Caruso v. State
205 Tenn. 211, 326 S.W.2d 434, 9 McCanless 211 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'carrying away' element of larceny, known as asportation, is satisfied by any movement of the property from its original position, however slight, done with the felonious intent to steal it.
Facts:
- On the afternoon of August 23, 1958, the manager of Greene County Producers saw Caruso at the store.
- The manager also observed Caruso that afternoon in a parking lot near a green and white Nash automobile with a Unicoi County license plate.
- At closing time, a 600-pound safe containing approximately $34,000 in money and securities was left in its usual place inside the company's office.
- Around 2:00 a.m. on August 24, 1958, intruders entered the Greene County Producers building.
- The intruders used a cart to move the 600-pound safe five feet, from the office out into the main part of the building, where it fell over and hit a counter.
- An officer arrived within five minutes and heard three men running away near a creek.
Procedural Posture:
- Caruso was prosecuted for grand larceny in a Tennessee trial court.
- A jury found Caruso guilty of grand larceny and fixed his punishment at three years in the penitentiary.
- Caruso filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied.
- Caruso, the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
- On appeal, the appellant did not file any assignments of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does moving a 600-pound safe a distance of five feet from an office into the main part of a building, without removing it from the premises, constitute a sufficient 'carrying away' (asportation) to satisfy an essential element of the crime of larceny?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Tomlinson
Yes. Moving the safe five feet within the building constitutes a sufficient 'carrying away' to satisfy the asportation element of larceny. The court reasoned that larceny requires a 'felonious taking and carrying away,' with 'carrying away' legally referred to as 'asportation.' Adopting the unanimous rule from other jurisdictions, the court held that any movement of property, however slight, from its original location is sufficient to constitute asportation. Citing precedents that found even a 'hair's breadth' movement to be sufficient, the court concluded that moving the 600-pound safe five feet clearly met this legal standard. Therefore, the actions of the intruders constituted a completed larceny, not merely an attempt.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the legal standard for the element of asportation in Tennessee larceny law, adopting the well-settled majority common law rule. The case clarifies that the crime of larceny is completed the moment an item is moved with felonious intent, regardless of the distance and regardless of whether the perpetrator succeeds in removing it from the premises. This precedent lowers the threshold for what constitutes a completed larceny versus an attempted larceny, making it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions in cases where the defendant is apprehended before getting away with the property.
