Editing Larceny (section)

==Elements==

===Possession versus custody===
Larceny is a crime against possession. Furthermore, it has two elements which must be met: the actual taking of the property, even if momentarily (''[[actus reus]]''), and the culpable intent (''[[mens rea]]'') to deprive another of their property. Larceny involves the [[trespass]]ory taking of property from possession of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property.<ref name="CL">''Criminal Law - Cases and Materials'', 7th ed. 2012, [[Wolters Kluwer Law & Business]]; [[John Kaplan (law professor)|John Kaplan]], [[Robert Weisberg]], [[Guyora Binder]], {{ISBN|978-1-4548-0698-1}}, [https://law.stanford.edu/publications/criminal-law-cases-and-materials-7th-edition/ law.stanford.edu]</ref>{{rp|945}} To understand larceny, one must understand the distinction between custody and possession.<ref name="Joshua Dressler 2001">[[Joshua Dressler]], Understanding Criminal Law, 3rd ed. (Lexis 2001) {{ISBN|0-8205-5027-2}}</ref>

* A person has possession of property when he has actual physical control over the property (actual possession) or he has the right to exercise considerable control over the disposition or use of the property (constructive possession).
*A person has custody if he has actual physical control of the property, but the person who has constructive possession has substantially restricted the custodian's right to use the property.<ref name="Joshua Dressler 2001"/>

Examples of custody would be a store customer examining the goods of a merchant, or an employee who has been given the property of his employer to be used in his employment. This is to be contrasted to, for example, a person who has obtained actual possession of the property by fraud.

Ancient [[Roman law]] (first 50 years of written University law, possibly borrowing from Greek law there is no copy of) was more lax about "simple possession"; it was assumed "borrowing" if there was no one to ask: unless or until other factors arose (such as refusal to return promptly when asked).

===Take===
The taking or caption element requires that the offender take actual physical control of the property, if but for a moment.<ref>Originally, the caption element required an actual physical taking of the property from the victim's person. Takings accomplished by stealth or deceit were not punishable.  This limitation existed because larceny's original purpose was to punish breaches of peace rather than violations of property interests</ref> Under the 
common law, it was not sufficient if the offender simply deprived the victim of possession; the offender must have gained control over the property. Thus merely knocking an article from a person's hand was not larceny, as long as the defendant did not thereafter take it. The control must be complete. In a famous case, the defendant removed an overcoat from a department store mannequin and began to walk away with it. The overcoat was secured to the mannequin by a chain, a fact the defendant first discovered when the chain drew taut. These actions were held not to be larceny because the defendant never had complete control over the disposition and use of the coat.<ref>''People v. Meyer'', 75 Cal. 383 (1888).</ref>

The taking may be only momentary. In another famous case,<ref>''King v. Lapier'', 1 Leach 320, 168 Eng.Rep. 263 (1784).</ref> the defendant snatched an earring from the victim which immediately became entangled in the victim's hair. The court held that the defendant's control over the property, although momentary, was sufficient to constitute a taking. The taking may be either direct or indirect; that is, accomplished by the criminal himself or an innocent agent.

The equivalent term "'''deprive'''" is also sometimes used:
{{Quote|To "deprive" another of property means (a) to withhold it or cause it to be withheld from him permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost to him, or (b) to dispose of the property in such manner or under such circumstances as to render it unlikely that an owner will recover such property.|N.Y. Penal L. § 155.00 (3).<ref>N.Y. Penal L. § 155.00 (3), found at [http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS NY State assembly website].  Retrieved october 2, 2008.</ref>}}

===Carry away===
Traditionally, a thief must not only gain dominion over the property, but also must move it from its original position. The slightest movement, a hair's breadth, is sufficient.<ref>West Virginia v. Chambers, 22 W. Va. 779 (1883); see also {{cite AustLII|VicRp|41|1964|litigants=Wallis v Lane |parallelcite=[1964] [[Victorian Reports|VR]] 293 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> However, the entirety of the property must be moved. As Professor Wayne LaFave noted, at its most literal this requirement renders the rotating of a doughnut a larceny, but not the rotating of a pie,<ref>LaFave, Criminal Law 3rd ed. (West 2000) 804 n. 11</ref> as ''all'' of the doughnut is moved through rotation while the pie's exact center remains in the same place when rotated. The movement must also be an actual asportation, rather than movement in preparation. For example,<ref>Boyce & Perkins, Criminal Law, 3rd ed. (1992) at 324.</ref> in one case the victim had left his [[wheelbarrow]] in his yard. As was his custom he turned the wheelbarrow upside down to avoid water collecting in the tub. The defendant intending to steal the wheelbarrow turned it over but was apprehended by the owner before he could push the wheelbarrow away. The court held that the defendant's acts did not satisfy the asportation element of larceny because the movement of the wheelbarrow had merely been preparatory to the carrying away.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not necessary that the property be removed from the owner's premises or be taken off his property for an asportation to be complete. The slightest movement from its original position with the intent to steal is enough. The problem is proof. If a person picks up a package of steaks intending to steal them then changes her or his mind and puts the steak back in the meat counter, the crime of larceny has been committed but the state will have a difficult time proving it. However, if the thief conceals the steaks by sticking them inside clothing, his or her intent is rather clear. Of course, there could still be an innocent if bizarre explanation.<ref>See State v. Houston, 688 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1984).</ref>

That said, the asportation requirement is not universally required. In ''People v. Alamo'', for example, the New York Court of Appeals eliminated the asportation requirement. In that case the defendant entered a stranger's car and turned on the car's lights and engine.<ref>34 N.Y.2d 453, 358 N.Y.S.2d 375 (1974).</ref> The Court read asportation as merely a corroborative element of possession and control, and thus not necessary to establish possession and control of a car because transportation is the purpose of a car. Turning it on suffices to establish that the thief has taken possession and control.<ref>''Id.'' at 379, 381.</ref>

Additionally, the [[Model Penal Code]] eliminates the asportation requirement and instead requires that the defendant "exercise unlawful control".<ref>Section 223.2(1).</ref> The drafters noted that historically the asportation requirement distinguished larceny (a felony) and attempted larceny (a misdemeanor).<ref>Model Penal Code and Commentaries, Comment to §223.2(1), at 164 (1980).</ref> They reasoned, therefore, that asportation was an irrelevant requirement because in modern criminal law, like the Model Penal Code,<ref>§5.01</ref> the sentencing consequences between an attempted and completed crime are negligible.

===Personal property===
{{More citations needed section|date=December 2008}}
From its creation<ref>Larceny is a common law offense. The definition of the crime, its elements, evolved into its present form by the end of the thirteenth century.</ref> the subject matter of larceny has been tangible personal property,<ref>For example, one can steal a person's social security card and use the information to obtain a credit card and make transactions.  However, using the social security number is not larceny because the information, although of substantial value, is not tangible personal property. The theft of the card itself is larceny but that would only be a misdemeanor given the minimal value of the paper used to print the card.</ref> with a physical existence: items that can be seen, held, and felt (or in technical terms, property that has a "corporeal existence").<ref>[[Joshua Dressler]], ''Understanding Criminal Law'', 3rd ed. (Lexis 2001) {{ISBN|0-8205-5027-2}} at 556.</ref>

This limitation means that acts of common law larceny cannot be committed against [[Real property|land]]<ref>4 Blackstone at 232</ref> or items attached to or forming part of land, such as buildings, [[tree]]s or [[shrub]]bery, crops growing in the field, or [[mineral]]s.<ref name="Joshua Dressler 2001"/> Acts of common law larceny cannot be committed against intangible things, such as [[Alienation of affections|love or affection]], identity ([[identity theft]] is a type of [[fraud]]), or [[intellectual property]], such as information and ideas. For example, if a person stole the [[Coca-Cola formula]], the crime would be larceny, but the grade of the offense would be determined by the value of the paper on which the formula was recorded, not the value of the recipe. (Theft of [[trade secret]]s would be a different offense.)<ref>See Singer & LaFond, ''Criminal Law: Examples and Explanations'', 4th ed. Aspen (2005) 256.</ref>

Services and labor, as well as intangible personal property (incorporeal rights)<ref name="Joshua Dressler 2001"/> such as [[contract]] rights and [[Chose|choses in action]];<ref>Singer & LaFond, ''Criminal Law'' (Aspen 1987), at 256.</ref> [[Will (law)|wills]], [[Codicil (will)|codicils]], or other testamentary documents; wild animals;<ref name="Joshua Dressler 2001"/> and items having no economic value<ref>Boyce & Perkins, ''Criminal Law'', 3rd ed. (1992) {{ISBN|0-88277-067-5}}</ref> cannot be the subjects of acts of common-law larceny.

Most states have enacted statutes to expand the coverage of larceny to include most if not all of the items mentioned above.{{Citation needed|date=December 2008}} For example, North Carolina has statutes that make it a crime to steal choses in action, growing crops and so on.<ref>N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-70 through 14-86.3.</ref>

The restriction of the scope of larceny to personal property may have practical consequences. For example, a person may "steal" a central air conditioning unit by cutting the connections to the house, removing the unit from its concrete pad and hauling the disconnected unit away in a truck. In most jurisdictions, a central air conditioning unit changes from personal property to real property (a fixture) once it is attached to a building. Modernly, severance of a fixture from the realty would convert the fixture from real property back to personal property. However, the common law stated that if the severance and carrying away of a fixture were one continuous act, no larceny would occur. The defendant's actions in this example would thus merely constitute damage to real property, and would further not result in possession of stolen property since no larceny had taken place. However, if the person disconnected the air conditioner, left the premises to find someone to help him move the unit, returned and loaded the unit on his truck and left, the crime would be larceny.{{cn|date=July 2022}}

===Of another===
The property taken must be "of another". Thus wild animals cannot be stolen, although possession of a wild animal can itself be unlawful. Nor can co-owners be guilty of larceny. Larceny is a crime against possession. Therefore, it is possible for the person who has title to the property to steal the property from a person who had lawful possession. For example, states provide that a person who repairs a car had a [[lien]] on the car to secure payment for the work. The lien is a possessory lien meaning the repair person has the lien as long as he maintains possession of the car. If the title owner were to take the car from the lienholder this action could be prosecuted as larceny in some jurisdictions.

===Without consent===
The taking must be trespassory; that is, it must be without the consent of the owner. This means that the taking must have been accomplished by stealth, force, threat of force, or deceit. If the offender obtained possession lawfully then a subsequent misappropriation is not larceny.

===Intent to steal (''animus furandi'')===
{{See also|Furtum}}
The offender must have taken the property with the intent to steal it. Traditionally intent to steal is defined as the intent to deprive the owner of the possession of the property permanently. "Permanently" means indefinitely, that is, with no plan to return the property to the rightful owner. However, intent to steal includes other states of mind such as the intent to recklessly deprive the owner of the property permanently.

A person who takes property of another under the mistaken belief that the property belongs to him does not have the requisite intent to steal; nor does a person "intend to steal" property when he takes property intending to make temporary use of it and then return the property to the owner within a reasonable time.<ref>Lafave, ''Criminal Law'', 3rd ed. (West 2000) 812 citing ''Impson v. State'', 47 Ariz. 573, 58 P.2d 523 (1936)</ref> However, it is not a defense that the defendant did not know that the property belonged to the true owner, only that he knew that it did not belong to him.

===Must have value===
Larceny protects the possession of goods – objects that have economic value. A good has economic value if it has a price; that is, the property can be sold in a market. Thus, if the property taken has no economic value, it is not subject to larceny statutes. Under contemporary larceny laws, it is normally sufficient to support a larceny charge if the item has any value to the owner, even if its market value would be negligible.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bequai|first1=August|title=Computer Crime|date=1978|publisher=Lexington Press|isbn=978-0669017281|pages=28–29|citeseerx=10.1.1.71.2420}}</ref>

Under New York State law, [[Negotiable instruments|written instruments]], [[Energy law|utility services]], and items of unascertainable value have special rules,<ref>See N.Y. Penal L. § 155.20 (2), (3), (4), found at [http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS N.Y. state Assembly website]. Retrieved October 2, 2008.</ref> and for [[grand larceny]] in the fourth degree,  a [[motor vehicle]] must have value of [[United States dollar|$]]100 or greater.<ref>N.Y. Penal L. § 155.30 (8), found at [http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS N.Y. state Assembly website]. Retrieved October 2, 2008.</ref>  Otherwise, value is defined generally as:
{{Quote|the [[market value]] of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the [[replacement cost|cost of replacement]] of the property within a reasonable time after the crime.|N.Y. Penal L. § 155.20 (1).<ref>N.Y. Penal L. § 155.20 (1), found at [http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS N.Y. state Assembly website]. Retrieved October 2, 2008.</ref>}}

====Grand larceny====
{{Redirect|Grand larceny|the 1987 film|Grand Larceny|the 1922 lost film|Grand Larceny (1922 film)}}
'''Grand larceny''' is typically defined as larceny of a more significant amount of property. In the [[United States|US]], it is often defined as an amount valued at least $400. In New York, grand larceny refers to amounts of at least $1,000. Grand larceny is often classified as a [[felony]] with the concomitant possibility of a harsher [[sentence (law)|sentence]].  In Virginia the threshold is only $5 if taken from a person, or $500 if not taken from the person.<ref>{{cite web|title=Virginia Grand Larceny Law Changes July 1, 2018 |url=https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?181+ful+CHAP0765+pdf|website=Virginia Law Library|publisher=Commonwealth of Virginia|access-date=25 June 2018}}</ref> The same penalty applies for stealing checks as for cash or other valuables.<ref>[https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-98/ § 18.2-98.], Code of Virginia, 1950.</ref> Some states (such as [[North Carolina]]) use the term "felonious larceny" instead of grand larceny.

The classification of larceny as grand or petit larceny originated in an English statute passed in 1275 (''grand'' is a French word meaning "large" while ''petit'' is a French word meaning "small"). Both were felonies, but the punishment for grand larceny was death while the punishment for petit larceny was forfeiture of property to the Crown and whipping. The classification was based on the value of the property taken. The offence was grand larceny if the value of the property taken was greater than twelve pence, approximately the value of a sheep in the thirteenth century.<ref>Boyce & Perkins, Criminal Law 3rd ed. (Foundation Press 1982) 335.</ref>

Most jurisdictions have discarded the grand/petit terminology and use value to classify larcenies as felonies or misdemeanors. "Value" means the fair market value of the property at the time and place taken. Most jurisdictions also make certain larcenies felonies regardless of the value of the property taken. For example, North Carolina General Statutes Section 14 - 72 (b)(1) makes the crime of larceny a felony "without regard to value" if the larceny is (1) from the person (2) committed pursuant to certain types of breaking or enterings (3) of any explosive or incendiary device or (4) of any firearm.<ref>N.C.G.S. 14 - 72(b)(1)- (6)</ref>  The modern spelling is ''petit larceny'' for the misdemeanor level.{{Citation needed|reason=Merriam-Webster lists petit as primary|date=June 2019}}  Some states may also charge certain types of larceny as "robbery", "burglary", "theft", "shoplifting", "conversion", and other terms.