People v. Robinson
60 N.Y.2d 982 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person cannot be guilty of larceny as an accomplice if their participation begins after the element of asportation (the carrying away of the property) is complete. The asportation phase of a larceny ends when the original perpetrators are no longer in the process of carrying away the loot from the scene of the crime.
Facts:
- On the morning of May 31, 1977, an employee of Volpe Motors discovered a new Lincoln Continental had been taken from the dealership's repair shop.
- Later that day, police found the car abandoned on a street some distance from the dealership.
- The car's wheels and tires, with an aggregate value of $750, were missing.
- Police found the defendant's fingerprints on the car's rear fender skirts.
- In a statement to police, the defendant admitted that he knew the car had been stolen the previous night from Volpe Motors.
- The defendant stated that he did not participate in the initial theft of the car but helped two friends remove the wheels and tires and load them into their automobile.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted for grand larceny in the third degree for the theft of the wheels and tires.
- Following a trial in the court of first instance, a jury found the defendant guilty of grand larceny.
- The defendant appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment, finding the evidence legally insufficient to establish larceny.
- The People, as appellant, appealed the reversal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest 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 an individual commit larceny when they assist in removing parts from a stolen vehicle the day after the vehicle was taken, at a location distant from the original theft and after the original perpetrators have secured the vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Memorandum
No. A person does not commit larceny if their involvement begins after the asportation of the stolen property has ceased. In this case, the larceny of the car, including its components, was complete when the original perpetrators assumed dominion and control over it and removed it from the dealership. The defendant's involvement began the following day, at a different location, and not while the perpetrators were in immediate flight or being pursued. Therefore, the asportation had ended before the defendant's participation, and he cannot be held liable as an accomplice to the larceny, though he may be guilty of a different crime like criminal possession of stolen property.
Dissenting - Meyer, J.
Yes. A person could be found guilty of larceny in this situation because the completion of the crime depends on the specific intent of the perpetrators, which is a question of fact for the jury. The majority errs by focusing solely on the asportation of the car. If the original thieves intended only to steal the wheels and tires, then the larceny was not complete until those parts were actually removed from the vehicle. Since the defendant knowingly assisted in the final act of removing the wheels and tires, a jury could find that he was an accomplice to a larceny that was still in progress.
Analysis:
This decision refines the temporal scope of accomplice liability for larceny by emphasizing the completion of the asportation element. It creates a clearer distinction between the crime of larceny and the separate offense of criminal possession of stolen property. The ruling instructs that once the thieves have reached a point of temporary safety and are no longer in the act of 'carrying away' the goods, the larceny is complete. Consequently, anyone who subsequently assists them with the stolen property cannot be an accomplice to the original theft, limiting prosecutorial discretion and requiring charges to more accurately reflect the defendant's conduct.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Robinson