Harrison v. . the People
50 N.Y. 518, 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 455 (1872)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The element of asportation, or carrying away, in the crime of larceny is complete if the perpetrator gains momentary, complete control of an object and moves it, however slightly, from the place it previously occupied, even if the object is not entirely removed from the owner's person or property.
Facts:
- The victim, Mr. Bull, had a pocket-book in his coat pocket.
- The plaintiff in error put his hand into Bull's pocket and grasped the pocket-book.
- He lifted the pocket-book about three inches from the bottom of the pocket.
- Before the pocket-book was completely removed, Bull felt the movement.
- Bull threw his hand up and pressed down on the pocket-book, preventing its complete removal and causing it to fall back into the pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff in error was indicted for simple larceny in the trial court.
- A jury convicted him of the crime.
- At trial, the defendant's counsel requested a jury instruction that the evidence could only support a conviction for an attempt to commit larceny, which the court refused.
- The plaintiff in error appealed the conviction, challenging the trial court's jury instructions regarding the element of 'carrying away' as legally sufficient for a completed larceny.
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 the act of lifting a pocket-book several inches from the bottom of a person's pocket, without completely removing it from the pocket, constitute a sufficient 'carrying away' (asportation) to complete the crime of larceny?
Opinions:
Majority - Folger, J.
Yes, the act of lifting a pocket-book from a person's pocket, even slightly, constitutes a sufficient carrying away (asportation) to complete the crime of larceny. The court reasoned that asportation is complete once every part of the object has been moved from the space it previously occupied and the perpetrator has gained, even for a moment, sole control and possession of the item. The court distinguished this situation from cases where an object remains physically attached to the owner, such as a purse on a string. Here, the plaintiff in error had the pocket-book in his hand and controlled its movement; it was only the forcible, animate act of the owner that prevented the theft from being fully consummated. Citing precedents like Walsh's Case (lifting a bag from a coach boot) and Lapier's Case (snatching an earring that got caught in hair), the court concluded that the temporary and momentary possession by the perpetrator was sufficient to complete the crime of simple larceny.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the minimal threshold required for the asportation element of larceny, particularly in cases of pickpocketing. It establishes that a defendant can be convicted of a completed larceny, rather than a mere attempt, even if they are caught before fully securing or escaping with the property. The ruling solidifies the legal principle that momentary and complete control over an item, coupled with the slightest movement, is sufficient to satisfy the 'carrying away' requirement. This precedent makes it easier for prosecutors to secure larceny convictions in cases where the theft is thwarted mid-act.
