People ex rel. Koons v. Elling
190 Misc. 998, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2130, 77 N.Y.S.2d 103 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Property that is possessed illegally, such as money within an unlawful gambling device, still has inherent value and can be the subject of larceny, as the state may have a superior claim of ownership.
Facts:
- Walter Koons and two confederates went to the Moose Club in Canandaigua, N.Y.
- Using a hand drill and wire, they manipulated illegal slot machines, commonly known as 'one armed bandits', without inserting any coins.
- This action caused the machines to dispense approximately $95 in United States currency.
- Koons and his confederates took the money and appropriated it for their own use.
- The slot machines from which the money was taken were unlawful gambling devices under New York Penal Law.
Procedural Posture:
- Walter Koons was arrested and charged in the Justice's Court of the Town of Canandaigua with petit larceny.
- Represented by counsel, Koons entered a plea of guilty to the charge.
- The Justice's Court convicted Koons and sentenced him to one year in jail and a $300 fine.
- Koons, as appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the County Court.
- The County Court dismissed the appeal for failure of appearance.
- Koons then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the New York Supreme Court, a trial-level court, to secure his release from custody.
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 taking money from an illegal slot machine constitute the crime of petit larceny, even though the possessor of the machine has no legal property rights to the money?
Opinions:
Majority - Cribb, J.
Yes. Taking money from an illegal slot machine constitutes the crime of petit larceny. The defendant's argument that there can be no larceny of property not subject to legal ownership is incorrect because the illegality of possession does not negate the property's inherent value. The court reasoned by analogy to People v. Otis, which held that illegally possessed whiskey could still be the subject of larceny because it had inherent value. Furthermore, New York statutes provide for the seizure of illegal slot machines and their contents, with any money found therein to be paid to the County Welfare Fund. Therefore, the court concluded that the welfare fund had a superior property right to the money in the machines, even before its physical seizure by authorities. To hold that one cannot be guilty of larceny in such a situation would be an 'absurdity' and would condone stealing.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the important principle that the illegality of property does not serve as a defense to a larceny charge for its theft. It separates the legal status of the possessor from the inherent value of the property and the state's overriding interest in preventing theft. The case prevents a legal loophole where criminal enterprises would be outside the protection of criminal law, effectively creating a 'free-for-all' for stealing ill-gotten gains. By recognizing the state (via the County Welfare Fund) as a potential 'true owner' through forfeiture laws, the court provides a legal basis for prosecuting theft even when the immediate possessor lacks clean hands.
