State v. Varszegi
1993 Conn. App. LEXIS 489, 635 A.2d 816, 33 Conn. App. 368 (1993)
Rule of Law:
Larceny is a specific intent crime requiring the intent to steal (animus furandi); therefore, a defendant who takes property under an honest, good-faith claim of right, even if mistaken or unreasonable, lacks the necessary felonious intent to be guilty of larceny.
Facts:
- The defendant was the landlord of a commercial property in Stamford, where Catherine Topp's company was a tenant.
- Topp signed a lease containing a default clause that explicitly authorized the landlord to enter the premises, seize personal property, and sell it to recover unpaid rent.
- Topp allegedly failed to pay rent for March, April, and May 1990.
- On a Saturday, the defendant entered Topp's office by picking the lock and removed two computers and printers.
- When Topp discovered the items missing, she called the police; the defendant subsequently admitted to Topp and the investigating officers that he took the items to cover the rent, citing the lease provision.
- Police officers informed the defendant that he had no legal right to confiscate the equipment and should return it, but the defendant maintained his belief that his actions were proper under the lease.
- Relying on his interpretation of the lease, the defendant sold the computers on May 23, 1990.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged the defendant with larceny in the first degree and criminal coercion.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury acquitted the defendant of the criminal coercion charge.
- The jury convicted the defendant of the lesser included offense of larceny in the third degree.
- The defendant appealed the larceny conviction to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.
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 possess the specific felonious intent required for a larceny conviction when he openly seizes a tenant's property to satisfy a debt, relying in good faith on a lease provision he believes authorizes the action, even after police advise him the taking is illegal?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge O’Connell
No. A defendant does not commit larceny when acting under an honest claim of right, as this negates the specific intent to steal. The court reasoned that larceny requires animus furandi, or a subjective felonious intent. If a person takes property believing they have a legal right to do so—whether based on a contract, a debt, or a misunderstanding of the law—they are not stealing in the criminal sense, even if they are liable for civil trespass. The court found that the defendant openly admitted his actions, consistently cited the lease clause as his authority, and never attempted to conceal the taking. The court rejected the State's argument that police warnings negated his good faith, noting that police officers do not have the authority to declare civil contract provisions void or convert a good faith belief into criminal intent.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between civil wrongs (torts/breach of contract) and criminal offenses. By emphasizing that larceny requires specific subjective intent, the court protects individuals from criminal liability for aggressive self-help measures taken under a valid, albeit perhaps mistaken, color of right. The decision clarifies that the 'claim of right' defense does not require the defendant's belief to be legally correct or even reasonable, provided it is honest. This prevents the criminal justice system from being used to settle essentially civil disputes regarding contract interpretation and debt collection.
