Larceny
Lund v. Commonwealth- Charged with theft of computer time
- Grand larceny defined in terms of common-law larceny:
- 1. trespassory (wrongful)
- 2. taking
- 3. carrying away (asportation) (eliminated by MPC, split in opinion)
- 4. personal property (vs. “real” property)
- 5. of another
- 6. with the intent to permanently deprive property of another
- What he carried away had only nominal value, prosecution tried to argue market value, but no market for it.
- Can be guilty of larceny for taking an empty cigarette carton!
- But in a San Francisco case: can’t be guilty of grand larceny for taking all free newspapers
- Use of computer doesn’t fit definition of personal property under statute
- Should it be larceny?
- Services? Traditionally not included, new statutes include them
- Borrowing not larceny, because no "intent to permanently deprive"
Oxford v. Moss- Took information about an exam, even intended to return paper.
- Not guilty of larceny for paper itself, because he intended to give it back.
- This information doesn’t count as property under terms of larceny.
- Narrow definition of property allows stealing of economically valuable materials, too broad allows prosecuting of journalists, etc.
Henry v. State- Boarder secures/bonds rental with bicycle and clothes, but continues to use them, leaves with paying or leaving items.
- Prosecuted for using his own bike, own clothing!
- Was larceny because use deprived landlady of security (someone else with possessory interest in it).
- Note: traditionally cannot steal from partner/spouse, but that has changed
State v. Carswell- A person moving an air conditioner 6 inches can be guilty of larceny.
- ∆ moved it from base, then got caught.
- Had possession while lifting it.
- ∆ claims did not “carry it away” (i.e., no "asportation")
- One possible standard: an act inconsistent with the rights of the owner.
Brooks v. State- Found money in mud, kept it = guilty of larceny.
- For lost/mislaid property, must be wrongful/trespassory:
- Intent to deprive matters at time of finding.
- Also must have clue to ownership at time of finding.
- See also Diamond, p. 477, Baker v. The State.
- BUT IN MPC (close in CA): Diamond, p. 478, 223.5, no requirement that it be at time of finding—simply look at final result.
