Commonwealth v. Liebenow
20 N.E.3d 242, 470 Mass. 151 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a specific intent crime like larceny, a defendant's honest, good-faith belief that they are entitled to the property is a valid affirmative defense that negates the required criminal intent, even if that belief is objectively unreasonable.
Facts:
- The defendant, Liebenow, was in the business of collecting and selling scrap metal.
- On July 27, 2010, Liebenow drove his vehicle onto Amy Court, a private cul-de-sac that was an active construction site for a condominium complex, which had several posted 'no trespassing' and 'private property' signs.
- Construction workers had stacked leftover lengths of steel pipe behind a pile of topsoil to keep them out of sight but intended to use them for other projects.
- Liebenow took two lengths of this steel pipe, believing the material to be abandoned.
- Kenneth Lufkin, an employee of the site's developer, observed Liebenow, heard sounds of metal banging, and confronted him as he attempted to drive away.
- Liebenow told Lufkin he was 'just picking up some junk steel' and left the site.
- Lufkin reported the incident to his employer and the police, providing Liebenow's license plate number.
- The developer, Amy Kroboth, subsequently requested that Liebenow be charged with larceny.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth charged Liebenow with larceny under $250 in the District Court.
- Following a jury-waived trial, the trial court judge found Liebenow guilty.
- Liebenow (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- A divided Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, with the majority holding that Liebenow's belief had to be objectively reasonable.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted Liebenow's (appellant's) petition for further appellate review.
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 a defendant's honest but mistaken belief that property was abandoned negate the specific intent required for larceny, even if that belief is not objectively reasonable?
Opinions:
Majority - Duffly, J.
Yes, a defendant's honest but mistaken belief that property was abandoned negates the specific intent required for larceny, even if that belief is not objectively reasonable. Larceny is a specific intent crime requiring the Commonwealth to prove the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of their property. An honest, subjective belief that the property was abandoned, even if mistaken, negates this specific intent. The trial judge erred by conflating the subjective standard of an 'honest belief' with an objective standard of a 'reasonable belief.' Long-standing precedent, including Morissette v. United States, confirms that the focus must be on the defendant's actual state of mind. While the reasonableness of a defendant's belief is not an element of the defense, it is relevant evidence that the fact-finder may consider in determining whether the defendant's asserted belief was genuinely held or merely a pretense.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant point of confusion in Massachusetts criminal law by definitively rejecting an objective reasonableness requirement for the mistake-of-fact defense in specific intent crimes. It clarifies that the test for such a defense is purely subjective, focusing on the defendant's actual state of mind. This ruling strengthens the defense for defendants who can credibly claim an honest, albeit unusual or poorly-grounded, belief regarding their right to property. Consequently, it places a clearer burden on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's claimed honest belief was, in fact, a sham or pretense.
