This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D went into a department store, took clothes from a rack, hid them in a bag, and took them to a cashier. Falsely claiming ownership of the clothes, D asked to exchange them for a cash refund. Store personnel had seen him hide the clothes and knew he had stolen them from the rack. The cashier completed the exchange as part of the store's plan to catch D. Security agents arrested D after he left the store with the money. In defense, D's fiancée said that on July 11, 1996, she asked him to return some items for her at the store. She had bought these items, including two skirts and a sweater, earlier. Edmundo Santos, her father, lent D his automobile that day so Dt could return the items for her. D argued he could not be convicted of completed theft of the skirts and sweater which he put into his bag and subsequently returned for a cash refund because he did not remove the clothes from the store. D argues that he did not intend to permanently deprive the store of the clothes. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.