Also known as: carry away · carries away · carried away · asportation
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Movement of all or part of tangible personal property or of a person, however slightly, from its original position as part of removing it from the owner's or custodian's possession. The movement must occur after the defendant has obtained control and must be done with the intent to deprive the owner permanently or to transport the person into another jurisdiction.
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 walks in and he drops it. The brief upward movement satisfies the carrying away requirement once control is obtained.
Connor Clark directs employees to park heavy containers in front of Luis's trailer so Luis cannot hook up and drive away. The intentional blocking prevents Luis from accessing his own equipment and thereby supports a defense claim under the cited provision regarding carrying away of property.
Frankie removes five marked power tools from the communal bin and places them inside his zipped backpack. He then carries the backpack thirty feet across the gravel lot before the supervisor stops him. The distance traveled satisfies the carrying away element of larceny.
Dr. Ruiz arranges for Malik to be sedated and flown from Country X into Country Y for an experimental procedure. The air ambulance transports the unconscious patient across the international boundary without consent. The cross-border movement meets the carrying away requirement under traditional common law kidnapping.
Quincy enters the barn after dark and loads multiple crates of premium seed into his truck. He drives the loaded truck from the barn to his home several miles away. The physical relocation of the crates completes the carrying away element.
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 caseShelby removes Connie's hearing aids from the bedside table and places them in her pocket. She keeps the devices in her pocket while attending to other patients for nearly three hours before returning them. The initial placement into the pocket and subsequent retention satisfy the carrying away requirement.
In 1959, petitioner Brady was charged with kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a). The indictment charged that the victim of the kidnapping was not liberated unharmed, so Brady faced a maximum penalty of death if the jury recommended it. Represented by competent counsel throughout, Brady first elected to plead not guilty. He made no serious attempt to reduce the possibility of a death penalty by waiving a jury trial because the trial judge was unwilling to try the case without a jury. Upon learning that his codefendant, who had confessed to the authorities, would plead guilty and be available to testify against him, Brady changed his plea to guilty. The trial judge twice questioned Brady as to the voluntariness of his plea before accepting it. Brady was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment, later reduced to thirty years. In 1967, Brady sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily given because the statute operated to coerce his plea, because his counsel exerted impermissible pressure upon him, and because his plea was induced by representations with respect to reduction of sentence and clemency. He also alleged that the trial judge had not fully complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. After a hearing, the District Court for the District of New Mexico denied relief. The District Court found that Brady's counsel did not put impermissible pressure on him to plead guilty and that no representations were made with respect to a reduced sentence or clemency. The court determined that Brady decided to plead guilty when he learned that his codefendant was going to plead guilty. The court concluded that the plea was voluntarily and knowingly made. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, determining that the District Court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and specifically approving the finding that Brady's plea of guilty was voluntary. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the claim that the Court of Appeals was in error in not reaching a contrary result on the authority of United States v. Jackson.
View caseAny movement of the property, however slight, is sufficient once the defendant has obtained control. Lifting an item a few inches or carrying it a short distance across a room meets the element.
Supporting sources
The phrase applies to both. In larceny it describes movement of tangible personal property. In traditional common law kidnapping it describes forcible movement of a person across an international boundary.
Supporting sources
No. The element requires actual movement of the property after obtaining control. Merely blocking access does not satisfy carrying away under the larceny authorities.
Supporting sources
…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…