## Facts

- Ellen M. Hugo entered a Pay ‘N Save store in Fairbanks carrying a purse, a small tote bag, and a paper sack with shoes she had already bought.
- Hugo selected multiple items of store merchandise and placed some or all of them into her bags.
- Hugo left the store without paying for the merchandise.
- Store security personnel stopped Hugo after she exited; the unpaid merchandise was recovered.
- At a bench trial, Hugo contended she lacked wrongful intent because she planned to return later and pay for the items.
- Hugo was convicted under a Fairbanks municipal shoplifting ordinance prohibiting taking goods “with the intent to deprive the seller of such goods without paying their purchase price.”

## Issues

1. Whether the ordinance required proof that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the merchant of the goods, as in common-law larceny.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hugo intended to “deprive” the seller within the meaning of the ordinance, despite her claim she planned to return and pay.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the ordinance does not require intent to permanently deprive; it is enough that the defendant intended to take merchandise without paying its purchase price at the time of removal.
- The court held the evidence supported the required intent because Hugo exited the store with unpaid merchandise, and the trial judge could reject her explanation that she intended to return and pay.

## Legal Principles

- A municipal shoplifting ordinance may define “intent to deprive” to include intent to remove goods from a retail establishment without paying at the time of taking, without requiring proof of permanent deprivation.
- Intent may be inferred from conduct such as concealing/carrying merchandise and leaving the store past the point of sale without payment.
- On appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence, the court does not reweigh credibility; it asks whether a rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the record.

## Conclusion

The court construed Fairbanks’ shoplifting ordinance to require proof that the defendant intended to remove merchandise without paying at that time, not that the defendant intended never to pay, and it affirmed Hugo’s conviction because her exit with unpaid goods permitted a finding of the required intent.


Hugo v. City of Fairbanks, 658 P.2d 155 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983)