People v. Meyer
1888 Cal. LEXIS 555, 17 P. 431, 75 Cal. 383 (1888)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the crime of larceny to be complete, the element of asportation requires that the stolen property be completely severed from the owner's possession or premises. If the property remains attached, even by a slight connection like a chain, asportation has not occurred.
Facts:
- Lewis Joseph placed an overcoat on a dummy which stood on the sidewalk outside his store.
- The overcoat was secured to the dummy by a chain that ran through its sleeve.
- The dummy itself was tied to the store building by a string.
- The defendant, Meyer, unbuttoned the coat from the dummy and removed it.
- Meyer took the coat, placed it under his arm, and began to walk away.
- Meyer was stopped approximately two feet from the dummy's original location because the security chain was still attached to both the coat and the dummy.
- Joseph heard the chain rattle, came outside, and apprehended Meyer.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Meyer, was tried in the court of first instance on an information charging him with larceny of an overcoat.
- The defendant pleaded guilty to prior convictions for petit larceny.
- A jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of petit larceny.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to two years in state prison.
- The defendant moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The defendant appealed the judgment and the order denying a new trial 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 defendant's act of removing an overcoat from a dummy and moving it two feet away constitute a sufficient 'carrying away' (asportation) for larceny if the coat remains physically attached to the dummy by a security chain?
Opinions:
Majority - Sharrstein, J.
No. A defendant's act of moving an overcoat does not constitute a sufficient 'carrying away' for larceny if the coat remains physically attached to the owner's property. Larceny requires asportation, which is the complete severance of the goods from the possession of the owner. Citing common law principles, the court reasoned that because the overcoat was still connected to the dummy by the chain, it was never fully severed from the owner's possession, and thus the defendant never gained complete control over it. This is analogous to a historical case where a thief tried to steal goods tied by a string to a counter; because the string was never broken, the asportation element was not met and no felony was committed. The court also held, on a secondary issue, that it was proper for the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about prior felony convictions and aliases once he chose to testify on his own behalf.
Concurring - McFarland, J.
Yes, on the judgment, but dissenting on the cross-examination issue. While agreeing that the larceny conviction should be reversed due to the lack of asportation, this opinion dissents from the majority's conclusion regarding the permissible scope of cross-examination. The concurrence argues that Penal Code section 1323, which states a defendant may be cross-examined 'as to all matters about which he was examined in chief,' is a strict limitation. Allowing the prosecution to question the defendant on matters not raised in his direct testimony, such as prior convictions and aliases, violates this statutory protection and creates a chilling effect on a defendant's right to testify.
Analysis:
This case provides a foundational and clear illustration of the asportation element of common law larceny. It establishes that control over the stolen item must be complete, meaning any physical attachment to the owner's premises, no matter how slight, prevents the crime of larceny from being completed, though it may still constitute an attempt. The decision reinforces a very technical requirement of the crime, demonstrating that a defendant can have the requisite intent and move an object, yet still fail to legally 'carry it away'. This precedent is critical in cases involving thefts of items secured by cables or chains, such as bicycles or retail merchandise, and forces prosecutors to prove a complete severance from the owner's property.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Meyer