Larceny

Question 1

Larceny Elements

Answer 1

(1) taking (caption);
(2) and carrying away (asportation);
(3) of tangible personal property;
(4) Of another;
(5) By trespass;
(6) With intent to permanently (or for an unreasonable time) deprive the person of her interest in the property

Question 2

Property that May be subject of Larceny

Answer 2

Personal Property.
Common law: documents and instruments were regarded as merged with the matter they represented. Thus, unless they had monetary value in themselves, they could not be the subject of larceny.
Modern: expanded larceny to include written instruments embodying intangible rights.

Question 3

Property of “another” definition

Answer 3

Property be taken from from someone who has a possessory interest superior to that of the defendant.

Question 4

Requirement that Taking Be from One with “Possession”

Answer 4

Property MUST be taken out of the victim’s possession. This is distinguished from custody.

Question 5

What’s the difference between custody and possession?

Answer 5

Possession: established when the defendant is given discretionary authority over the property.

Custody: given only limited authority over the property.

IF a defendant only has custody, that means someone else has greater possessory interest over that property than the defendant.

Question 6

Possession at the time of taking

Answer 6

Have to determine who has lawful possession of the property at the time of the taking.
NOTE: A person can be guilty of larceny for taking their own property, if someone else had lawful possession at the time the owner takes it.

Question 7

Can stolen property be subject to larceny?

Answer 7

Yes. Stolen property can be the subject of larceny (i.e. a second thief is guilty of larceny when he takes property from the first thief)

Question 8

Can joint property be subject to larceny?

Answer 8

Common law: No (if taken by one of the joint owners).

Question 9

Can lost, mislaid, or abandoned property be subject of larceny?

Answer 9

Lost or mislaid is constructive possession, so if found, possession and larceny might be committed.

Abandoned property has no owner and larceny cannot be committed by appropriating it.

Question 10

Taking definition

Answer 10

the defendant actually obtains control of the property

Question 11

Is destruction or movement sufficient for movement?

Answer 11

No. It is not sufficient to constitute a taking.

Question 12

If the taking is caused to occur by an innocent party, is that sufficient for a taking?

Answer 12

Yes. Even if a defendant obtains control of the property through the act of an innocent agent, it is a taking.

Question 13

Asportation Definition

Answer 13

Requires asportation (i.e. that all parts or portions of the property be moved and that this movement by part of the carrying away process).

Question 14

Taking Must Be “Trespassory”

Answer 14

The defendant must take the property from the custody or possession of another in a trespassory manner, i.e., without the consent of the person in custody or possession of the property

Question 15

What is larceny by trick?

Answer 15

Taking by Consent Induced by Misrepresentations: If the victim consents to the defendant’s taking custody or possession of the property,
but this consent has been induced by a misrepresentation, the consent is not valid

Question 16

What is the intent required for larceny?

Answer 16

At the time of the taking the defendant must have the intent
to permanently deprive the person from whom the property is taken of his interest in the
property

Question 17

What are some examples of sufficient intent for larceny?

Answer 17

(1) Intent to Create Substantial Risk of Loss

(2) Intent to Pledge Goods or Sell Them to Owner

Question 18

Intent to Create Substantial Risk of Loss

Answer 18

If the defendant intends to deal with the property in a manner that involves a substantial risk of loss, this is sufficient for larceny.

Question 19

Intent to Pledge Goods or Sell Them to Owner

Answer 19

It is larceny to take goods with the intent to sell them back to the owner or to pledge them, because this involves the substantial equivalent of permanent loss or the high risk of permanent loss.

Question 20

What are some examples of insufficient intent?

Answer 20

(1) Intent to Borrow

(2) Intent to Obtain Repayment of Debt

Question 21

What are some examples of possible sufficient intent for larceny?

Answer 21

(1) Intent to Pay for Property: If the property taken is not for sale, the fact that the defendant intends to pay the other for it does not negate the larceny. If the property is for sale and the defendant has a specific and realistic intent to repay the person, the taking is not larceny.
(2) Intent to Claim Reward: If the defendant takes goods, intending to return them and hoping for a reward, this is not larceny. However, if she takes them not intending to return them unless she is assured of a reward, this is larceny because it creates a substantial risk of loss.

Question 22

What is the specialized application of larceny with regards to abandoned or lost property

Answer 22

One who finds property that has merely been lost by its owner can, however, commit larceny of it. Two requirements exist:

(i) The finder must know or have reason to believe she can find out the identity of the owner; and
(ii) The finder must, at the moment she takes possession of the lost property, have the intent necessary for larceny.

If the finder takes custody of the lost property without the intent to steal, but later formulates this intent, she has not committed larceny. Nor has she committed embezzlement, since no trust relationship between the finder and the owner has been created.

Question 23

What is the specialized application of larceny doctrine with regards to misdelivered property?

Answer 23

One to whom property is delivered by mistake may, by accepting the property, commit larceny of it. Two requirements must be met:

1) The recipient must, at the time of the misdelivery, realize the mistake that is being made; and
2) The recipient must, at the time she accepts the delivery, have the intent required for larceny.

Question 24

What is the specialized application for “container” situations?

Answer 24

(1) Issue Is Whether Defendant Already Has Possession

(2) Larceny May Depend on Whether Parties Intended to Transfer Container

Question 25

Issue Is Whether Defendant Already Has Possession

Answer 25

The “container” cases, in which the defendant is charged with larceny of an item that she discovers within another item after she has legitimately taken possession of the larger item—or the container—from the victim. The difficult question is whether, at the time she appropriates the item, does she already have possession? If so, larceny is not committed because the property is not taken from the possession of another.

Question 26

Larceny May Depend on Whether Parties Intended to Transfer Container

Answer 26

One solution to this problem is to distinguish among cases according to whether or not the parties intended the original transfer to be the transfer of a container, i.e., an item containing other items.

If the parties intended to transfer a container, the recipient is regarded as taking immediate possession of both the container and its contents. Her later misappropriation of the contents is not larceny, because it occurs at a time when she already has possession.

If, however, both parties did not intend to transfer a container but rather regarded the items transferred as empty (or otherwise not involving a transfer of contained items), the recipient does not obtain possession of the contents until she discovers them.

If at the time she discovers and appropriates them she has the intent to steal, she is guilty of larceny.

Question 27

“Continuing Trespass” Situations

Answer 27

A trespassory taking of property without the intent required for larceny is not, of course, larceny.

However, if a defendant takes property with a wrongful state of mind
but without the intent to steal, and later, while still in possession of it, forms the intent to steal it, the trespass involved in the initial wrongful taking is regarded as “continuing” and the defendant is guilty of larceny.

This doctrine has no application if the defendant’s initial taking of the property, although trespassory, was not motivated by a wrongful state of mind.