Denver County Court acquits shopper of shoplifting over tote allegedly carried under coat

Denver County Court found Elise Warren not guilty of shoplifting and dismissed the charge after the People of the State of Colorado sought a conviction over a $24 tote. The court concluded that the People had not proved she intended to take it without paying.

The dispute turned on two competing accounts: prosecutors said the tote's reported position beneath Warren's coat supported an inference of deliberate taking; the defense said she had forgotten it and offered to pay. The judge found that neither account was independently established at the hearing.

The judgment said the parties' submissions were not sworn testimony or independent proof. No exhibit, witness testimony or other independent record was presented at the hearing.

Reliable evidence that an unpaid tote was deliberately concealed beneath Warren's coat as she left could have supported the People's argument about intent, the judge explained. But the hearing record did not establish those circumstances, so an inference drawn from them could not substitute for proof.

The judge also declined to treat the claimed offer to pay as an established event. That gap did not shift the burden to Warren: the People had to prove the required elements of the charge, and Warren did not have to prove that she forgot the tote.

The People argued that Warren left with the unpaid tote beneath her coat and that its placement supported an inference of intent to steal. They said an offer to pay after a clerk intervened would not settle what she intended when she left.

Prosecutors acknowledged that the hearing record identified no person who saw both the tote beneath Warren's coat and her departure without paying, and that no independent evidence established those circumstances. They nevertheless maintained their request for a conviction.

The defense argued that Warren forgot the tote, stopped when the clerk spoke to her and offered to pay. It said the People had not proved intent and asked for a not-guilty finding and dismissal.

The case record describes Warren paying for a notebook before the disputed departure. It also identifies a notebook receipt that did not list the tote, but the judgment states that no exhibit was presented at the hearing.

Warren's account was that she could not remember whether she ultimately paid for the tote after offering to do so. The judgment did not resolve that question or establish either side's account of the encounter; it resolved the charge because the required intent was not proved. No payment was ordered.