Wilkinson v. State
215 Miss. 327, 60 So. 2d 786 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Obtaining property by fraudulently representing oneself as the owner constitutes larceny if the person transferring the property intends to part with possession only and not with legal title.
Facts:
- Three head of cattle owned by Douglas Leonard strayed from their pasture in November 1950.
- In January 1951, Lee Ferguson found the cattle and began holding them as estrays for the true owner.
- Fred Wilkinson, a hired hand for Whittington, learned that Ferguson was holding the stray cattle.
- In March 1951, Wilkinson and Whittington went to Ferguson's property to inspect the cattle.
- Whittington determined the cattle were not his, but at Wilkinson's suggestion and urging, he decided to falsely claim them.
- Whittington, in Wilkinson's presence, told Ferguson he was the owner, and Ferguson believed him.
- Ferguson accepted $10 for his troubles and transferred possession of the cattle to Whittington and Wilkinson.
- Wilkinson and Whittington immediately sold the cattle at a sales lot and split the proceeds, with Wilkinson receiving $85.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred Wilkinson was indicted for grand larceny in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, the trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury found Wilkinson guilty as charged.
- Wilkinson appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, the state's highest court, where he is the appellant.
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 person commit grand larceny when they fraudulently claim to be the owner of stray property to induce the person holding it to transfer possession, when the holder only intends to transfer possession to the true owner and not the title?
Opinions:
Majority - Ethridge, J.
Yes. A person commits grand larceny under these circumstances. The distinction between larceny by trick and obtaining property by false pretenses rests upon the intent of the person parting with the property. If the owner or possessor is fraudulently induced to part with possession only, and not title, the offense is larceny. Here, Ferguson, the possessor of the estrays, had no intention of transferring title; he merely intended to return possession to the person he believed was the true owner. Because possession was obtained through fraud with the present intent to convert the property, the crime committed was larceny, both at common law and under the grand larceny statute.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fine-line distinction between larceny by trick and the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses. The court's decision solidifies that the dispositive factor is the victim's intent regarding the transfer of title versus mere possession. This precedent clarifies for future cases that even an open and non-surreptitious taking, if based on a fraudulent claim of ownership that induces only a transfer of possession, constitutes larceny. It is a critical case for understanding the specific mental states required for various common law and statutory theft offenses.
Unlock the full brief for Wilkinson v. State