## Facts

- Thomas Ingram entered a Nordstrom Rack store and removed a pair of pants from the sales floor.
- He placed the pants in a Saks Fifth Avenue bag, removed the price sticker, and went to the refund counter to obtain cash.
- A loss-prevention agent observed the conduct and instructed the refund clerk to process the return so security could apprehend Ingram after the transaction.
- Ingram told the clerk he received the pants as a gift and that they were the wrong size.
- The clerk processed the refund and gave Ingram cash pursuant to loss-prevention directions, not because she believed Ingram’s explanation.
- As Ingram exited, store security stopped him; he tore up and swallowed the receipt.
- The prosecution presented evidence of other similar refund transactions involving Ingram at other stores and testimony describing his practice of returning unpurchased merchandise for cash.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported theft by false pretenses when the store processed the refund as part of a controlled apprehension and did not rely on the defendant’s misrepresentations.
2. Whether the theft conviction could be upheld on a larceny (or larceny-by-trick) theory where store personnel knew of the scheme and consented to the transaction.
3. Whether the appellate court could treat the verdict as a conviction for attempted theft when the case was charged and tried as completed theft.

## Decision

- The court reversed the conviction for petty theft with a prior and directed entry of a judgment of acquittal on that count.
- The court affirmed the commercial burglary conviction.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient for theft by false pretenses because the victim did not transfer property in reliance on the misrepresentation.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient for larceny because the store’s knowledge and assent to the transaction eliminated the required trespassory taking.
- The court rejected a theory that Ingram intended to take the pants if a refund was denied as speculative on this record.
- The court declined to recharacterize the verdict as attempted theft where the pleadings and instructions did not present attempt to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Theft by false pretenses requires proof that the victim actually relied on the defendant’s false representation in deciding to transfer property (including title).
- Larceny requires a trespassory taking; when the owner (through agents) knows of and consents to the transfer to facilitate apprehension, the trespass element is absent.
- Appellate affirmance on an alternative theft theory requires evidentiary support for each element of that theory; speculation about unexecuted fallback plans cannot supply missing elements.
- A reviewing court generally may not convert a completed-theft conviction into an attempt conviction when attempt was not submitted to the jury under the charging and instructional framework.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the theft conviction because a staged refund transaction lacked the victim reliance required for false pretenses and the owner’s informed consent defeated larceny’s trespass requirement, while leaving the burglary conviction intact.


People v. Ingram, 65 Cal. App. 4th 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)