Thompson v. State

The Facts

Witness claims he held out his hand with two coin to show defendant money.  Defendant struck witness’s hand and he was dispossessed of his coins.


Jury at trial was instructed:  “If the jury find from the evidence that the defendant, with a felonious intent, grabbed for the money, but did not get it, but only knocked it from the owner’s hand with a felonious intent, this would be a sufficient carrying away of the money, although the defendant never got possession at any time of said money.”


Can defendant be convicted of taking when his intent was to take, but the effect of his act did not put him in possession of would-be stolen item?


No. For larceny “there must be a felonious taking and carrying away of personal property … there must be dominion and control of the property.”  The accused must further carry away “as to supersede the possession of the owner for an appreciable period of time.”  In the instant case, the defendant did not acquire possession himself, nor did he exercise dominion and control over the object.


When a defendant fails to exercise dominion and control over the stolen property he is said to have “asported” the property.  Here, the defendant asported the property but did not commit larceny.

Leave a Reply