Cooper v. Commonwealth
110 Ky. 123, 60 S.W. 938, 1901 Ky. LEXIS 58 (1901)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To constitute larceny, the felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property must exist at the same time as the physical taking. A subsequent formation of intent to convert property that was initially received lawfully or by a genuine mistake does not satisfy the requirements for larceny.
Facts:
- Grant Cooper, Fred Cooper, Thomas Harris, and Sandy Waggener were paid $6 for shucking corn.
- To divide the money, Waggener went to the Bank of Uniontown to get change for a $2 bill.
- A bank cashier handed Waggener two half dollars and a paper-wrapped roll of coins, stating it contained twenty nickels ($1.00).
- Believing the roll contained nickels, Waggener took it without inspection and rejoined his companions.
- After walking several blocks away, the men opened the package and discovered it contained twenty 5-dollar gold coins ($100.00).
- Upon discovering the mistake, one of the men remarked, “Boys, banks don’t correct mistakes.”
- The four men then divided the $100 amongst themselves and appropriated the money.
Procedural Posture:
- Grant Cooper, Fred Cooper, Thomas Harris and Sandy Waggener were indicted for the crime of grand larceny in Union County.
- At trial in the Union Circuit Court, the judge instructed the jury that it could convict if the defendants formed the intent to steal after discovering the bank's mistake.
- The defendants objected and requested an instruction stating the felonious intent must exist at the time the money was received.
- The trial court rejected the defendants' proposed instruction.
- The jury convicted the defendants of grand larceny.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to this 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:
Does a person commit larceny if they receive property under a mutual mistake, without any fraudulent intent at the time of taking, and only later form the felonious intent to convert the property to their own use upon discovering the mistake?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge O’Rear
No. A subsequent felonious conversion of property received lawfully and by mistake does not amount to larceny. The common law rule requires that the intent to appropriate property must exist in the mind of the taker at the time it comes into their hands. The court reasoned that larceny requires a simultaneous combination of an unlawful taking, asportation, and a felonious intent. In this case, the appellants received the money under a mutual mistake, making their initial possession lawful as they were unaware of the overpayment. The felonious intent was formed only after they discovered the gold coins, which was subsequent to the taking. Citing precedents like Snapp v. Com. and Smith v. Com., the court held that because the felonious intent did not exist at the time of receiving the money, the crime of larceny was not committed. Therefore, the trial court's instruction to the jury was erroneous.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the common law principle of concurrence, which requires that the mens rea (criminal intent) and actus reus (criminal act) must coincide for a crime to occur. It strictly defines the timing of felonious intent required for larceny, distinguishing it from situations where property is acquired innocently and later converted. This decision reinforces that a subsequently formed intent cannot retroactively make an innocent taking a criminal one, thereby preventing the expansion of larceny to cover what might otherwise be a different offense or a civil matter.
