Defense counsel for larceny, retail fraud, robbery, car theft, receiving stolen property, and false pretenses in Detroit and Wayne County. Early investigation, motion practice, and negotiation focused on protecting your record.

Detroit theft allegations range from store-based retail fraud to more serious felony accusations involving vehicles, force, or alleged schemes. These cases often turn on proof that a person intended to steal, intended to keep property, or knew property was stolen, rather than on the mere presence of property or a misunderstanding at the scene.

In Wayne County courts, theft cases are frequently built on surveillance video, loss-prevention reports, witness identifications, and police summaries that can omit critical context. Early review of the full video, incident reports, and discovery is the fastest way to locate inconsistencies, preserve favorable evidence, and frame motion issues.

Michigan theft statutes are value-driven, and value disputes routinely affect charging decisions, exposure, and negotiation posture. When value is unclear, a defense strategy often focuses on whether the prosecution can prove market value beyond a reasonable doubt and whether lesser charges or dismissals are appropriate.

A disciplined theft defense also addresses procedure. Suppression motions, challenges to probable cause, and careful litigation at the preliminary stage can narrow the case or change leverage, while well-supported negotiations can prioritize non-jail outcomes, deferred options when available, and record-protection planning.

Michigan Theft Charges, Evidence, and Procedure

Theft charges in Detroit range from misdemeanor retail fraud to high-stakes felony allegations involving vehicles, force, or alleged schemes. The statutes are not interchangeable, and the facts that matter depend on the specific charge. For example, general larceny and its value-based penalty structure are addressed in MCL 750.356 and MCL 750.356a, while retail fraud offenses are charged under MCL 750.356c and MCL 750.356d. Receiving or concealing stolen property requires proof of knowledge under MCL 750.535, and false pretenses focuses on intent to defraud under MCL 750.218. Robbery offenses add force or fear elements under MCL 750.529 and MCL 750.530, and vehicle-theft prosecutions commonly involve UDAA under MCL 750.413.

Across these cases, the prosecution must prove intent, identity, and legally admissible evidence. Theft intent is often inferred rather than admitted, which creates room to argue lawful purpose, permission, misunderstanding, or lack of knowledge, depending on the charge. Michigan appellate decisions recognize that larceny requires an intent to permanently deprive and that intent may be inferred from circumstances. People v Pratt, 254 Mich App 425, 427–428; 656 NW2d 866 (2002); People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 458; 628 NW2d 105 (2001).

Procedure matters early. Many theft cases begin with a stop, a search, or an interview where statements are taken quickly and evidence is collected before counsel is involved. A careful defense evaluates probable cause and the scope of searches, challenges defective warrant affidavits where appropriate, and litigates suppression issues that can decide the case without a trial. In felony-filed matters, early testimony at the preliminary examination can expose weaknesses, preserve inconsistencies, and narrow charges before bindover.

Finally, theft cases have collateral consequences that often exceed the immediate sentence, including employment, professional licensing, and immigration concerns. Effective strategy integrates litigation, negotiation, and mitigation, targeting outcomes that protect the client’s record, address restitution accurately, and avoid overbroad admissions. The right plan depends on the charge, the proof, and the client’s priorities, and it starts with an evidence-first review of the state’s case.

Why Choose William Maze As Your Criminal Defense Attorney?

As a Detroit criminal defense attorney, I provide specialized expertise in Detroit's court systems. I understand the specific procedures, judges, and prosecutors in Detroit courts, giving my clients a distinct advantage in their criminal defense cases.

Local Expertise:

• Knowledge of Detroit judges' preferences
• Experience with Detroit prosecutors
• Understanding of local court procedures
• Relationships with court personnel

Attorney Credentials:

• 28+ years Detroit experience
• Expert witness qualified
• Former CDAM President
• SFST certified instructor

William J. Maze, Esq.

Detroit Criminal Defense Attorney

Expert Witness 28+ Years