State v. Leyda
Washington Supreme Court
138 P.3d 610 (2006)
- Written by Kaitlin Pomeroy-Murphy, JD
Facts
On October 21, 2002, Steven Leyda (defendant) had the credit card of woman named Cynthia Austin. Leyda gave the credit card to his girlfriend, Nikkoleen Cooley, who used it to purchase items at the Bon Marché store in the SeaTac Mall. The couple returned to the store two more times to purchase different items with Austin’s credit card. On November 2, 2002, Cooley attempted to use the card at the Bon Marché for the fourth time. The cashier suspected it was stolen. He contacted the Bon Marché Loss Prevention Department and requested that Cooley show identification. Cooley said her identification was in the car, and she and Leyda left the store with Austin’s card. Meanwhile, Cynthia Austin was contacted and informed of the situation. She told the Bon Marché employee that she had not given her credit card to anyone to use. Not long after, Leyda and Cooley were stopped by police and arrested. Leyda was charged and convicted of four counts of identity theft for the four separate uses of Austin’s credit card. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Leyda appealed to the state supreme court on the basis that his multiple identity-theft convictions violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alexander, C.J.)
Dissent (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.