Also known as: intent to deprive
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The specific mental state accompanying a trespassory taking of another's tangible personal property. It consists of a purpose to deprive the owner permanently or for an unreasonable time.
Rafael used his key card to enter a secure university laboratory after hours without permission. He removed multiple microscopes and other equipment over several weeks and transported them to his new tutoring center for personal use. The repeated removals and subsequent use for his own business establish the required mental state at the time of each taking.
A widow executed a revocable trust transferring her property to avoid probate. She later executed a will leaving the same assets to her children. The court examined whether the trust dispositions reflected a genuine plan or merely an effort to cancel earlier testamentary gifts.
Morrissette collected spent bomb casings from a government bombing range believing they were abandoned. He sold the casings for scrap. The prosecution had to prove he acted with awareness that the property still belonged to the United States and with purpose to deprive the owner.
In December 1948, Morissette went hunting on a large tract of land in Michigan that the Government had used as a practice bombing range for the Air Force. Spent bomb casings from the range had been dumped into heaps and left exposed to the weather for four years or more. Morissette collected three tons of the casings, flattened them at a nearby farm, and sold them for eighty-four dollars. Morissette worked as a fruit stand operator in the summer and as a trucker and scrap iron collector in the winter. He was an honorably discharged veteran of World War II who had a good reputation among his neighbors. He loaded the casings onto his truck and transported them in broad daylight without any effort to conceal what he was doing. When authorities began an investigation, Morissette voluntarily and candidly told them the whole story, explaining that he believed the casings were abandoned and that he had no intention of stealing them. He was indicted for unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly stealing and converting property of the United States valued at eighty-four dollars in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. At trial, the District Court refused to permit Morissette to show that he thought the property was abandoned or to argue that he lacked criminal intent. The court instructed the jury that if it believed the government testimony, Morissette was guilty, and the jury convicted him. The court sentenced him to two months in prison or a fine of two hundred dollars. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA patient sued a manufacturer after a pacemaker lead failed. The company argued federal regulations preempted the state tort claim. The Court analyzed whether the federal scheme reflected an intent to displace all state remedies or only those that conflicted with specific federal requirements.
Benton was tried for burglary and larceny in one proceeding. After a successful appeal he faced retrial on the same charges. The Court considered whether the second prosecution reflected an intent to subject him to multiple punishments for the same conduct.
A customer alleged that store employees conspired with police to arrest her because of her race. The Court examined whether the evidence showed an agreement reflecting purposeful intent to interfere with federally protected rights.
The prosecution must prove that the defendant took the property with the purpose to deprive the owner permanently or for an unreasonable time. A temporary borrowing intention or honest belief that the property was abandoned or discarded can negate this element.
Supporting sources
Yes. Any movement however slight that occurs as part of carrying the property away completes asportation. Later abandonment does not undo the completed carrying-away element.
Supporting sources
An honest mistake of fact defeats the charge when it prevents formation of the required mental state. If the defendant genuinely believed the property was abandoned scrap or otherwise not owned by the victim, the intent element is negated.
Supporting sources
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense unless it actually negates the required mental state. Deliberate actions such as accessing locked areas or selecting specific accounts usually demonstrate that the mental state was formed despite intoxication.
Supporting sources
…In 1973 South Dakota defined "larceny" as "the taking of personal property accomplished by fraud or stealth and with intent to deprive another thereof." S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 22-37-1 (1967) (repealed 1976). Grand larceny and petit larceny were distinguished as follows: "Grand larceny is larceny committed in any of the…