People v. Brown

Facts

Brown, a boy of seventeen, had been staying for a few days at a house, working for his board. He entered the house and took a bicycle that belonged to the person named in the information. Everyone conceded the entry. Everyone also conceded that the bicycle was worth enough to make its theft grand larceny. Brown took the stand. He said another boy had thrown oranges at him and would not stop when told to, which made him mad. He said he had decided to take that boy's bicycle to get even. Instead, he took Frank's bicycle. He said he never meant to keep it and planned to bring it back on Sunday night. He said he took it to a grove, covered it with brush, and crawled in, meaning to stay hidden until evening and then take it back. Before he got back, Frank found him there. The trial judge told the jury that taking a bicycle only to ride it some distance, and then leaving it for someone else to find, would still be larceny.

Issues

1. Is the felonious intent required for larceny an intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently, or does an intent to deprive the owner only temporarily also suffice?
2. Was the trial judge's instruction, that a taker who meant to use the property only for a time and then leave it could be guilty of larceny, reversible error on these facts?

Holding

The trial court erred by telling the jury that an intent to deprive the owner only temporarily is enough for larceny. The law requires an intent to deprive the owner permanently. If Brown's story was true, he was not guilty of larceny, yet under the instruction his own words convicted him, so the instruction required reversal.