State v. Cohen
1935 Minn. LEXIS 1063, 263 N.W. 922, 196 Minn. 39 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of personal property can be found guilty of larceny for taking that property from a person who has a lawful possessory lien on it, if the taking is done with the felonious intent to deprive the lienholder of their possessory right.
Facts:
- The defendant owned a Hudson seal fur coat and hired Mellon, a furrier, to perform alterations and repairs for an agreed-upon price of $50.
- During the negotiations, the defendant's husband represented that the owner's name was 'Mrs. Sbroe'.
- After the work was completed, Mellon made several unsuccessful attempts to deliver the coat and collect payment, with the defendant expressing dissatisfaction and on one occasion attempting to keep the coat without paying.
- On January 2, 1935, Mellon brought the coat to the defendant's home for a fourth time.
- The defendant tried on the coat, claimed she needed to view it in a longer mirror in her apartment, and went into another room.
- She returned without the coat and refused Mellon's demand for either the coat or the payment.
- When a detective arrived, the defendant refused to disclose the coat's location, and a search of the apartment was unsuccessful.
- The next day, the coat was found to be in the possession of a downtown store, where the defendant had concealed it.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged the defendant with the crime of grand larceny in the second degree in a Minnesota trial court.
- A jury found the defendant guilty as charged.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction against the defendant.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
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 owner of personal property commit larceny by fraudulently taking it from a lienholder who has a lawful right to possession, with the intent to deprive the lienholder of their possessory interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Holt, Justice
Yes. An owner of property may be guilty of larceny if they wrongfully take it from one who has a special property right, such as a lien, with the felonious intent to deprive that person of their rights. The court reasoned that Mellon had a lawful possessory lien on the coat for the value of his labor and materials under state statutes. The defendant obtained possession of the coat through subterfuge, by pretending she needed to look in a mirror, and then concealed it. Her actions, including her evasive testimony, provided sufficient evidence for the jury to find she acted with the felonious intent to deprive Mellon of his lien and his right to possess the coat until the lien was discharged. The court affirmed that larceny is a crime against possession, not just absolute ownership, citing State v. Hubbard for the principle that a general owner can steal their own property from a person with a special, superior right of possession.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle that larceny is primarily an offense against the right of possession, rather than an offense against absolute ownership. It establishes that an owner's title to property is not a defense to larceny if another party holds a superior possessory right, such as a statutory artisan's lien. The decision underscores that intent is a critical element, which can be inferred from circumstantial evidence like trickery, fraud, and concealment. This precedent is significant for protecting the rights of bailees, pledgees, and artisans who rely on possessory liens to secure payment for services rendered.
