Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Carswell

Supreme Court of North Carolina
249 S.E.2d 427 (1978), 296 N.C. 101 (1978)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For the crime of larceny, the element of asportation is satisfied by any movement of property from its original position, however slight, and the element of taking is satisfied when the accused gains complete control over the property, severing it from the owner's possession, even for an instant.


Facts:

  • An air conditioner unit was located in a window base at a Day's Inn Motel.
  • The unit had been previously pried up from its base and was not physically attached to the building.
  • The defendant and a companion picked up the air conditioner unit.
  • They moved the unit from its base in the window and placed it on the floor.
  • The unit's final position on the floor was four to six inches from its original location, in the direction of the door.

Procedural Posture:

  • The defendant was tried for larceny in the trial court.
  • At trial, the defendant's motion for nonsuit, arguing insufficient evidence, was denied by the judge.
  • The defendant was convicted of larceny.
  • The defendant, as appellant, appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence of taking and asportation was insufficient.
  • The State, as appellant, appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Locked

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 moving an unattached air conditioner from its window base to a spot on the floor four to six inches away constitute a sufficient 'taking' and 'asportation' to support a larceny conviction?


Opinions:

Majority - Copeland, Justice

Yes. Moving an unattached air conditioner from its window base to the floor a few inches away constitutes a sufficient taking and asportation for larceny. Larceny requires both a 'taking' (severing the goods from the owner's possession) and an 'asportation' (carrying them away). The asportation element is met by a 'bare removal' from the original place, which occurred when the defendant moved the unit from the window to the floor. The taking element was met the moment the defendant picked up the unattached unit, thereby gaining complete, albeit brief, possession and control over it, severing it from the owner's possession. This is distinct from cases where an item remains attached to the premises, as here the defendant had full control of the object for an instant.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the minimal actions required to satisfy the elements of larceny in North Carolina. It establishes that the crime is legally complete the moment a defendant achieves complete, momentary control of an unattached object and moves it, even slightly. This precedent lowers the threshold for prosecutors, allowing them to secure larceny convictions even when the perpetrator is apprehended before they can leave the premises or move the property a significant distance. The ruling distinguishes between mere shifting of an object's position and the actual removal and control that constitutes a completed theft.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State v. Carswell (1978) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for State v. Carswell