Larceny is a crime involving the unlawful taking or theft of the personal property of another person or business. It was an offence under the common law of England and became an offence in jurisdictions which incorporated the common law of England into their own law (also statutory law), where in many cases it remains in force.
The crime of larceny has been abolished in England, Wales, Ireland, and Northern Ireland, broken up into the specific crimes of burglary, robbery, fraud, theft, and related crimes. However, larceny remains an offence in parts of the United States, Jersey, and in New South Wales, Australia, involving the taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation) of personal property without the owner's consent and without intending to return it.
Etymology The word "larceny" is a late Middle English word, from the French word larcin, "theft". Its probable Latin root is latrocinium, a derivative of latro, "robber" (originally mercenary).
By nation Australia New South Wales In the state of New South Wales, the common law offence of larceny is punishable with up to 5 years' imprisonment. Punishment for larceny 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. The leading authority on larceny in NSW is the High Court of Australia case of Ilich v R (1987).. This case stipulates the mens rea and actus reus elements required to be proven by the prosecution for a successful conviction.
Ireland The common law offence of larceny was abolishedThe Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (No.50), section 3(2) Irishstatutebook.ie on 1 August 2002.The Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (Commencement) Order 2002 (S.I. No. 252/2002), article 2(a) Irishstatutebook.ie However, proceedings for larceny committed before its abolition are not affected by this.The Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (No.50), section 3(3)
United Kingdom England and Wales
The common law offence of larceny was codified by the Larceny Act 1916. It was abolishedThe Theft Act 1968 (c.60), section 32(1)(a) Legislation.gov.uk on 1 January 1969,The Theft Act 1968 (c.60), section 35(1) Legislation.gov.uk for all purposes not relating to offences committed before that date.Theft Act 1968 (c.60), section 32 It has been replaced by the broader offence of theft under section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968. This offence did incorporate some of the terminology and substance of larceny. Despite the offence's being abolished in England, it has been retained in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.
Northern Ireland The common law offence of larceny was abolishedTheft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (c.16) (N.I.), section 30(1)(a) Legislation.gov.uk on 1 August 1969,Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (c.16) (N.I.), section 33(1) Legislation.gov.uk for all purposes not relating to offences committed before that date.Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (c.16), section 30 It has been replaced by the broader offence of theft under section 1(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.
United States
Larceny laws in the United States of America 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. Larceny is now codified as a statutory crime in all U.S. jurisdictions.
Under many states' larceny statutes, including California, larceny can include the taking of "money, labor, or real or personal property."See, e.g.,
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 trespassory taking of property from possession of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property.Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, , law.stanford.edu To understand larceny, one must understand the distinction between custody and possession.Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, 3rd ed. (Lexis 2001)
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.
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.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 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.People v. Meyer, 75 Cal. 383 (1888).
The taking may be only momentary. In another famous case,King v. Lapier, 1 Leach 320, 168 Eng.Rep. 263 (1784). 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:
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.West Virginia v. Chambers, 22 W. Va. 779 (1883); see also . 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,LaFave, Criminal Law 3rd ed. (West 2000) 804 n. 11 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,Boyce & Perkins, Criminal Law, 3rd ed. (1992) at 324. 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.See State v. Houston, 688 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1984).
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.34 N.Y.2d 453, 358 N.Y.S.2d 375 (1974). 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.Id. at 379, 381.
Additionally, the Model Penal Code eliminates the asportation requirement and instead requires that the defendant "exercise unlawful control".Section 223.2(1). The drafters noted that historically the asportation requirement distinguished larceny (a felony) and attempted larceny (a misdemeanor).Model Penal Code and Commentaries, Comment to §223.2(1), at 164 (1980). They reasoned, therefore, that asportation was an irrelevant requirement because in modern criminal law, like the Model Penal Code,§5.01 the sentencing consequences between an attempted and completed crime are negligible.
Personal property
From its creationLarceny is a common law offense. The definition of the crime, its elements, evolved into its present form by the end of the thirteenth century. the subject matter of larceny has been tangible personal property,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. with a physical existence: items that can be seen, held, and felt (or in technical terms, property that has a "corporeal existence").Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, 3rd ed. (Lexis 2001) at 556.
This limitation means that acts of common law larceny cannot be committed against land4 Blackstone at 232 or items attached to or forming part of land, such as buildings, trees or shrubbery, crops growing in the field, or minerals. Acts of common law larceny cannot be committed against intangible things, such as 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 secrets would be a different offense.)See Singer & LaFond, Criminal Law: Examples and Explanations, 4th ed. Aspen (2005) 256.