Hawpetoss v. State
187 N.W.2d 823, 52 Wis. 2d 71, 1971 Wisc. LEXIS 963 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who aids in the commission of a theft by performing a necessary element of the offense, such as carrying away the stolen property, can be convicted as a principal to the crime of theft from a person, even if they did not personally remove the property from the victim.
Facts:
- The victim, Selvent, was in the company of the defendant and a woman named Darlene LeRoy.
- LeRoy continuously supplied Selvent with brandy, causing him to become heavily intoxicated and pass out.
- While Selvent was unconscious, LeRoy went through his pockets and removed his watch from his wrist.
- The defendant witnessed LeRoy removing the property from Selvent's person.
- After LeRoy placed the watch down, the defendant picked it up.
- The defendant carried the watch away and later pawned it in a different part of the state.
- When Selvent regained consciousness, he discovered his watch and other personal items were missing.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a Wisconsin trial court with theft from a person.
- After a trial, the defendant was convicted of the charge.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment and order of the trial court to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
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 aid and abet the crime of theft from a person if they carry away property that an accomplice has just removed from an intoxicated victim's person, thereby completing the element of asportation?
Opinions:
Majority - Beilfuss, J.
Yes. A defendant who knowingly carries away property that an accomplice has just removed from a victim's person aids and abets the crime of theft from a person by completing a necessary element of the offense. The crime of larceny from a person requires two key elements: (1) the taking of property from the person of another, and (2) asportation (carrying it away). In this case, LeRoy executed the first element, while the defendant executed the second. To be liable for aiding and abetting, a person must undertake conduct that objectively aids in the crime's commission and must consciously intend for their conduct to provide such assistance. The defendant's own testimony established that he knew LeRoy was stealing from Selvent. By taking the watch and carrying it away, the defendant's action objectively supplied the necessary element of asportation, which completed the crime. The law presumes that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their voluntary acts; thus, by knowingly taking the watch under these circumstances, the defendant is presumed to have intended to assist in the commission of the theft from Selvent's person.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of accomplice liability to the offense of theft from a person. It establishes that the elements of a single crime can be divided among multiple participants, and a person who completes a final, necessary element can be held liable for the entire offense. This precedent broadens the scope of liability for theft from a person, allowing for conviction even when the defendant did not physically remove the property from the victim. It reinforces the principle that one who knowingly joins and contributes to a criminal enterprise at any stage is as culpable as the person who initiated it.
