Could this really be used in a Criminal Case as evidence to convict?

Question

OK the scenario is that there are 2 roommates. One woman has some cash stashed inside the home. One day she happens to just check it and it's there were she put it. Her roommate is home as she leaves for the store for a bit. She comes home and her roommate is gone. She goes to get some of the money and it's all gone.

Now here's the deal. A friend of mine and myself were discussing this and he said that she could prove that her roommate stole the money by writing a statement of exactly what happened as above (he also said that it would have to be written just right). Then call the police and submit the statement as evidence for conviction. Keep in mind that the roommate (accused) is the only other person who has the key. There is no evidence of breaking and entering. Can this be used for conviction?

I thought that evidence had to be clear and cut or otherwise 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to convict. I don't see how a signed afidavit stating what happened could be used as evidence. How does this prove that the roommate stole the money for sure? My friend says that it's enough to convict because of the circumstances and that the roommate would be found quilty. I find this to be outlandish. If true that means that anybody could do this and convict a totally inocent person and put just about any dollar amount on it. If that's the case wouldn't everybody be doing that to everyone? What? True?

Answer 1

First of all, her affidavit could not be used in court because it is hearsay. Her oral description of what happened might be enough for the police to investigate, and the affidavit would be superfluous. If the police did not find actual evidence that the roommate committed the theft, that would be the end of it. The mere fact that the money was gone and so was the roommate is not evidence, it is only coincidence, and as you said, is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the roommate committed a crime.

Answer 2

The evidence would be her testimony in court, not the out-of-court statement.  Is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt?  Not to me.  A jury would have to decide.  The roommate with the cash probably cannot demonstrate how much cash she had, when it was there, and when it was gone.

Answer 3

ok the rules of evidence are different for different types of cases.

criminal cases are usually: Beyond a reasonable doubt

Then there is clear and convincing: the highest level

Civil is usually: preponderance

Beyond means that a reasonable person would have to believe the person committed a crime

Preponderence means that the plaintiff must make the judge or jury believe their story a scintilla more than the other persons. just a little more believable than the defendants.

my suggestion is that you will not be able to prove the money was stolen unless:

a. you called the police immediately after and told them you had been victim of theft or robbery or buglary and had them come make a police report.

b. you would have needed them to make note that the doors did not appear to have been broken or opened without key and such as that.

i doubt this would be able to be proven.

in civil court you could probably make a little more progress in proving she is who took it. you would need to file the petition and bring up pictures of the doors and how they are not broken. a police report always helps, to prove there was a complaint made,

other evidence you could use would be maintence records from your apt or house management that shows you have not had the doors or door locks replaced. help authenticate the pictures of the locks.

Answer 4

WARNING this person is a Li er I tried to Help Her She sucked me into a sick game She is conning people. The only advice I have for Her is to talk to a lawyer.

Answer 5

No, the written statement of the victim is not enough to get a conviction for a crime.  It would not be admissible in court, and the accused would be entitled to a trial by jury.  The victim would have to come an testify in person, and the jury would have to believe her, and if they believed that there were no other possible circumstances that could have accounted for the missing money then the circumstantial evidence could be enough to convict.  

In your story, the roommate is not in when the victim returns.  She could have left the door open by mistake when leaving, and someone came into the apartment, took the money and left, locking the door as they did.  Or the victim could be lying.  Either way, if the defense can't get enough "reasonable doubt" as to the guilt of the accused, they would have to return a verdict of not guilty.

It is unlikely that any prosecutor would try a case with as much doubt as that story.  Unless there were video cameras on the apartment, so that one could be sure no one else entered there would be no trial.  

But, if you want to keep your apartment, don't steal from your roommate.  Even if you are not convicted, you might have to move.

Good Luck

Answer 6

I would say no, because it is hearsay. You cannot prove that she is the one who took the money and not the owner of it who claims it is missing/stolen. And how much money are we talking here, is this really going to be worth the effort and will put her in jail for years? Tell your friend to keep her money with her or in a financial institution that's FDIC insured.

Answer 7

Yes, it can be used.

It's called circumstantial evidence.

In this case, the room-mate had knowledge of the money, knowledge of its location, exclusive access (opportunity) and fled the scene (guilty mind behaviour).

The affidavit at least establishes a prima facie case that the roomate has to answer.  If the Judge doesn't believe her explanation, he could find that she was guilty.

Answer 8

& the advice i give meggie is to go **** herself .