Also known as: asportation · asportare · asportatus · carrying away
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An element of common law larceny consisting of the defendant's movement of all or part of the property, however slight, as part of the carrying away process.
Malik reaches into Jenna's open locker at the data center, grasps her laptop with both hands, and lifts it several inches off the shelf. Jenna enters the room and Malik drops the laptop back into place. The slight upward movement satisfies the carrying away requirement even though the laptop never left the locker.
A warehouse worker sees a trespasser begin to wheel a company dolly loaded with equipment toward the exit. The worker uses reasonable force to block the exit and prevent the dolly from being pushed any farther across the threshold. The initial rolling movement of the dolly constitutes carrying away.
Quincy loads several crates of premium seed from Rhonda's barn into the bed of his pickup and drives them to his home. The act of lifting each crate from the barn floor and placing it in the truck bed satisfies the requirement that the property be moved, however slightly, during the carrying away.
Dr. Ruiz arranges for an unconscious patient to be sedated and flown from a hospital in Country X to a clinic in Country Y. The air ambulance's movement of the patient from one country into another completes the carrying away element.
A civilian employee removes spent shell casings from a military firing range and loads them into his vehicle intending to keep them. The act of lifting the casings from the range and placing them in the vehicle constitutes the carrying away of government property.
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 boater whose vessel has broken loose in a storm enters a neighbor's beach to drag the boat above the high-tide line. The short distance the boat is pulled across the sand satisfies the carrying away element.
On November 13, 1904, the plaintiff was sailing a loaded sloop upon Lake Champlain accompanied by his wife and two minor children when a sudden and violent tempest arose that placed the vessel along with its property and occupants in great danger of destruction. The defendant owned an island in the lake together with a dock attached to it, and the island and dock were at that time in the charge of the defendant’s servant. To save the sloop and those aboard from destruction or injury, the plaintiff moored the sloop to the defendant’s dock. The defendant’s servant then unmoored the sloop, which was subsequently driven upon the shore by the tempest without any fault on the plaintiff’s part. As a result the sloop and its contents were destroyed, and the plaintiff along with his wife and children were cast into the lake and upon the shore where they received injuries. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant setting forth these events in two counts. One count alleged trespass by the defendant through his servant who wilfully and designedly unmoored the sloop with force and arms. The other alleged that the defendant through his servant negligently and wrongfully unmoored the sloop in breach of a duty to permit the mooring to continue during the tempest. Both counts were met with general demurrers, and the matter came before the Supreme Court of Vermont for resolution of the resulting issues.
View caseNo. Any movement of the property, however slight, satisfies the element when done as part of carrying it away. The laptop need not leave the locker or the room.
Yes. The element focuses on whether movement occurred during the carrying away process, not on whether the defendant ultimately succeeds in removing the property from the scene.
Yes. Traditional common law kidnapping required forcible abduction or carrying away of a person from his own country into another country, so the movement across the border is the central element.
The taking element requires the defendant to obtain actual control over the property. Asportation requires subsequent movement of that property as part of carrying it away.
…A. 5th Cir.), to which the dissent below referred at some length. The appellant there was convicted of feloniously taking and carrying away certain personal property of the United States in violation of § 46 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) § 99, and had been sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. He argued that…