful taking, the State need not prove that the property was carried out of the place in which it was kept, but only that it was moved or taken from its original location. If the defendant is found with the stolen property shortly after it was taken, charge the jury that it may draw an inference that the defendant took the property).
