P. v. Brown CA3
After a failed attempt to steal socks from a shoe store, defendant Ronald Brown returned to the store a short time later and stole several shoes. He was charged with robbery and criminal threats arising from the shoes incident. Defendant contends the prosecution violated his due process rights by failing to clearly communicate its election of the underlying act for the lesser included petty theft charge, i.e., the charged shoes incident versus the uncharged socks incident. Defendant maintains the jury could have found him guilty of petty theft relating to the socks incident, and if so, he was denied his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict by the unclear election.
Comments on P. v. Brown CA3