By Madison Whittemore and Sophia Barberini
WOODLAND, CA – “All it takes is an innocent mistake to turn a petty theft into a wrongful conviction for a grand theft,” Deputy Public Defender Jose Gonzalez told the jury here in his closing statement in Yolo County Superior Court Wednesday, arguing that, while his client, who recently lost his job, did admit to theft, the theft did not meet the standards of grand theft.
The jury later returned as a hung jury on Count 1 and with a guilty verdict on count 2.
The accused was charged with grand theft and possession of a controlled substance for allegedly stealing a cart of items from a Nugget Market and having methamphetamines on his person in late December 2022.
Deputy District Attorney Jing Ko presented her closing argument first, highlighting evidence from testimony provided by a Nugget Market employee.
DDA Ko explained the accused took merchandise from Nugget Market without the “consent” of Nugget Market, claiming, “It is very clear. We have direct evidence of that and we have evidence through testimonies from the loss prevention officer.”
DDA Ko also argued that the accused had the intent to steal the items from the store, explaining the accused walked out of the market with the cart full of merchandise.
When asked by the Nugget “loss prevention officer” why the accused took the items, the officer said “something to the effect of ‘I’ve been laid off,’” stated DDA Ko.
DDA Ko also referenced a similar uncharged offense that happened in May 2022 at a casino as evidence of the accused’s intent to steal the items in this case.
DDA Ko explained the decade-long experience of the loss prevention officer at Nugget Market, who spotted the accused stealing the items, and his testimony of witnessing the accused walking out of the store with the cart of items.
According to DDA Ko, the value of the stolen items to qualify as grand theft has to be above $950, explaining “The fair market value of the property taken was over [$]950,” which she provided a receipt to verify.
DDA Ko also described the accused’s possession of methamphetamines, referencing body camera footage from the arresting officer, adding the officer found a syringe in the accused’s jacket, which the accused initially claimed did not belong to him, and had liquid that tested positive for meth.
DDA Ko addressed the jury and concluded, “I am asking you to do what you promised to do, under oath, and that is to treat everybody equally and fairly and do not let your emotions and sympathy get in the way of that.”
DPD Gonzalez presented his closing argument, claiming that while the accused may have committed theft, it does not qualify as grand theft.
“It’s unfortunate that [the accused] got laid off, that he felt so desperate for groceries that he did what he did, and I want to point out that his shopping cart was overwhelmingly food and other household items, a lot of perishables,” began DPD Gonzalez.
DPD Gonzalez continued, “It’s not like there’s a black market for stolen butter,” suggesting to jurors the items in the cart, which he presented a photo of for the jury, and on the receipt, were items the accused was likely to consume for himself.
DPD Gonzalez did acknowledge that some of the items present on the receipt and in the photograph of the cart, like nice bottles of wine and flowers, were “unnecessary.” However, continued DPD Gonzalez, it was Christmas, and he may have been taking those items for himself or as gifts for somebody else.
No matter the intention, acknowledged DPD Gonzalez, “It’s still theft. It’s just not, what was proven in this case, grand theft.”
DPD conceded to the accused’s intent to commit the theft, but stated again the accused “did not commit a grand theft.”
To support his argument that the accused did not commit grand theft, DPD Gonzalez turned to the receipt generated to determine the monetary value of the items taken by the accused, emphasizing that certain items “were scanned twice, but not in a row,” pointing to the potential for human error by the Nugget Market employee scanning the items.
DPD Gonzalez continued that there were estimated to be 84 items on the receipt, but looked at photograph of the cart and asked the jury disbelievingly, “Are there 84 items in this cart?”
Moreover, explained DPD Gonzalez, some of the items on the receipt could not be seen in the picture of the cart, nor could it be determined what some of the items were by the receipt description.
DPD Gonzalez also argued that the man DDA Ko identified as a loss prevention officer, who testified in court to the theft and provided the receipt of the stolen items, was actually the person in charge (PIC) at the Nugget Market, not the loss prevention officer.
“Who’s to say that he didn’t make a mistake? Who’s to say that he accidentally rang up any of those items that you see twice?” asked DPD Gonzalez.
DPD Gonzalez continued, “You wouldn’t have to guess about any of this if Nugget had just given us the obvious,” claiming that if the store had provided cameras at the checkout stands, where the PIC scanned the items, or of the accused stealing the items, the jury would not have to rely on the potentially inaccurate receipt to determine if the accused is guilty of grand theft.
“All it takes is an innocent mistake to turn a petty theft into a wrongful conviction for a grand theft,” stated DPD Gonzalez, highlighting the commonality of items being scanned twice at stores.
DPD Gonzalez also highlighted some math discrepancies present on the receipt, explaining that the accumulation of item costs, taxes, and fees on the receipt does not equal the total cost on the receipt which was approximately $976.
Instead, DPD Gonzalez calculated, it accumulated to approximately $943, a discrepancy of $32.89, “for which there is no evidence, no explanation, nothing whatsoever,” stated DPD Gonzalez.
“So there’s so many issues with this receipt,” argued DPD Gonzalez, “it poses a problem (because it is) the prosecution’s basically only evidence that [the accused] committed a grand theft… it literally does not add up (to the $950 minimum needed to make the case grand theft).”
DPD Gonzalez also conceded the accused did have drugs on his person and claimed that the accused’s first instinct was to claim that the jacket was not his.
“There is a very important point to all of this evidence,” concluded DPD Gonzalez, “[the accused] did not commit grand theft. None of the evidence that we heard in this case supports that. What you got is that [the accused] stole something, but the value of that thing is under $950, and that’s a petty theft. The prosecution’s case literally does not add up, so return the verdicts that you will but [the accused] is not guilty of a grand theft.”
DDA Ko took the opportunity for rebuttal, claiming the defense was encouraging the jury to speculate.
“You can sit there and speculate all day, but my job here is to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt…nowhere in jury instructions [does] it say I have to prove exactly what the defendant took,” said DDA Ko.
DDA Ko argued, “there is no evidence whatsoever that this amount [on the receipt] is fabricated or that the machine wasn’t working correctly.”
“We do have a copy of the receipt here that shows it is [$]976.69, and that is above the [$]950 threshold,” declared DDA Ko.
