Editing Larceny (section)

===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.