Commonwealth v. Liebenow
2013 WL 5630016, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 387, 997 N.E.2d 109 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the affirmative defense of mistake of fact to negate the specific intent required for larceny, a defendant's belief that property was abandoned must be both honestly held and objectively reasonable.
Facts:
- The defendant collected and sold scrap metal for a living.
- A townhouse development was under active construction on private property known as Amy Court in Pittsfield.
- Several 'no trespassing . . . private property' signs were posted throughout the site.
- The defendant drove his pickup truck onto the construction site and took several lengths of steel pipe and metal plates.
- When confronted by an employee, the defendant stated he was 'just picking up some junk steel' and drove away.
- After being stopped by police, the defendant initially denied taking any metal from the Amy Court construction site.
- The defendant later admitted taking the property from the site but testified that he honestly believed it was abandoned.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with larceny under $250.
- The defendant waived his right to a jury trial, proceeding with a bench trial in the trial court.
- At trial, the defendant asserted the affirmative defense that he lacked the specific intent to steal because he honestly believed the property was abandoned.
- The trial court judge found the defendant guilty.
- The defendant appealed the conviction to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For the affirmative defense of mistake of fact to negate the specific intent element of larceny, does a defendant's belief that property was abandoned have to be objectively reasonable in addition to being honestly held?
Opinions:
Majority - Berry, J.
Yes. A defendant's mistaken belief regarding property abandonment must be both honestly held and objectively reasonable to serve as a valid affirmative defense to larceny. The specific intent to steal cannot be negated by a belief that is subjectively honest but objectively unreasonable. Established Massachusetts case law, including Commonwealth v. Anslono and Commonwealth v. Vives, consistently refers to an 'honest and reasonable belief' as the standard for this defense. This dual requirement is also reflected in the state's model jury instructions. To allow a purely subjective, and potentially irrational, belief to suffice would create an untethered standard that could lead to absurd acquittals, undermining the intent element of larceny. In this case, the presence of 'no trespassing' signs on private property where construction was active, coupled with the defendant's initial lie to the police, provided ample evidence for the trial judge to conclude that any belief in abandonment was not objectively reasonable.
Dissenting - Milkey, J.
No. An honestly held belief that property was abandoned is sufficient to negate the specific intent element of larceny, regardless of whether that belief was objectively reasonable. Larceny is a specific intent crime, requiring the prosecution to prove the defendant consciously intended to permanently deprive the rightful owner of their property. A defendant who genuinely believes property is abandoned cannot, by definition, possess the specific intent to steal it. To convict a defendant based on an honest but unreasonable belief is to improperly substitute a negligence standard for a specific intent requirement. Prior Massachusetts cases using the 'honest and reasonable' language did so in dicta without squarely addressing the issue. The overwhelming weight of authority from other jurisdictions and legal commentators supports the principle that a genuine, subjective belief, even if unreasonable, negates the mens rea for larceny. The reasonableness of the belief should be considered by the fact-finder only as evidence in determining whether the belief was, in fact, honestly held.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal standard in Massachusetts for the mistake-of-fact defense in larceny cases, establishing a firm two-part test requiring both subjective honesty and objective reasonableness. This holding distinguishes Massachusetts from many other jurisdictions that only require a subjective, good-faith belief to negate the specific intent for larceny. The ruling makes it significantly more difficult for defendants to succeed with an abandonment defense, as their mistaken belief must not only be genuine but also plausible to a hypothetical reasonable person under the circumstances. This precedent raises the bar for defendants and provides a clearer, albeit stricter, framework for judges and juries to apply.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Liebenow