Proving Theft From a Store

Question

If the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, how could the plaintiff prove the defendant didn't pay for an item removed from a store.

From what I understand a negative can't be proven.

In this case isn't it always possible that the item was paid for, but the record of it isn't brought forward? How are we to take the word of the plaintiff on this matter that they aren't withholding evidence when no evidence exists?

I'm not actually concerned with the specifics here, but more so on how a case like this where everything lies in the absence of some event occurring is the cause of a crime is handled.

Answer 1

The need to prove a negative arises only from the way you've phrased the problem.

In the UK, theft is defined as—

1. dishonestly
2. appropriating
3. property
4. belonging to another
5. with the intention of permanently depriving its legitimate owner of it.

All five elements must be proved in order to secure a conviction for theft.

In the case of an item removed from a store, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that—

1. the defendant had a dishonest intent;
2. the defendant appropriated the item (treated it as his own);
3. the item was 'property' (straightforward in this case);
4. the item belonged to someone else (ditto); and
5. the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of it.

Clearly proving that the defendant left the shop without paying would be an important element in proving (2) and (5) above. Note that the prosecution must prove that he left without paying, not that he did not pay. In this example, the prosecution might adduce CCTV or witness evidence of defendant leaving without paying.

If the defendant did pay for the item but doesn't have a receipt, he can still give witness testimony in his own defence. The prosecution is unlikely to have strong evidence to the contrary if payment was in fact made. The totality of evidence, put before a jury or summary court, will be considered in the round when establishing guilt.

Answer 2

Prosecutor's evidence

Prosecutors prove theft with evidence. In this case, the most likely evidence would be:

1. Witness testimony
2. Video camera recording

Defendant's evidence

The defendant's goal at trial is to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge or jury.

Production of a purchase receipt by a defendant should be sufficient to create reasonable doubt for a judge or jury. If the defendant did not get a receipt or threw it away — stores keep records of every transaction via the checkout register. These records can be subpoenaed by the defendant for exculpatory purposes.

Answer 3

First you probably mean prosecution, not plaintiff because this is criminal. Second, I think you need to back up and consider why the person is being accused. It's a fact-specific hypothetical your are posing but in the hypothetical the accusation starts with someone seeing the theft. So the way stores prove it is either by an eye witness or recorded video. Then either the video or the testimony is used as evidence.

If you have an example of accusation where the theft is not witnessed then let's address that but you'll need to provide specific facts.

Also, as purely my opinion, the U.S. justice system is messed up and a lot of people are accused of things like shoplifting without sufficient evidence. However they don't know what evidence is against them and they are convinced to plead guilty by a prosecutor. It's not like a public defender spends any time requesting and reviewing evidence. It goes more like, "So this will be your third offense and if convicted you'll go to jail. But if you plead blah blah blah then you won't go to jail but blah blah blah."