I had to debate 11 other people. It sucked
To clarify for the rules, the case has concluded and I am no longer a juror
The crime: Larceny of a person (felony)
The facts of the case: a woman walks into a gas station and uses an atm machine. After she uses her card on the atm she realizes she misplaced her purse/wallet and turns her back on the atm (and the money) and approaches the cashier counter which is about 4-5 feet away from the atm. When her back is turned a man walks into the store approach the atm and puts the money in his pocket. The woman turns around the same time the man puts the money in her pocket.
The debate: one of the required elements is that the property is either connected to victim or “right next to the victim”. Since the victim was definitely further than arms length and that she didn’t even notice when the defendant first made contact with the money I felt there was reasonable doubt. Every other jury vehemently disagreed. I didn’t even get close to convincing another juror. In the end I felt the victim and the property was close enough where I could justify a guilty verdict in good conscience. Just because the defendant was guilty of something all the other jurors seemed willing to just rubber stamp the conviction.
I’m very curious what is your definition of “right next to”