Also known as: carries away · carried away · carrying away · asportation
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Movement of all or part of tangible personal property, however slight, that satisfies the asportation element of common law larceny. The movement must occur as part of removing the property from the victim's possession with intent to deprive permanently.
Malik reaches into Jenna's open locker at the data center and grasps her laptop with both hands. He lifts the laptop a few inches off the shelf before Jenna enters and he drops it. The slight upward movement completes the carrying away element even though the laptop never leaves the room.
Frankie removes five marked power tools from South Development's open bin and places them inside his zipped backpack. He then carries the backpack thirty feet across the construction site toward his truck. The movement of the tools inside the backpack satisfies carrying away under the larceny rule.
Shelby approaches Connie's bedside and removes the hearing aids from the table. She places the devices into her pocket and walks away to attend other patients. The act of moving the aids from the table into her pocket and retaining them constitutes the required carrying away.
Rita directs Silas into a locked off-road vehicle at the State A site. The vehicle crosses into State B and travels a substantial distance to a remote camp. The forcible movement of Silas from one jurisdiction into another satisfies the carrying away element of traditional common law kidnapping.
A defendant removes several items of United States property from a storage area and transports them to a different location for personal use. The physical relocation of the items satisfies the carrying away component of the theft statute at issue in the prosecution.
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 caseThe defendants accumulate a large quantity of water on their land in a reservoir. When the water escapes and flows onto the plaintiff's adjacent property, the resulting movement of the water across the boundary line illustrates the concept of carrying away in the context of the dispute.
The plaintiff occupied a mine and works under a close of land. The defendants owned a mill in the neighborhood. They proposed to construct a reservoir for storing water to be used about their mill upon another close of land. This close may be taken as adjoining the plaintiff's close, although some intervening land lay between the two. Underneath the defendants' close on which they proposed to construct the reservoir were old and disused mining passages and works. These included five vertical shafts filled up with soil and rubbish along with some horizontal shafts communicating with them. No person was aware of the existence of the vertical shafts or the horizontal works. In the course of working his mine the plaintiff gradually worked through the seams of coal underneath the close and came into contact with the old and disused works underneath the defendants' close. The defendants constructed the reservoir through the agency and inspection of an engineer and contractor. They took no personal part in the works and remained unaware of any want of security. The engineer and contractor did not exercise reasonable care and caution with respect to the vertical shafts. When the reservoir was constructed and filled or partly filled with water, the weight of the water broke through the disused and imperfectly filled-up vertical shafts. The water passed down the shafts into the horizontal workings under the defendants' close and then into the workings under the plaintiff's close, flooding his mine and causing considerable damage. The Court of Exchequer, on a special case stating these facts, held that the plaintiff had established no cause of action. The Court of Exchequer Chamber unanimously arrived at the conclusion that there was a cause of action, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to damages. The defendants appealed to the House of Lords.
View caseNo. Any movement of the property, however slight, satisfies the carrying away element when done as part of removing it from the victim's possession. The laptop lifted a few inches inside the locker meets the requirement even though it never leaves the room.
Supporting sources
Taking requires obtaining control over the property. Carrying away requires subsequent movement of the property as part of removing it from the victim's possession. Both elements must be proven separately for completed larceny.
Supporting sources
No. Embezzlement requires an intentional conversion of property already in the defendant's lawful possession or custody. The law does not require any movement or carrying away of the property.
Supporting sources
Traditional common law kidnapping required forcibly carrying a person from his own country into another country. Modern statutes have broadened the offense to include substantial movement within a single jurisdiction or confinement for prohibited purposes.
Supporting sources
…to do; for, according to the principle acted on in Smith v. Kenrick , the person working the mine had a right to win and carry away all the coal without leaving any wall or barrier. But that is not the real state of the case. The Defendants, in order to effect an object of their own, brought on to their land, or on to…