ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION

MEMORANDUM

To: Ms. Kathleen Bailey

From: [Name]

Date: [Date]

Re: Grand Larceny Charge Analysis for Aaron Stevens

QUESTION PRESENTED

Can the facts of Aaron Stevens' case sustain a charge of grand larceny under the relevant penal law?

BRIEF ANSWER

Based on the provided facts, it is unlikely that a charge of grand larceny will be sustained. The elements of grand larceny require the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. Given Aaron's immediate cessation of the attempt and his admission of not using force, the elements of grand larceny may not be fully satisfied.

FACTS

Aaron Stevens is a 30-year-old with a history of drug abuse and multiple pending pickpocket cases, who attempted to steal from Nina Lippmann's purse. On January 7th, he was apprehended after Nina and her friend Anna screamed, alerting a nearby police officer. At arraignment, Aaron refused a plea bargain. The case was transferred to the Supreme Court, Criminal Division, where Ms. Bailey is now representing him. Aaron admits to the attempt but insists on his non-violent intentions and desire for rehabilitation. The DA's office will not renew the plea offer, and the case will be bench-tried before a compassionate judge.

DISCUSSION

Under New York Penal Law 155.30, grand larceny in the fourth degree involves stealing property directly from a person. The essential elements include the intent to deprive the owner permanently and the actual taking or attempted taking of the property. In People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309 (1981), the court emphasized the necessity of intent and successful appropriation of the property.

In Aaron's case, the facts suggest that while he attempted to steal, he did not complete the act, nor did he use force. His immediate retreat upon being discovered and his subsequent statements indicate a lack of intent to permanently deprive Nina of her property forcibly. Moreover, Aaron's history and current circumstances (desire for rehabilitation) might sway the judge's view on his intent.

CONCLUSION

The elements of grand larceny appear not to be fully met in Aaron Stevens' case. While the attempt to steal was present, the absence of force and Aaron's immediate cessation undermine the necessary intent for grand larceny. Therefore, it is advisable to argue for a reduction of charges or seek alternatives that consider Aaron's intent and circumstances.