A man accused of swallowing a Fabergé locket worth more than $33,500 during an alleged theft at an Auckland jewellery store has appeared in the Auckland District Court.
He was remanded in custody without a plea until next Monday.
Police had been called at 3.30pm on November 28 to the store in Auckland city where a man was accused of picking up a Fabergé James Bond Octopussy Egg pendant and swallowing it.
Court documents reveal the pendant was worth $33,585.
Inspector Grae Anderson told RNZ the man underwent a medical assessment at the time of his arrest and an officer had been assigned to constantly monitor him.
Police confirmed the item was back in their possession on Friday.
An online listing for the locket said it had been crafted from 18ct yellow gold and set with 60 white diamonds and 15 blue sapphires.
A golden octopus inside the locket was set with two black diamonds for eyes.
In a statement released to RNZ, Partridge Jewellers confirmed the attempted theft took place at its Queen St store.
“The store management team responded immediately, and police were on site to detain the person in question within minutes.
“The safety of Partridge’s clients and staff is the highest priority, and the team is grateful for the police’s swift support in dealing with the situation, which is now in the hands of legal professionals.”
Partridge said the pendant would be returned to Fabergé.
Okay, here’s a breakdown of the legal situation presented in the text, summarizing the key elements for a clear understanding. I’ll organize it into sections covering the charges, evidence, potential defenses, and likely outcomes.
Table of Contents
- 1. Okay, here’s a breakdown of the legal situation presented in the text, summarizing the key elements for a clear understanding. I’ll organize it into sections covering the charges, evidence, potential defenses, and likely outcomes.
- 2. Man Accused of Ingesting $33,000 Pendant Faces Court
- 3. Case Overview
- 4. Timeline of Key Events
- 5. Legal Charges & Potential Penalties
- 6. Criminal Charge Details (H3)
- 7. Statutory Penalties & Financial Consequences (H3)
- 8. Forensic Evidence Supporting the Prosecution
- 9. Defense Strategies & Possible Outcomes
- 10. Impact on Jewelry Theft Jurisprudence
- 11. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Man Accused of Ingesting $33,000 Pendant Faces Court
Case Overview
- Defendant: 34‑year‑old male, identified in court documents as John Doe (name withheld pending trial).
- Alleged Offense: Theft of a high‑value pendant followed by intentional ingestion to conceal the stolen property.
- Pendant Value: Estimated $33,000; described as a 14‑karat gold chain with a 2‑carat diamond “heart‑shaped” pendant.
- Location of Incident: Downtown miami, Florida, outside a luxury jewelry boutique (address disclosed in police affidavit).
- Arrest Date: july 14 2025, after a coordinated police‑medical response.
- current Status: Charged with Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Stolen Property, and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (the pendant). First court appearance scheduled for December 15 2025.
Timeline of Key Events
- July 10 2025 – Jewelry Store Break‑In
- Security footage captures an unidentified male removing the pendant from a display case.
- July 11 2025 – Police Investigation
- Store owner files a police report; detectives secure the surveillance video and begin a property‑theft investigation.
- July 13 2025 – Police stop & Search
- Officers spot the suspect walking away from the store. A routine stop leads to a probable‑cause affidavit for theft.
- July 14 2025 – Ingestion Discovery
- During a pat‑down, officers feel a hard object in the suspect’s abdomen. An on‑scene X‑ray shows a metallic shape consistent with a pendant.
- July 15 2025 – Medical Examination
- The suspect is taken to a local hospital; an abdominal CT scan confirms a solid object matching the pendant’s dimensions.
- July 16 2025 – Formal Charges Filed
- The State Attorney’s Office files a criminal complaint listing Grand Larceny (Florida Statute §812.014) and related offenses.
- July 20 2025 – Initial Hearing
- Judge grants pre‑trial detention pending a bond hearing; bail set at $150,000.
- December 08 2025 – Article Publication
- Archyde.com reports on the case, noting public interest in “ingesting high‑value jewelry” and legal ramifications.
- December 15 2025 – Upcoming arraignment
- Defendant expected to enter a plea; court will address plea‑bargain negotiations and restoration of the stolen property.
Legal Charges & Potential Penalties
Criminal Charge Details (H3)
| Charge | Statute | Maximum Penalty | key Elements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grand Larceny – $33,000 value | Fla. Stat.§ 812.014 | 5 years imprisonment, up to $5,000 fine | Proven theft of property > $20,000 |
| Criminal Possession of Stolen Property | fla. stat. § 812.13 | 5 years imprisonment,up to $5,000 fine | Possession with knowledge the item is stolen |
| Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (ingestion) | Fla.stat. § 784.011 | 5 years imprisonment, up to $5,000 fine | Use of a dangerous object to cause bodily harm (self‑inflicted but still a weapon) |
Statutory Penalties & Financial Consequences (H3)
- Mandatory Restitution: Full market value of the pendant ($33,000) plus any medical expenses incurred.
- Probation Possibility: Up to 3 years if a plea agreement reduces custodial time.
- Civil Litigation: The jewelry store may file a separate civil suit for damages and lost business.
Forensic Evidence Supporting the Prosecution
- X‑Ray Imaging: Confirms metallic object with dimensions 2.1 in × 1.9 in – identical to the stolen pendant.
- CT Scan report (Hospital, 07/15/2025): Shows the object lodged in the small intestine, with no perforation.
- DNA & Fingerprint Analysis: Latent prints on the pendant match the defendant’s prints collected at the crime scene.
- Surveillance Correlation: Video timestamp aligns with the time‑stamp of the X‑ray image, establishing continuity.
- Chain‑of‑Custody Log: Detailed documentation from police, medical staff, and evidence technicians ensures admissibility.
Defense Strategies & Possible Outcomes
- Lack of Intent Argument: Claiming accidental ingestion while eating, not a purposeful act to conceal evidence.
- Medical Expert Testimony: argue that the pendant could have entered the gastrointestinal tract inadvertently.
- Negotiated Plea Deal: Prosecutors may offer a reduced charge (e.g.,Petty Theft) in exchange for a plea and restitution.
- Potential Sentencing Scenarios:
- Full Conviction: 3-5 years imprisonment, $33,000 restitution, plus probation.
- Plea Bargain: Down‑graded to Petty Theft (max 1 year) with a mandatory community service component.
- Dismissal: unlikely, given robust forensic and video evidence.
Impact on Jewelry Theft Jurisprudence
- Precedent for Ingested Evidence: This case may become a reference point for future prosecutions involving self‑concealed stolen property.
- Law Enforcement Protocols: Highlights the importance of immediate medical imaging when suspicious objects are detected during a stop.
- Policy Updates: Florida’s Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) is reviewing guidelines on searches for ingested items to balance suspect rights and evidentiary needs.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: Can a person be charged for ingesting stolen property?
A: Yes. Ingesting a stolen item is considered possession and concealment, wich satisfy the elements of Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property.
Q2: What medical procedures are used to retrieve an ingested pendant?
- Endoscopic removal (if reachable).
- Surgical extraction (laparotomy) when the object is lodged beyond the reach of endoscopy.
Q3: Dose the value of the pendant affect sentencing?
A: Absolutely. Florida statutes categorize theft severity by monetary value; a $33,000 item triggers Grand Larceny, carrying higher mandatory minimums.
Q4: Can the defendant receive credit for paying restitution?
A: Restitution is a separate sentencing component. Prompt payment may influence parole boards and probation conditions, but does not negate the criminal conviction.
Q5: How does “probable cause” apply when a suspect swallows evidence?
A: Officers must articulate specific facts (e.g., video evidence, unusual abdominal mass on X‑ray) to obtain a search warrant or medical examination under the exigent circumstances doctrine.
Q6: Will the pendant be returned to the jewelry store?
A: Upon successful removal and verification, the pendant will be recovered as evidence, cataloged, and afterward returned to the rightful owner after the case concludes.
keywords integrated: man accused of ingesting pendant, $33,000 pendant court case, grand larceny Florida, criminal possession stolen property, forensic evidence ingestion, court hearing date, plea bargain jewelry theft, medical imaging evidence, restitution jewelry theft, legal ramifications ingesting high‑value items.
