Thompson v. State
94 Ala. 535 (1891)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To constitute larceny, the accused must acquire dominion and control over the property, thereby superseding the owner's possession for an appreciable period. Merely disturbing the owner's possession by knocking property from their hand, without gaining control over it, is insufficient to satisfy the element of asportation (carrying away).
Facts:
- A witness for the State held two silver dollars in his open hand.
- The witness showed the money to the defendant after twelve o'clock at night.
- The defendant struck the witness's hand.
- The money was dislodged from the witness's hand as a result of the strike.
- The witness could not positively state whether the money was taken by the defendant or simply knocked to the ground.
- The witness did not see the money in the defendant's possession or on the ground after it was dislodged.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was prosecuted by the State for larceny in an Alabama trial court.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that knocking money from the owner's hand with felonious intent constituted a sufficient 'carrying away' for larceny, even if the defendant never gained possession of it.
- Following a conviction (implied), the defendant appealed the judgment to the reviewing court, challenging the trial court's jury instruction.
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 knocking money from an owner's hand, without the defendant ever gaining physical possession or control of it, satisfy the 'taking' and 'carrying away' elements required for the crime of larceny?
Opinions:
Majority - Walker, J.
No, merely knocking property from an owner's hand without ever gaining control over it does not satisfy the elements of larceny. The court reasoned that larceny requires both a 'caption' (taking) and an 'asportation' (carrying away). For these elements to be met, the accused must acquire dominion over the property, which means gaining actual custody or control that supersedes the owner's possession, even for a brief moment. If the defendant's action only caused the money to fall to the ground and he never possessed it, his dominion was not complete, and the larceny was not consummated. The court cited prior Alabama cases, including Frazier v. The State, to support the principle that the offense is incomplete if the accused fails to acquire dominion over the property.
Analysis:
This decision provides a clear definition of the asportation element of larceny, distinguishing a completed crime from an attempted one. It establishes that a defendant must achieve complete, albeit momentary, control over the property to be guilty of larceny. This reinforces the traditional common law requirements and prevents convictions for the full offense where the defendant's actions only disturb the victim's possession without successfully securing the property. Future cases involving similar fact patterns, where property is dislodged but not controlled by the perpetrator, will rely on this precedent to find the larceny incomplete.
Unlock the full brief for Thompson v. State