Legal Commentary

Lindsay Lohan and Grand Theft Necklace

By Jeralyn

So it appears Lindsay Lohan was captured on camera at the jewelry store wearing the exact $2,500 necklace she will be charged with grand theft this afternoon in court in LA. Her assistant returned the necklace to the police before the search warrant for her house was executed.

So: One of a few things happened: Lindsay tried on the necklace, liked it, and told her assistant to make the arrangements for her to have it on a loaner basis --and the assistant forgot and didn't tell the store. So the store, not having the lending paperwork filled out, thought it had been stolen. Second case scenario: Lindsay tried on the necklace and it is so light she didnt' realize she still had it on when she left the shop. As soon as she was told the police were going to do a search warrant, she told her friend to bring it back Third case scenario, Lindsay tried on the necklace to see if it would go with a specific outfit she had at home. She asked the salesgirl if she could take it home to match with the outfit, promising to return to either buy it or return it. She had other things on her mind for a few days and forgot, and as soon as the news of a search warrant surfaced, she had her assistant return it.

Whichever one it is, it sounds like Lindsay will say (1) borrowing jewelry is her and everyone else's customary practice and stars have assistants to deal with the paperwork; she never intended to permanently deprive the store of the necklace (I bet we'll hear that once she wore it at home with her clothes she decided and asked for it to be returned -- maybe even say she told her aide to return it. [More...]

I don't know about California law, but every other jurisdiction I can think of requires the perp to have intended to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the property. So if her aide falls on her sword and testifies, yes , Lindsay told me to tell the storeowner, it's how we do these things, and I forgot, and then Lindsay told me to return it as soon as she learned the aide didn't follow Linday's instructions and then fired the aide, she maybe has a defense.

Even though the charge will be a felony, Lindsay could get off with a plea to a lesser misdemeanor charge and probation to run concurrent with her current probation.Or the Judge could terminate her concurrent probation early, and put her on probation for the necklace as a way of keeping tabs on her a few more years. I'd bet 90 to 1 she doesn't get a state prison sentence out of this. At most, probation with a smidgen of county jail time, followed by probation.

Also, California allows judges to reduce felonies to misdemeanors if the person complies with probation. That's what happened with Wynona Ryder I attended a day of Wynona's trial and it was clear to me she was not going to jail, despite stealing $6,000. of merchandise.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on February 09, 2011 (boomark / email).