October 9 Notes and Briefs

October 9 Notes and Briefs - October 9, 2008 Chapter 12...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
October 9, 2008 Chapter 12 Theft A. Larceny: the unlawful taking and carrying away of someone else’s personal property with the intent to deprive the possessor of it permanently. 1. Actus Reus a. Trespassory Taking (Caption) and Carrying Away (Asportation) Lee v. State Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1984 Theft: all taking of another’s property from his possession without his consent, even though no force was used. Larceny at CL was defined as the trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with intent to steal the same. Then became: the misappropriation by a person who with the consent of the owner already had physical control over the property. Example: Took newspaper from girl to read over the break. Not larceny because she intends to return it. Use circumstantial evidence to prove the mens rea to show whether or not they intended to permanently deprive. Look at the value of the object to decide whether or not they want to permanently deprive. Thought your stuff was with you at all time and that you didn’t have belongings anywhere else. Rex v. Chisser Court of Kings’s Bench, 1678 Law: Facts: He came in the shop and saw two cravats (neck ties). Shopkeeper showed them to him and he asked how much, she said 7, he offered 3 and ran out of the store. Reasoning: Although she let him see the ties, they were not out of her possession, therefore the ties were still hers and he took them. Issue: Is this a felony? Procedure: Holding: Even though she handed him the ties, they were still in her possession. Notes from the Case: Problem with trespassory taking because she handed him the ties. What does it mean to possess a property? Custody: When you give your goods to another person to take a look at them, under a time limit, a limited purpose. Constructive Possession: Even though she doesn’t have them on her, she still possesses it and has freedom to do with object what they want. Dispossessed the true owner of the property. United States v. Mafnas US Court of Appeals, 9 th Circuit, 1983 Law: A crime to take with intent to steal any money belonging to any bank.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Facts: Defendant was an armoured truck driver, hired by the Bank of Hawaii and Bank of America to deliver bags of money. On three occasions, he took the money from the bags. Defendant was found guilty of larceny. Defendant argues that he had the lawful possession of the bags and therefore he cannot be charged with larceny. Reasoning: According to the court, the defendant did not have the possession of the bags, but he only had the custody. “Ordinarily, if a person receives property for a limited or temporary purpose, he is only acquiring custody. Thus, if a person receives property from the owner with the instruction to deliver it to the owner’s house, he is only acquiring custody; therefore, his subsequent decision to keep the property for himself would constitute larceny. “Defendant further argues that he was the bailee and
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/20/2009 for the course CRIM LAW 107 taught by Professor Swedlow during the Fall '08 term at McMaster University.

Page1 / 6

October 9 Notes and Briefs - October 9, 2008 Chapter 12...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online