State v. Savage
37 Del. 509, 1936 Del. LEXIS 46, 186 A. 738 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Larceny requires the specific felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property at the time of the taking. A taking for a temporary purpose with a genuine intent to return the property, or a like kind of fungible goods, negates the felonious intent required for larceny.
Facts:
- The defendant took a can of gasoline that belonged to another person.
- The taking occurred in Sussex County without the owner's consent.
- The defendant admitted to taking the property.
- The defendant contended that he only took the property for a temporary purpose.
- The defendant asserted that at the moment of taking, he intended to restore the physical can and replace the gasoline with an identical quantity.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Delaware brought a criminal charge of larceny against the defendant.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in a Delaware trial court in Sussex County.
- The defendant did not contest the physical act of taking the property but denied that he possessed the required felonious intent for larceny.
- At the conclusion of the trial, before the jury began deliberations, the Chief Justice delivered these instructions on the applicable law.
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 taking another's property for a temporary purpose, with the genuine intent at the time of taking to return the property or its equivalent in kind and quantity, constitute larceny?
Opinions:
Majority - Layton, C. J.
No. The taking of another's property for a temporary purpose with a bona fide intention to return it does not amount to larceny. To constitute larceny, the intent at the time of the taking must be to wholly and permanently deprive the owner of the property. A mere wrongful taking without permission, such as an unauthorized borrowing, is a civil trespass but lacks the requisite felonious intent for a criminal conviction. This principle applies even to fungible goods, like gasoline, if the taker intends at the time of the taking to return an identical item in quantity and quality. The critical element for the jury to determine is the defendant's intent at the exact moment of the taking; a subsequent repentance and return of the property cannot cure a taking that was initially done with felonious intent.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear articulation of the specific intent, or mens rea, required for the crime of larceny, distinguishing it from the lesser civil wrong of trespass to chattels. The court clarifies that the core of larceny is the intent to cause a permanent deprivation of property. Significantly, the opinion extends the 'intent to return' defense to fungible goods, holding that an intent to replace consumed property with an identical equivalent can negate felonious intent. This precedent helps define the boundary between criminal theft and non-criminal conversion, ensuring that not every unauthorized temporary use of property is prosecuted as larceny.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Savage