State v. Coombs
55 Me. 477 (1868)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When possession of property is obtained wrongfully through trespass or fraud, the wrongful taking is considered continuous, and the crime of larceny is completed if the taker subsequently forms the felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
Facts:
- The prisoner asked to take possession of a horse, sleigh, and buffalo robes from their owner.
- The prisoner obtained possession by falsely and fraudulently pretending he intended to drive to a specific place and be gone for a specified time.
- In reality, the prisoner intended to go to a more distant place and be absent for a longer period.
- At the moment he first took possession of the property, the prisoner did not intend to steal it.
- Subsequently, while using the property, the prisoner formed the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it and converted it to his own use.
Procedural Posture:
- The prisoner was indicted for larceny in a trial court.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that they could find the prisoner guilty if he obtained the property by fraud and later formed the intent to steal it, even if he did not have that intent at the initial taking.
- Following the instructions, the jury convicted the prisoner of larceny.
- The prisoner appealed the conviction to this court, claiming the judge's instructions to the jury were legally incorrect (filed 'Exceptions').
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 the crime of larceny require that the felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of property exist at the precise moment of the initial taking, if possession was obtained wrongfully through fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Dickerson, J.
No. When possession of property is obtained wrongfully, larceny is complete when a felonious intent is later formed. The court reasoned that obtaining possession by fraud is not a lawful taking, but a wrongful one from the outset. This wrongful taking is considered a 'continuous trespass.' Unlike a person who comes into possession lawfully and later converts property, a person who obtains possession by fraud is a wrongdoer from the beginning. The crime of larceny is completed at the moment the felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property is 'superadded' to this continuous wrongful possession. The court distinguished this from cases of fraudulent sale, where the owner parts with title (ownership) and not just possession, which would not be larceny.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'continuing trespass' doctrine in the context of larceny by fraud. It clarifies that the elements of larceny—a wrongful taking (actus reus) and felonious intent (mens rea)—do not need to be formed at the exact same instant if the taking itself is wrongful. By treating a fraudulent taking as a continuous act, the law can find that a later-formed intent to steal 'concurs' with the ongoing wrongful possession, thus completing the crime. This prevents defendants from evading larceny charges by arguing their intent to steal was formed only after they had already wrongfully secured possession of the property.
