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.
View most interesting 'lawschool' photos on Flickriver

Related Notes

Related Commentary