This case began on March 13, 2023, with the arrest of JOSE “N” while committing the alleged crime of theft at Home Depot, involving nine plants located in the outdoor plant area of the store.
However, at the time of his arrest, he claimed to the municipal police and store employees that he had already paid for the plants two days earlier. He explained that during a prior visit to the store to purchase construction materials, he had also paid for the nine plants. At the time of his arrest, however, he did not have the receipt. He claimed that he had left the plants at the store in the care of an employee, who had told him there was no problem with leaving them and returning to pick them up later.
Given the circumstances, Mr. JOSE “N” was arrested for the alleged theft of the plants and was presented to the Public Prosecutor, where he was charged with the crime of Qualified Theft from a Publicly Accessible Commercial Establishment.
After the initial hearing, he was released to continue his trial in freedom while waiting for the next hearing date for the formal charge.
When the date of the indictment hearing arrived, the Public Prosecutor offered Mr. JOSE “N” an Abbreviated Procedure. Articles 201 and 202 of the CNPP state that if the sentence does not exceed 5 years of imprisonment and the accused accepts responsibility for the crime, the Public Prosecutor will not seek imprisonment.
However, not satisfied with the offer from the Public Prosecutor, the hearing was postponed. Mr. JOSE “N” maintained his innocence, as he had indeed purchased the plants prior to his arrest, but he did not have the receipt to prove it. As his defense attorney, I repeatedly requested a reprint of the receipt from Home Depot, but store personnel denied our requests several times.
We also attempted to negotiate a reparation agreement with Home Depot’s Legal Representatives, but they repeatedly refused.
As a result, I sent multiple emails to Home Depot’s headquarters in Monterrey, Nuevo León, and to the U.S. headquarters, requesting their attention and hoping to facilitate a reparation agreement. Accepting the Public Prosecutor’s offer of an Abbreviated Procedure would have been unfair, as Mr. JOSE “N” would have had to plead guilty, leaving him with a criminal record for theft and potentially being required to report to the court monthly. This would have been unjust, given Home Depot’s refusal to reprint the receipt and assist in proving Mr. JOSE “N”‘s innocence.
After months of persistent attempts, Home Depot finally responded via email, agreeing to a reparation agreement, and the Public Prosecutor agreed not to pursue criminal action against JOSE “N”.
I would like to emphasize that we always believed in Mr. JOSE “N”’s innocence, and as criminal defense attorneys, our role was to prove it. The best solution in this case was to reach a reparation agreement, which resulted in Mr. JOSE “N” being absolved of all charges.
I must also point out that Mr. JOSE “N” now fully enjoys his freedom without any criminal record. My role as his private defense attorney was always to seek the best possible solution to help him obtain his full freedom, and through hard work and dedication, this was achieved.
