It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Legal question: accuser lied to make charge worse

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:19 PM
Got a legal question:

Setting: Person A's pool and house; Person A is out of the country.
Person B says it's ok if friends use the pool.

Person C, Defendant 20 year old male, friend of Person B, uses the pool. He desperately needs to use the restroom so pops a window loose and enters the house to use the restroom. Returns to swimming.

When Person A returns from his trip he notices his window. Calls police and notifies them that his coin collection was stolen. Upon general questioning Person C becomes the suspect for Breaking and Entering and theft of the coins. He didn't steal the coins.

How should Person C defend himself? If it's his word against the home-owner how could he sway the jury? He has no prior run-ins with the law.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:26 PM
Yikes! Circumstantial evidence is not on his side. Person C should can be charged with breaking and entering without owner consent. The consent was for pool use only & that was it. I'm not real sure how I would defend Person C in this case.

Eye witness accounts can be taken to possibly drop the theft charge but I still think they would get charged with breaking and entering.
edit on 13-6-2013 by HawkeyeNation because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:29 PM
Well for one, did anyone else go inside the house? Was the window or doors left unlocked afterward? Anyone could have went in and taken the coins.

The best defence in my opinion is the character of the defendant. Does he work, come from a wealthy household, etc. Did he have any reason to steal the coins in the first place?

And the rest of the defence should come from the lawyer, questioning the detectives and the owner. So you didn't find my clients fingerprints in the room where the theft occurred! You didn't actually see him take the coins! The only thing linking my client is that he used the restroom! My client doesn't even have the coins in his possession!


Problem being if it's a breaking and entering charge, that might stick. Unless, person A leaves it to person B, which means they have the say in how the property is going to be looked after. Then person B says it's ok to pop the window open, working as the representative for person A.

Seems shaky even in that regard because sounds like person A said you can use the pool, not bust open my window to take a leak, (or get my coins stolen.)

Would be best if something could be reached outside of court. Even if the coins weren't stolen, the defendant has the incentive to cover the cost of them so charges are not prosecuted as a monetary value on that would most likely outweigh whatever the coins are worth.

In this case it sounds like coins may never have been stolen though. Did person C offer to fix the window and cover the cost? Because if not, they are a dumb.
edit on 13-6-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

Sound like you should've held off on taking a dump.

You broke into the house, there is no way around that.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:31 PM
I have a bad feeling someone is about to 'C' their way to a conviction on burglary. That's a bad situation and especially after the fact like this. It's almost impossible to really defend because illegal entry DID take place. The only question then becomes, did a coin collection get stolen or not? If so, by who? The breaking and entering sounds too clear cut though. No plea offer huh? Well..I guess not if the victim is claiming serious damage by the stolen coin set. Ouch!

Burglary or Trespass...I think that coin set makes the difference.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

This is NOT an Expert Opinion .. . .. . . ..

Once it is established that there was a breaking and entering, the Victim is NOT required to prove his case.

With the admission here that there was in fact a Breaking and Entering, the victim can say whatever he wants and it will be believed regardless.

That is just how the Law Rolls.

The Burden of Proof has already been met with the confession.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

Person C should have never been using the pool without permission from person A. Person B was the only person given that permission.

Person C should have NEVER broken into the home of person A, no matter what reason he thought was justifiable.

Person C is up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Good thing Person A didn't claim more damage than the missing coin collection.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 02:07 PM
Was the coin collection the only thing missing? If so, this certainly implies the thief knew what he was going for.
How many knew of it? Did man "C" know of it?

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

2[3] questions

What was wrong with B's restroom that C went to more effort to "pop a window " in A's house than was needed to simply walk the distance ? was getting to and from A's pool so difficult?

is A's collection insured?

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

One thing I am curious about though. .. . ..

Why didn't he just pee in the pool? Everyone else does. .. .. Or did they have that color changing water in there that chages color when you pee in the pool?


Also, what was the stated value of the coin collection?

edit on 13-6-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:20 AM
how would charges be laid if there was no proof? But if they were get a lawyer.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 04:54 AM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

Your scenario does not fit the title of the thread: "accuser lied to make charge worse."
What have you changed or left-out?

In this case, the "accuser" would be the state.
A is a witness, B is a witness.
A has no reason to "accuse" C of anything; he was not present. A will testify he gave B permission to use the pool (your scenario doesn't describe the relationship between A and B, so this is pure speculation).
B will say he gave C permission. No one gave C permission to enter the house.

Entering without permission of the owner is burglary.
A closed door/gate/window is evidence that a person's presence beyond that is not authorized, so it could be argued that entry is also trespass, as well.

As an aside, anyone who owns a pool also likely owns a security system and locks their windows and doors when away.

good luck in court.
edit on 9-11-2013 by jdub297 because: thread title

new topics

top topics


log in