Caseflicks

New York Court of General Session of the Peace • 1936

State v. Savage

37 Del. 509 | 7 W.W. Harr. 509 | 186 A. 738 | 1936 Del. LEXIS 46

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case teaches that larceny turns on the defendant’s intent at the time of taking: a genuine temporary borrowing with a present intent to return or replace the property is not larceny, but later restitution cannot cure an originally felonious taking.

Background

The defendant admitted taking a can and gasoline in Sussex County without the owner’s consent. The can could be returned in its original form, while the gasoline had been consumed but could be replaced with gasoline of the same quantity and quality. The defendant maintained that he took the items only temporarily and intended, at the time of the taking, to return the can and replace the gasoline.

The State had to prove larceny beyond a reasonable doubt, including that the defendant took and carried away property of value belonging to another with felonious intent to convert it to his own use. The parties did not materially dispute the location, value, ownership interest, lack of consent, or taking. The contested question was the defendant’s intent when he took the property. Chief Justice Layton charged the jury on that issue.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether an unauthorized taking for a temporary purpose, accompanied by a bona fide present intent to return the property or replace fungible property, constitutes larceny.

Holding

No. An unauthorized temporary taking is not larceny if, at the moment of taking, the defendant genuinely intends to restore the property or account for a like quantity of fungible property.

Reasoning

Larceny requires a taking and carrying away of another’s personal property with felonious intent to convert it to the taker’s own use. “Felonious” means wrongful in the sense that the act lacks a color of right or excuse, but not every wrongful, nonconsensual taking satisfies the distinct intent requirement for larceny.

The governing rule is that the intent must be to deprive the owner wholly of the property. Thus, a wrongful borrowing without the owner’s knowledge or consent may expose the taker to civil liability for trespass, but it is not larceny when the taker acts with a bona fide intent to return the property to its owner.

That principle could apply both to the can and to the gasoline. Although consumed gasoline cannot be returned in specie, identical gasoline in the same quantity and quality can be restored. On principle, therefore, the taking of gasoline would not be larceny if the defendant then and there intended to replace it, absent a circumstance in which the owner reasonably would insist on return of the particular item taken.

The jury had to determine the defendant’s contemporaneous intent from all the circumstances. It could consider his testimony, the manner and place of the taking, his later conduct, and any effort to restore the property or account to the owner. If the jury found a temporary purpose and a present intent to return the can and replace the gasoline, or retained a reasonable doubt about felonious intent, it had to acquit.

Issue #2

Whether a defendant’s later repentance or effort to restore property defeats larceny when the defendant initially took the property intending to convert it to personal use.

Holding

No. Later restoration or an attempt to restore does not erase larceny completed by a taking made with an original intent to convert the property.

Reasoning

The relevant intent is the intent existing when the property is taken. If the defendant initially took the goods without any intent to make restoration and instead intended to convert them to his own use, larceny was complete at that point.

A later change of heart cannot purge the completed offense. Although later conduct may be evidence from which the jury infers what the defendant intended at the time of the taking, it is not a legal defense if the original taking was accompanied by felonious intent.