People v. Brown

Supreme Court of California
105 Cal. 66 (1894)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To be guilty of larceny, the perpetrator must have the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property at the time of the taking; an intent to temporarily deprive the owner is insufficient.

Facts:

The appellant, a seventeen-year-old boy, was working for his board at a residence.
After another boy threw oranges at him, the appellant became angry and decided to take that boy's bicycle to 'get even'.
He went back to the residence and took a bicycle, mistakenly taking one that belonged to a person named Frank, not the boy with whom he had the dispute.
The value of the bicycle was sufficient to constitute grand larceny.
The appellant hid the bicycle in a grove under some brush, intending to return it that same night.
He was discovered with the bicycle before he had an opportunity to return it.

Procedural Posture:

The appellant was charged by information with the crime of burglary, with the underlying offense being the intent to commit grand larceny.
In the trial court, a jury found the appellant guilty.
The appellant appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of California.

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 another's property with the intent to deprive the owner of it only temporarily, rather than permanently, constitute the crime of larceny?

Opinions:

Majority - Garoutte, J.

No. Larceny is not committed if the intent of the party taking the property is to deprive the owner of it only temporarily. The trial court's instruction to the jury, stating that an intent to deprive the owner permanently was not required, was an error of law. The court held that authorities form an 'unbroken line' establishing that the felonious intent for larceny must be to deprive the owner of the property permanently. If the intent is not to permanently deprive the owner, the act is merely a trespass, not larceny. The court reasoned that the test of law is whether the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of their property, and this is a question of fact for the jury based on all surrounding circumstances. Because the trial court's instruction misstated this fundamental element, it improperly led the jury to convict based on the appellant's own testimony, which, if believed, negated the required intent for larceny.

Analysis:

This case firmly establishes the specific intent element for the crime of larceny in California, clarifying the critical distinction between larceny and the lesser offense of trespass to chattels. The decision creates a bright-line rule that the prosecution must prove the defendant intended a permanent, not temporary, deprivation. This precedent significantly impacts future larceny cases by providing a clear defense where the evidence suggests the defendant only intended to borrow or temporarily use the property. It solidifies the principle that the defendant's mental state (mens rea) regarding the duration of the taking is a core element of the crime.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Brown (1894)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature