New Jersey Criminal Defense Blog

On February 2, 2007 the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey reversed a lower court’s conviction for the disorderly persons offense of shoplifting in violation of New Jersey’s Code of Criminal Justice. A New Jersey man had returned to a drug store to pick up film that he had dropped off to be developed. He was dissatisfied with the initial development of the film because the date did not appear on the film as he had requested. Upon returning to the store to retrieve the developed film he was still dissatisfied because he had requested double prints, and the store had only produced a single set of prints. The man took the single set of photographs from the store without paying for them. He left his name and address on a piece of paper with the store attendant and walked out of the store.

The store’s manager called the local police and the man was charged with shoplifting. During the trial, the defendant testified that he intended to pay for the prints, but that the store had tried to charge him for double prints when they had only provided him with single prints. He testified that he had every intention of paying for the prints if the store would have provided him with double prints. The defendant went on to argue during the trial that he was not shoplifting because he had every intention of paying for the prints at a later date which is why he left his contact information with a store employee before he left the store. The defendant claimed that there was merely a “billing dispute.” The defendant also argued that the prints were not “merchandise,” because they were of no value to anyone other than himself.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the lower court’s conviction and concluded that the shoplifting statute was inapplicable to this case. The higher court agreed with the defendant that the prints are not “merchandise,” and that prints “have no market value, but merely their value to the photographer.” The higher court also ruled that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not intend to pay for the prints he removed from the store. By leaving his contact information before exiting the store, the defendant indicated that he intended to resolve the billing dispute at a later time. He did not leave the store with “the intention of converting the same to his own use without ‘paying the merchant the full retail value thereof.’”

If you have been charged with shoplifting or a similar offense, please contact an attorney at the firm of Lependorf & Silverstein, P.C. for a free case evaluation. As this article demonstrates, it is often difficult for the state to prove its case against defendants whom they have charged. There are many defenses that can be raised. Please call today for a case evaluation with an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney.