Larceny

However, larceny remains an offence in parts of the United States, Jersey,[1] and in New South Wales,[2] Australia, involving the taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation) of personal property without the owner's consent and without intending to return it.

Its probable Latin root is latrocinium, a derivative of latro, "robber" (originally mercenary).

In the state of New South Wales, the common law offence of larceny is punishable with up to 5 years' imprisonment.

[3] Whilst section 117 of the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900 specifies the punishment for larceny, it is silent on the elements of the offence, leaving them to be articulated by the common law.

[3] The leading authority on larceny in NSW is the High Court of Australia case of Ilich v R (1987).

[4] This case stipulates the mens rea and actus reus elements required to be proven by the prosecution for a successful conviction.

Larceny laws in the United States have their roots in common law, pursuant to which larceny involves the trespassory taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation, removal) of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of its possession.

In a famous case, the defendant removed an overcoat from a department store mannequin and began to walk away with it.

The court held that the defendant's control over the property, although momentary, was sufficient to constitute a taking.

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.

In People v. Alamo, for example, the New York Court of Appeals eliminated the asportation requirement.

[30] They reasoned, therefore, that asportation was an irrelevant requirement because in modern criminal law, like the Model Penal Code,[31] the sentencing consequences between an attempted and completed crime are negligible.

)[36] Services and labor, as well as intangible personal property (incorporeal rights)[18] such as contract rights and choses in action;[37] wills, codicils, or other testamentary documents; wild animals;[18] and items having no economic value[38] 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] For example, North Carolina has statutes that make it a crime to steal choses in action, growing crops and so on.

However, the common law stated that if the severance and carrying away of a fixture were one continuous act, no larceny would occur.

If the title owner were to take the car from the lienholder this action could be prosecuted as larceny in some jurisdictions.

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").

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.

[citation needed] Some states may also charge certain types of larceny as "robbery", "burglary", "theft", "shoplifting", "conversion", and other terms.

It is important to make clear that embezzlement is not always a form of theft or an act of stealing, since those definitions specifically deal with taking something that does not belong to the perpetrator(s).

The chief impediment to conviction was the doctrine of possessorial immunity which said that a person who had acquired possession lawfully, that is with the consent of the owner, could not be prosecuted for larceny.

[52] The case would seem to have been cut and dried – the doctrine of possessorial immunity applied and the defendant was therefore not guilty of larceny.

A careful examination of the employee's duties and responsibilities, his authority over the property and the actual business practices is required.

This rule does not apply if the teller intending to steal the property places the money in the till merely as a temporary repository or to hide his peculation.

If a thief steals multiple items from one victim during a single episode the courts doubtlessly would treat the act as one crime.

The same result would obtain if the thief stole items from the same victim over a period of time on the grounds that the stealing was pursuant to a common scheme or plan.

The effect would be that the state could aggregate the value of the various items taken in determining whether the crime was a felony or misdemeanor.

Aggregation is also generally permitted when the thief steals property from multiple victims at the same time.

On the other hand, aggregation is not permitted when a thief steals items from various victims at different times and places.