The Case of The Overspending Husband

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury:

The Defendant is charged today with violating several crimes against his family's best financial interest. In violation of Jonesie Family Statutes, Chapter 13, Sections 101.1 through 103.5, Defendant made unnecessary purchases and overspent on those few purchases that may have been necessary. Rather than buy the most cost effective items, Defendant bought the most expensive items available.

The facts of this case are simple. Defendant, pictured here below, is in charge of all lawn care services for the Jonesie property. Realizing that he is talented in this area, Defendant made a proposal to his father. Defendant would provide lawn care services for his father's property, and would do so at a much more competitive price than what his father was currently paying. Defendant's father took him up on this offer.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's important to take a side bar here so that the State can get one thing clear. The State has no problem with Defendant's attempt to make more money for his family. In fact, the State fully supports this idea and realizes that in today's economy a Husband may have to get a little creative in order to provide for his family.

However, the Defendant did more than get creative. Defendant took this as an opportunity to go to Home Depot and spend recklessly and unnecessarily. Defendant purchased lawn care equipment that he has been doing without for years. Additionally, and to the State's bewilderment, Defendant purchased more luxurious items for tools that he already has.

Just a few of these items are pictured here, in Exhibit "A."

Exhibit A: Just a few of the items in Defendant's garage that he already has. Note that the two items marked with the yellow arrows are actually two tools that do the exact same thing.





In Exhibit B, you see Defendant with a backpack of some sort that blows away yard debris. Defendant already has such an item. Granted the other item did not go on his back, however, Defendant was perfectly fine holding the item before.





For those items that Defendant did need, like a hat and sunglasses, Defendant purchased the most expensive options.

Exhibit C- Defendant caught in the act, wearing expensive hat and glasses. Note the smile on Defendant's face, he is clearly enjoying all of his new toys.

Exhibit D- A passerby admires Defendant's fancy equipment.

The evidence is clear, Defendant is an over spender, purchases recklessly, and purchases unnecessarily. Rather than capitalize on his creativity, Defendant has eaten away at all of his profit and the family's extra income.

The State rests its case.