Also known as:intention to permanently deprive · intentionally and permanently deprive · theft mens rea · permanent deprivation intent
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The specific mental state required for common law larceny and related theft offenses. The defendant must form this intent at the precise moment of the taking. It is satisfied when the defendant plans to deal with the property in a manner creating a substantial risk of permanent loss to the owner.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Robbery Lockbox Seizure
Luis shoved Captain Kathryn against the wheelhouse door with enough force to overcome her resistance and snatched the ship's lockbox of cash wages from a shelf directly above her shoulder. He threatened to throw her overboard if she tried to recover it and intended to keep the money for himself permanently. The shove and threat supplied the force and intimidation while the lockbox remained in Kathryn's immediate presence, and Luis's plan to retain the wages completed the robbery.
Receipt of Diverted Electronics
Mary diverted high-value electronics containers to a private dock and handed them to Everett. Everett accepted possession, stored the crates in an area under his control, and arranged resale through Katie's warehouse while knowing the goods had been criminally obtained. Everett's storage and marketing of the electronics supplied the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of its interest.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Common Law
Casebooks
Course Outlines
Collateral Coin Seizure
Evan entered Lopez's file room after hours, opened her desk drawer, removed her rare coin collection, and carried the coins toward his backpack. He planned to hold the coins as collateral until Lopez paid disputed consulting fees. Evan's decision to retain the coins to pressure payment created a substantial risk of permanent loss and satisfied the required intent at the moment of taking.
Morrissette v. United States342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288.
Jacket Removal from Store
Kiara removed a high-priced designer jacket from a sales rack on her day off, tried it on, removed the price tag, and exited the store through a side door without payment. She wore the jacket to dinner and displayed it to a friend while claiming a plan to return it the next morning. Her conduct of treating the jacket as her own created a substantial risk of permanent loss to the store and supplied the intent at the moment of caption.
People v. Anderson51 Cal. 4th 989, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 408, 252 P.3d 968 (2011)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When must the intent to permanently deprive exist for common law larceny?+
The intent must exist at the precise moment of the taking. A later decision to keep the property does not satisfy the element. Amelia placed a tablet in her cart without any plan to keep it permanently, so her decision days later to give it away could not supply the required contemporaneous intent.
Does an intent to borrow or return property temporarily satisfy the element?+
No. An intent to return the property after temporary use is not sufficient. A defendant who takes a pen intending to return it in a week or two lacks the intent to permanently deprive even if the pen is later stolen from the defendant.
What conduct creates a sufficient intent to permanently deprive?+
Intent exists when the defendant plans to deal with the property in a manner that creates a substantial risk of loss. Holding property as collateral until the owner satisfies a disputed claim or removing a price tag and wearing an item to dinner both qualify because each creates a substantial risk the owner will lose the property.
Does a good-faith belief that the taking is authorized negate the intent?+
Yes. A defendant who takes property under an honest belief that the owner authorized the taking lacks the required intent. Quincy removed seed crates after the owner stated workers could take leftover supplies, and his good-faith belief that the crates fell within that permission defeated the mental element even if the belief was mistaken.
342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288.Criminal Law
…the federal statute (18 USCA § 82) adopting common-law terms, stealing in general imports larceny; that is, felonious taking and intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.” 1 F. Supp. at 660. 18 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) § 87, entitled “Embezzling arms and stores,” provides: “Whoever shall steal, embezzle, or knowingly apply…