State of Oregon v. Girard Langis

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 1
444 P.2d 959 (1968)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An intent to abandon stolen property under circumstances that would make its recovery by the owner difficult or unlikely is sufficient to establish the "intent to permanently deprive" element required for the crime of larceny.

Facts:

The defendant and his companion, Richard Carrier, were traveling from Vancouver, B.C., to San Francisco.
They had reached Eugene, Oregon, by bus and hitchhiking.
A car was taken in Eugene.
Carrier testified that he took the car and intended to abandon it in 'perfect condition' in Roseburg, which is 70 miles south of Eugene.
The defendant and Carrier were apprehended by State Police in the stolen car between Eugene and Roseburg, with Carrier driving.
The ultimate destination of the defendant and Carrier was San Francisco, approximately 500 miles south of Eugene.

Procedural Posture:

The defendant was charged with larceny of a motor vehicle in an Oregon trial court.
Following a trial, a jury convicted the defendant.
The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court gave the jury an improper instruction regarding the intent element of larceny.

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 intent to take property, use it temporarily, and then abandon it in circumstances that would render its recovery by the owner difficult or unlikely, satisfy the 'intent to permanently deprive' element required for a larceny conviction?

Opinions:

Majority - Denecke, J.

Yes. An intent to abandon property in such circumstances that its recovery by the owner is rendered difficult or unlikely constitutes an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The court reasoned that the statutory requirement of an "intent to permanently deprive" can be inferred from the circumstances of the planned abandonment. Adopting the reasoning from Perkins on Criminal Law, the court stated that an intent to steal exists if the intended abandonment will create a considerable risk of permanent loss to the owner. The jury could have reasonably concluded from the evidence of the defendant's ultimate destination (San Francisco) that he intended to abandon the car far from its owner, creating a substantial risk of permanent loss. While the word 'difficult' in the jury instruction was not ideal, in this context, the jury would have understood it to mean a recovery so arduous that the chances of permanent deprivation were substantial.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the mens rea (intent) element for larceny, expanding it beyond a literal interpretation of 'permanently.' It establishes that the focus is not on the defendant's desire to keep the property forever, but on the foreseeable consequences of their actions for the owner. The ruling effectively allows 'joyriding' cases to be prosecuted as larceny if the defendant plans to abandon the vehicle far from its point of origin. This creates a more practical, risk-based standard for prosecutors, making it easier to secure larceny convictions in cases where defendants claim they only intended a temporary taking but planned to abandon the property irresponsibly.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State of Oregon v. Girard Langis (1968)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"