Larceny Question Forum

[cnk1220]

EDIT: solved.

[Gunner19]

This is going to sound stupid (LOL because I thought I knew crim law like the back of my hand but apparently not)..maybe I should withdraw from the exam at this point if I don't even understand this simple concept, but I'm actually confused now.


Woman was in process of moving out of apartment she had shared with roommate. Collected numerous items of hers from her roommate's room that roommate borrowed. As she was leaving the apartment she grabbed what she believed to be her laptop computer, which roommate often borrowed. She planned to trade it in for a different computer at the resale store. She noticed it was lighter than usual but reasonably thought this because was her diligence weight-lifting at the gym. When she arrived at computer store she discovered it was her roommate's new state of the art computer. She then kept the laptop rather than buying herself a new one.

Is woman guilty of larceny?

A. No- b/c she mistakenly believed the computer she picked up was hers.

D. Yes- b/c she decided to keep the computer when she discovered the mistake.


I put D. Um I thought this was a simple continuing trespass- ie intent to deprive permanently can be formed later even if it wasn't formed at the time of the taking b/c she THEN realized it wasn't hers and then formed the intent to keep it anyway...So apparently this is saying if you pick up something you think is yours (so no mens rea to steal at the time you grab the item) and then decide after you realize it isn't yours to keep it anyway because it's nice/new you AREN'T guilty of larceny?

WHAT?????

So I believe the distinction is that the fiction of continuous trespass only applies when you intentionally took the item to begin with without the necessary mens rea and then later misappropriate the item. However, here there was a mistake of identity at the time of the taking so she did not mean to take the roommates computer at all- even if only innocently. While it may be some other statutory crime introduced to fill such gaps, it won't be CL Larceny

[cnk1220]

This is going to sound stupid (LOL because I thought I knew crim law like the back of my hand but apparently not)..maybe I should withdraw from the exam at this point if I don't even understand this simple concept, but I'm actually confused now.


Woman was in process of moving out of apartment she had shared with roommate. Collected numerous items of hers from her roommate's room that roommate borrowed. As she was leaving the apartment she grabbed what she believed to be her laptop computer, which roommate often borrowed. She planned to trade it in for a different computer at the resale store. She noticed it was lighter than usual but reasonably thought this because was her diligence weight-lifting at the gym. When she arrived at computer store she discovered it was her roommate's new state of the art computer. She then kept the laptop rather than buying herself a new one.

Is woman guilty of larceny?

A. No- b/c she mistakenly believed the computer she picked up was hers.

D. Yes- b/c she decided to keep the computer when she discovered the mistake.


I put D. Um I thought this was a simple continuing trespass- ie intent to deprive permanently can be formed later even if it wasn't formed at the time of the taking b/c she THEN realized it wasn't hers and then formed the intent to keep it anyway...So apparently this is saying if you pick up something you think is yours (so no mens rea to steal at the time you grab the item) and then decide after you realize it isn't yours to keep it anyway because it's nice/new you AREN'T guilty of larceny?

WHAT?????

So I believe the distinction is that the fiction of continuous trespass only applies when you intentionally took the item to begin with without the necessary mens rea and then later misappropriate the item. However, here there was a mistake of identity at the time of the taking so she did not mean to take the roommates computer at all- even if only innocently. While it may be some other statutory crime introduced to fill such gaps, it won't be CL Larceny

EDIT: I understand now, thanks.

[Gunner19]

This is going to sound stupid (LOL because I thought I knew crim law like the back of my hand but apparently not)..maybe I should withdraw from the exam at this point if I don't even understand this simple concept, but I'm actually confused now.


Woman was in process of moving out of apartment she had shared with roommate. Collected numerous items of hers from her roommate's room that roommate borrowed. As she was leaving the apartment she grabbed what she believed to be her laptop computer, which roommate often borrowed. She planned to trade it in for a different computer at the resale store. She noticed it was lighter than usual but reasonably thought this because was her diligence weight-lifting at the gym. When she arrived at computer store she discovered it was her roommate's new state of the art computer. She then kept the laptop rather than buying herself a new one.

Is woman guilty of larceny?

A. No- b/c she mistakenly believed the computer she picked up was hers.

D. Yes- b/c she decided to keep the computer when she discovered the mistake.


I put D. Um I thought this was a simple continuing trespass- ie intent to deprive permanently can be formed later even if it wasn't formed at the time of the taking b/c she THEN realized it wasn't hers and then formed the intent to keep it anyway...So apparently this is saying if you pick up something you think is yours (so no mens rea to steal at the time you grab the item) and then decide after you realize it isn't yours to keep it anyway because it's nice/new you AREN'T guilty of larceny?

WHAT?????

So I believe the distinction is that the fiction of continuous trespass only applies when you intentionally took the item to begin with without the necessary mens rea and then later misappropriate the item. However, here there was a mistake of identity at the time of the taking so she did not mean to take the roommates computer at all- even if only innocently. While it may be some other statutory crime introduced to fill such gaps, it won't be CL Larceny

Thanks for trying but I'm still confused because

I've come across hypos where someone borrows someone's car with permission of the owner then decides they love the car and never returns it and that becomes continuing trespass. Which makes sense because intent to deprive perm. is formed later-- ie the whole point of continuing trespass HOWEVER if same hypo with the car then they form the mens rea to keep the car b/c they love the car but then 2 days later they feel bad and return it then no larceny because no permanent deprivation- also makes sense because the elements were not satisfied to make it a "perm. deprivation" because the car was returned.

Here, I do not understand how when she forms the mens rea to perm. deprive at the store and NEVER RETURNS IT it doesn't become continuing trespass that moment...

So the difference is in the taking (its a very slight difference). If the person takes the car with permission then they intentionally took the car and the fiction of continual trespass applies. In the laptop case there was no intentional taking to begin with, it was a mistake of identity. If she had walked into her roommates room, realized that it was her roommates laptop she was taking but intended to return it, then the continual trespass would apply (took with innocent intent but did intend to actually take it), and when she later misappropriated it becomes larceny.

[cnk1220]

This is going to sound stupid (LOL because I thought I knew crim law like the back of my hand but apparently not)..maybe I should withdraw from the exam at this point if I don't even understand this simple concept, but I'm actually confused now.


Woman was in process of moving out of apartment she had shared with roommate. Collected numerous items of hers from her roommate's room that roommate borrowed. As she was leaving the apartment she grabbed what she believed to be her laptop computer, which roommate often borrowed. She planned to trade it in for a different computer at the resale store. She noticed it was lighter than usual but reasonably thought this because was her diligence weight-lifting at the gym. When she arrived at computer store she discovered it was her roommate's new state of the art computer. She then kept the laptop rather than buying herself a new one.

Is woman guilty of larceny?

A. No- b/c she mistakenly believed the computer she picked up was hers.

D. Yes- b/c she decided to keep the computer when she discovered the mistake.


I put D. Um I thought this was a simple continuing trespass- ie intent to deprive permanently can be formed later even if it wasn't formed at the time of the taking b/c she THEN realized it wasn't hers and then formed the intent to keep it anyway...So apparently this is saying if you pick up something you think is yours (so no mens rea to steal at the time you grab the item) and then decide after you realize it isn't yours to keep it anyway because it's nice/new you AREN'T guilty of larceny?

WHAT?????

So I believe the distinction is that the fiction of continuous trespass only applies when you intentionally took the item to begin with without the necessary mens rea and then later misappropriate the item. However, here there was a mistake of identity at the time of the taking so she did not mean to take the roommates computer at all- even if only innocently. While it may be some other statutory crime introduced to fill such gaps, it won't be CL Larceny

Thanks for trying but I'm still confused because

I've come across hypos where someone borrows someone's car with permission of the owner then decides they love the car and never returns it and that becomes continuing trespass. Which makes sense because intent to deprive perm. is formed later-- ie the whole point of continuing trespass HOWEVER if same hypo with the car then they form the mens rea to keep the car b/c they love the car but then 2 days later they feel bad and return it then no larceny because no permanent deprivation- also makes sense because the elements were not satisfied to make it a "perm. deprivation" because the car was returned.

Here, I do not understand how when she forms the mens rea to perm. deprive at the store and NEVER RETURNS IT it doesn't become continuing trespass that moment...

So the difference is in the taking (its a very slight difference). If the person takes the car with permission then they intentionally took the car and the fiction of continual trespass applies. In the laptop case there was no intentional taking to begin with, it was a mistake of identity. If she had walked into her roommates room, realized that it was her roommates laptop she was taking but intended to return it, then the continual trespass would apply (took with innocent intent but did intend to actually take it), and when she later misappropriated it becomes larceny.

Ah yes!!! It makes sense now. Thank you so much!! It literally just clicked before you wrote to me