DeAngelis v. Jamesway Dept. Store, 205 N.J. Super. 519
(App. Div. 1985). A 30 to 45-minute detention is
reasonable. Liptak v. Rite Aid, Inc., 289 N.J. Super. 199,
217 (App. Div. 1996); Henry v. Shopper’s World, 200 N.J.
Super. 14, 18-19 (App. Div. 1985). When there is
probable cause for a merchant’s agent to search a suspect,
but the search reveals nothing, and the merchant
thereafter prosecutes the suspect, the merchant is subject
to a malicious prosecution lawsuit for prosecuting the
suspect without probable cause, since the existence of
probable cause was eliminated by the fruitless search.
Horn v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., 260 N.J. Super. 165
(App. Div. 1992), certif. den., 133 N.J. 435 (1993).
IV. DEFENSES
It is an affirmative defense that the property deprived
was not known to be that of another, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-
2c(1); N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7.1d, but is a crime to purposely
deprive the property of another where the identity of the
owner is known. N.J.S.A. 2C:20-6.
It is an affirmative defense that the property deprived
was subject to a claim of right. N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2c;
N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7.1d. Failure to instruct the jury
regarding this defense will result in reversal. State v.
Ippolito, 287 N.J. Super. 375 (App. Div.)(reversing
conviction of theft since defendant testified that co-
defendant informed him that defendant’s boss “okayed”
the removal of some lumber and the trial court failed to
instruct the jury regarding the claim of right affirmative
defense), certif. den., 144 N.J. 585 (1996). The
defendant, however, must show that the property taken
was his particular property, and not just property of
another taken as leverage against defendant’s property
that is possessed by another. State v. Mejia, 141 N.J. 475,
496-97 (1995).
Theft from a spouse is not a defense. N.J.S.A. 2C:20-
2d.
It is an affirmative defense to theft by extortion that
the property obtained was claimed as restitution or
indemnification for harm done in the circumstances or as
lawful compensation for property or services. N.J.S.A.
2C:20-5.
It is an affirmative defense that the receipt of stolen
property was with the purpose of restoring it to the
owner. N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7a. Failure to instruct the jury
regarding this defense will result in reversal. State v.
Underwood, 286 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div.
1995)(reversing conviction where defendant claimed
that he borrowed his friend’s car with an intent to return
it, and the trial court failed to instruct the jury that
defendant must be found guilty only if defendant formed
the intent to deprive the owner and instead urged the jury
not to worry about who stole the car and further failed to
instruct the jury regarding the restoration affirmative
defense).