## Facts

- David Smith entered a convenience store carrying a large portable radio and selected three pieces of bubble gum worth $0.15.
- Smith put the gum in his pocket, selected additional items, and went to the checkout counter.
- Before any sale was completed and before Smith left the store, the store manager stopped him, accused him of shoplifting, and called police.
- Smith was charged with shoplifting under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11 based on concealment of the gum with intent to deprive the merchant of its retail value.
- Smith moved pretrial to dismiss the prosecution as a de minimis infraction under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-11(b), asserting the conduct was trivial and did not threaten the harm the shoplifting law addresses.

## Issues

1. Whether prosecuting concealment-based shoplifting of merchandise worth $0.15 should be dismissed under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-11(b) as de minimis because the conduct was too trivial or did not actually cause or threaten the harm targeted by the shoplifting statute.
2. Whether, on a de minimis motion, the court may resolve disputed facts bearing on the defendant’s intent to steal.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-11(b).
- The court held the alleged conduct was not de minimis because intentional concealment with the proscribed intent implicates the harm the shoplifting statute seeks to prevent, even when the item’s value is minimal.
- The court ruled that a de minimis motion is not a procedure for adjudicating innocence; it must be decided on the State’s account of the offense and uncontroverted facts of record.
- The shoplifting offense, as charged, was treated as complete upon concealment with intent under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11(b)(2); leaving the store is not required.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-11(b), a court may dismiss a prosecution only when, considering the conduct and surrounding circumstances, the conduct did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the offense definition, or did so only to a degree too trivial to warrant conviction.
- Shoplifting by concealment under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11(b)(2) is complete upon purposeful concealment of merchandise with intent to deprive the merchant; asportation is unnecessary.
- Trivial monetary value alone does not establish that charged shoplifting conduct fails to threaten the harm targeted by the statute; the harm includes the broader impact of shoplifting beyond the price of a single item.
- A de minimis motion does not permit the court to try disputed issues of guilt (including intent) that contradict the State’s charging allegations.

## Conclusion

The court refused to dismiss a shoplifting-by-concealment prosecution involving $0.15 of merchandise because, assuming the State’s allegations, the conduct fell within the core harm the shoplifting statute is designed to deter, and the de minimis statute did not authorize dismissal based solely on minimal value or disputed claims of innocent intent.


State v. Smith, 195 N.J. Super. 468, 480 A.2d 236 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1984)