Los Angeles Shoplifting Grand Larceny Theft Criminal Defense Lawyers California Laws Orange County
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAJID KHOURY,
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
June 5, 1980
Defendant then walked back through the checkstand and into the store, leaving the box with the cashier. Defendant was arrested by store security after the box was opened, disclosing in excess of $ 900 worth of store items, consisting of batteries, tools, and chain saws, but no chandelier. The Municipal Court for the Citrus Judicial District of Los Angeles County (California) convicted, entered upon a jury verdict, for grand theft.
Issues:
The Court states that the crime of larceny is the stealing or taking of the property of another. ( Pen. Code, § 484.)  The completed crime of larceny as distinguished from an attempt -- requires asportation or carrying away, in addition to the taking.  The element of asportation is not satisfied unless it is shown that 'the goods were severed from the possession or custody of the owner, and in the possession of the thief, though it be but for a moment. The other element of theft by larceny is the specific intent in the mind of the perpetrator to deprive the owner permanently of his property. The sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of intent is not a claim of error on this appeal but is important in reviewing the jury's determination of the existence of the element of asportation or carrying away, a question of fact.
The Court observed that the jury was instructed that "In order to constitute a carrying away, the property need not be actually removed from the premises of the owner." Any removal of the property from the place where it was kept or placed by the owner, done with the specific intent to deprive the owner permanently of his property, whereby the perpetrator obtains possession and control of the property for any period of time, is sufficient to constitute the element of carrying away.
The Court held that "In this case the jury was properly instructed as to the necessary elements of the crime of theft by larceny. They were not told that there could be no taking or carrying away or asportation unless defendant was able to get the chandelier box containing other store property past the cashier. This was a factor to be considered by the jury, as the trier of fact, in determining whether there was or was not an asportation. The intent to permanently deprive the store of its merchandise was clear. The defendant in this appeal does not even attempt to negate the element of intent by proof of innocence though careless mistake.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
June 5, 1980
Defendant then walked back through the checkstand and into the store, leaving the box with the cashier. Defendant was arrested by store security after the box was opened, disclosing in excess of $ 900 worth of store items, consisting of batteries, tools, and chain saws, but no chandelier. The Municipal Court for the Citrus Judicial District of Los Angeles County (California) convicted, entered upon a jury verdict, for grand theft.
Issues:
- Whether there was an insufficient evidence to convict the defendant for grand theft?
- Whether the evidence was insufficient to show an asportation or carrying away of the personal property of the Fed Mart Store?
The Court states that the crime of larceny is the stealing or taking of the property of another. ( Pen. Code, § 484.)  The completed crime of larceny as distinguished from an attempt -- requires asportation or carrying away, in addition to the taking.  The element of asportation is not satisfied unless it is shown that 'the goods were severed from the possession or custody of the owner, and in the possession of the thief, though it be but for a moment. The other element of theft by larceny is the specific intent in the mind of the perpetrator to deprive the owner permanently of his property. The sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of intent is not a claim of error on this appeal but is important in reviewing the jury's determination of the existence of the element of asportation or carrying away, a question of fact.
The Court observed that the jury was instructed that "In order to constitute a carrying away, the property need not be actually removed from the premises of the owner." Any removal of the property from the place where it was kept or placed by the owner, done with the specific intent to deprive the owner permanently of his property, whereby the perpetrator obtains possession and control of the property for any period of time, is sufficient to constitute the element of carrying away.
The Court held that "In this case the jury was properly instructed as to the necessary elements of the crime of theft by larceny. They were not told that there could be no taking or carrying away or asportation unless defendant was able to get the chandelier box containing other store property past the cashier. This was a factor to be considered by the jury, as the trier of fact, in determining whether there was or was not an asportation. The intent to permanently deprive the store of its merchandise was clear. The defendant in this appeal does not even attempt to negate the element of intent by proof of innocence though careless mistake.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.