Topolewski v. State
109 N.W. 1037 (1906)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where the owner of property, by himself or through his agent, actively aids in the commission of a larceny by performing an act essential to the offense, such as delivering the property to the would-be thief, the element of nonconsent is negated, and the crime of larceny is not committed.
Facts:
- A packing company suspected the accused of theft and engaged an agent, Dolan, to act as a decoy.
- Dolan approached the accused, and together they jointly created a plan for the accused to steal barrels of meat from the company's loading platform.
- The packing company's manager, Mr. Layer, acting on the plan, had four barrels of meat packed and placed on the loading platform.
- Layer instructed the platform employee, Ernst Klotz, that a man would be coming for the barrels and to "Let them go."
- The accused arrived at the platform, and Klotz, believing the taking was authorized, stood by as the accused loaded three barrels onto his wagon.
- Klotz then assisted the accused in arranging the wagon and took an order from the accused concerning the disposition of the fourth barrel.
Procedural Posture:
- The accused was charged with larceny.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found the accused guilty and entered a judgment of conviction.
- The accused, as plaintiff in error, appealed the conviction to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an accused guilty of larceny if the owner of the property, for the purpose of entrapment, cooperates with the accused in planning the theft and its agent performs an essential act of the crime, such as delivering the property to the accused?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, J.
No. The accused is not guilty of larceny because the active participation by the property owner, through its agents, negated the essential element of nonconsent. Larceny requires a trespass, meaning a taking without the owner's consent. While an owner may passively provide an opportunity for a would-be thief to act, they may not actively aid, encourage, or solicit the crime. In this case, the packing company went beyond merely setting a trap; its agent, Dolan, jointly created the criminal plan with the accused. Furthermore, the company performed an essential act of the crime by directing its employee, Klotz, to permit the taking, which amounted to a constructive delivery of the property to the accused. Because the owner effectively delivered the property and consented to the taking, there was no trespass, and therefore no larceny was committed.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial distinction between permissible law enforcement stings and impermissible conduct that vitiates an essential element of a crime. By focusing on the element of nonconsent, the court clarifies that owner participation can serve as a defense to larceny if it crosses from passive facilitation to active assistance. The decision forces courts to scrutinize the degree of an owner's involvement, holding that if the owner performs an act constituting a core component of the offense, such as delivery, the crime of larceny is not legally completed. This precedent significantly impacts entrapment-style defenses, requiring prosecutors to prove the defendant committed every essential element of the offense without active aid from the victim.
Unlock the full brief for Topolewski v. State