Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

People v. Ingram

California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District
76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 553 (1998)


Thomas Ingram (defendant) was standing in the men's department of a San Diego Nordstrom Rack store (Nordstrom). Ingram took a pair of pants from the rack and went to the refund counter. One of Nordstrom's loss-prevention agents saw Ingram put the pants into a bag and subsequently remove the price sticker from the pants. The loss-prevention agent telephoned the refund clerk and told her to accept Ingram's return and have Ingram sign the return documents. The loss-prevention agent then telephoned another agent for assistance and went to stand in the refund line behind Ingram. The agent heard Ingram tell the clerk that he had received the pants as a gift, but they were the wrong size. The clerk processed the return and gave Ingram cash for the pants. As Ingram was walking out of the store, the loss-prevention agents stopped Ingram, questioned him, and eventually turned him over to the police. Ingram was charged with petty theft with a prior theft conviction. After the prosecution (plaintiff) presented its case at trial, Ingram's counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the petty-theft charge. Ingram's counsel argued that the prosecution's case focused on a theory of theft by false pretenses, but an element of this crime was missing because the refund clerk did not actually rely on Ingram's representations in giving him the refund. Although the trial court agreed, the court denied the motion because there was sufficient evidence to convict Ingram of theft by larceny, i.e., that Ingram acted with intent to steal the pants for money or to take the pants if the clerk had denied him a refund. The prosecutor then adopted this larceny theory and used it in his closing argument. A jury convicted Ingram, and he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison under California's three-strikes law. Ingram appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Haller, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 489,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 489,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial