Reference no: EM133809677

Question 

As an appellate judge, I must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the asportation of the cigarette packages found on the store's floor. Asportation refers to the act of moving or carrying away property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it, a critical element in proving larceny. In this case, while the store's window was broken and cigarette packages were found scattered on the floor, the key issue is whether A moved or took the packages from their original location. The prosecutor's theory is that A entered the store, grabbed multiple cigarette packages, and unintentionally dropped some on his way out. The fact that A was found with several cigarette packages on his person provides evidence that he did indeed take some items. However, the prosecutor must establish that the packages found on the floor were part of the same theft, meaning they were also moved by A, even if inadvertently. The store owner's testimony that he did not leave cigarette packages on the floor when he locked up that night suggests that the items found on the floor were not placed there prior to the break-in. This supports the theory that A was responsible for both the packages found on the floor and the ones on his person. Though there is no direct evidence that A moved all the packages on the floor, the circumstantial evidence and the store owner's testimony make it plausible that these items were part of the theft, supporting the conviction.