A wildlife protection agent attempted to stop the car in which defendant was driving. Defendant’s car did not stop and the agent was grazed by the defendant’s mirror as it sped past before swerving into a ditch. The agent fired shots into the tired before the vehicle was stopped. The defendant and another person in the car confronted the agent with a gun; they took the agent’s gun, shot out his tired, and left the scene.
Defendant convicted at trial of larceny.
For larceny, “intent to steal must exist at the time of the taking.”
Whether for larceny of an individual, there must be intent to steal at the time of the taking even when intent lies in the act of self-defense.
Yes, reversed. However, if intent to steal is in the act of self-defense, such intent may be exculpatory. When property is taken from the owner against his will, “by trespass or fraud, a subsequently formed intent to deprive the owner permanently of his property will constitute larceny.” The act could be construed as reasonably necessary to protect himself. Therefore, the intent to deprive the owner permanently of his gun would not be larceny. This represents an exception to the rule of intent to deprive as a necessary element of larceny.