Also known as: intent to deprive
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The specific mental state accompanying a trespassory taking of another's tangible personal property. It consists of a purpose to deprive the owner permanently or for an unreasonable time.
Rafael used his key card to enter a secure university laboratory after hours without permission. He removed multiple microscopes and other equipment over several weeks and transported them to his new tutoring center for personal use. The repeated removals and subsequent use for his own business establish the required mental state at the time of each taking.
A widow executed a revocable trust transferring her property to avoid probate. She later executed a will leaving the same assets to her children. The court examined whether the trust dispositions reflected a genuine plan or merely an effort to cancel earlier testamentary gifts.
Morrissette collected spent bomb casings from a government bombing range believing they were abandoned. He sold the casings for scrap. The prosecution had to prove he acted with awareness that the property still belonged to the United States and with purpose to deprive the owner.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A patient sued a manufacturer after a pacemaker lead failed. The company argued federal regulations preempted the state tort claim. The Court analyzed whether the federal scheme reflected an intent to displace all state remedies or only those that conflicted with specific federal requirements.
Benton was tried for burglary and larceny in one proceeding. After a successful appeal he faced retrial on the same charges. The Court considered whether the second prosecution reflected an intent to subject him to multiple punishments for the same conduct.
A customer alleged that store employees conspired with police to arrest her because of her race. The Court examined whether the evidence showed an agreement reflecting purposeful intent to interfere with federally protected rights.
The prosecution must prove that the defendant took the property with the purpose to deprive the owner permanently or for an unreasonable time. A temporary borrowing intention or honest belief that the property was abandoned or discarded can negate this element.
Supporting sources
Yes. Any movement however slight that occurs as part of carrying the property away completes asportation. Later abandonment does not undo the completed carrying-away element.
Supporting sources
An honest mistake of fact defeats the charge when it prevents formation of the required mental state. If the defendant genuinely believed the property was abandoned scrap or otherwise not owned by the victim, the intent element is negated.
Supporting sources
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense unless it actually negates the required mental state. Deliberate actions such as accessing locked areas or selecting specific accounts usually demonstrate that the mental state was formed despite intoxication.
Supporting sources
…In 1973 South Dakota defined "larceny" as "the taking of personal property accomplished by fraud or stealth and with intent to deprive another thereof." S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 22-37-1 (1967) (repealed 1976). Grand larceny and petit larceny were distinguished as follows: "Grand larceny is larceny committed in any of the…