State v. Victor
368 So. 2d 711 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of theft under Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:67 requires a "misappropriation or taking" of another's property with intent to permanently deprive, establishing control adverse to the owner's dominion, but explicitly does not require a physical "asportation" (carrying away) by the defendant himself or through his personal actions.
Facts:
- Anthony C. Victor (defendant) was in a discount store.
- Victor removed a terrarium from its box.
- Victor placed a television set and other goods inside the empty terrarium box.
- Victor then went to another area of the store and spoke to his two daughters.
- Victor's daughters subsequently pushed the shopping cart containing the concealed items to the checkout counter.
- At the checkout counter, the cashier lifted the terrarium box, revealing the television set and other goods hidden inside.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Anthony C. Victor with theft under La.R.S. 14:67 in the trial court (court of first instance).
- Anthony C. Victor was convicted of theft after a non-jury trial in the trial court.
- The trial court deferred Anthony C. Victor's sentence for two years and placed him on active probation, conditioned upon receiving mental health treatment.
- Anthony C. Victor, as appellant, filed motions for acquittal and a new trial in the trial court, which were denied.
- Anthony C. Victor, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Louisiana (the highest court), arguing there was no evidence of "misappropriation or taking" or "intent to deprive" permanently.
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 theft under La.R.S. 14:67 require the defendant to physically "carry away" (asportation) the stolen property or personally maintain control of it, or is a "taking" proven by the exertion of wrongful dominion or unauthorized control over the property, even if done through others or without physical movement?
Opinions:
Majority - Tate, J.
Yes, the crime of theft under La.R.S. 14:67 is proven by the exertion of wrongful dominion or unauthorized control over the property, and does not require the defendant to physically "carry away" the stolen property or personally maintain control of it. The court affirmed the conviction, clarifying that its appellate jurisdiction is limited to questions of law, meaning it only reverses if there is no evidence proving essential elements of the crime. The court held that the pre-1942 common-law requirement of "asportation" (carrying away) is no longer an element of theft under La.R.S. 14:67. This statutory language combined larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses into a single crime, focusing on the "misappropriation or taking" of property with intent to permanently deprive. The court found State v. Laborde (1942), which required asportation by the thief himself, to be unpersuasive authority because it predated the 1942 Criminal Code and had received scholarly criticism for being illogical and overly technical. Under La.R.S. 14:67, a "taking" occurs when the offender acquires control of the property, displacing the owner's dominion, regardless of whether there is physical movement or if the act is accomplished personally or through others. The court found that Victor's act of concealing the television set and other goods in the terrarium box and directing his daughters to the checkout counter constituted "some evidence" of both a "taking" and an "intent to deprive the owner permanently" of the concealed items, which was sufficient for the trier of fact to reasonably conclude guilt.
Analysis:
This case is significant for definitively clarifying the elements of theft under La.R.S. 14:67, explicitly discarding the common-law "asportation" requirement that had persisted in some interpretations. It broadened the scope of what constitutes a "taking," emphasizing wrongful dominion or unauthorized control over property, aligning Louisiana's theft statute with the modern intent to simplify property offenses. This ruling ensures that individuals who exert control over property with intent to steal, even without physically moving it far or doing so personally, can be prosecuted for completed theft rather than merely attempted theft. The decision reinforces the appellate court's limited role to review only for a total lack of evidence, rather than sufficiency.
