Source: https://www.williambarabino.com/blog/2019/01/19/larceny-by-stealing-in-a-building/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:37:09+00:00

Document:
What does Commonwealth law say on larceny by stealing in a building?
How does the Commonwealth prove a defendant guilty of the crime of larceny by stealing in a building?
What does “taking and carrying” away mean?
What is legally considered to be “property”?
How does the Commonwealth prove “intent to deprive permanently”?
What has case law ruled on regarding the crime of larceny by stealing in a building?
Does larceny by stealing in a building extend to any other locations besides a building proper?
Stealing is legally considered to be the wrongful taking of personal property that belongs to someone else with the intent to deprive that person of the property permanently.
The Commonwealth must prove that the property was being protected and kept safe by virtue of being in the building rather than being under the watchful eye or personal care of someone in the building.
The Commonwealth must prove that the property was owned or possessed by a person other than the defendant. This can be proved by direct evidence that someone else owned or possessed the property. In some cases, it can be reasonable to infer this from the surrounding circumstances of the situation in question. Note that the Commonwealth is NOT required to prove who owned or held the property, as long as it proves that the defendant did not.
Note that the identity of the owner does NOT need to be alleged if the property in question is described with sufficient certainty.
Note also that “owner” of a property includes anyone in actual or “constructive” possession.
“Taking and carrying away”is accomplished if the property is physically transferred from the place where it is being kept.This does not matter if the transfer involved only slight movement, or if it lasted for only a short time.
The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant intended to deprive the owner of the property in question permanently. The Commonwealth can prove this by direct evidence or by inference from the surrounding circumstances.
For example, if a person takes the property of another and disposes of it with utter indifference to whether the owner recovers its possession, an inference can be made of intent to deprive the person in question of the property in question permanently.
Commonwealth v. Luckis(1868) ruled that a wallet does not need to necessarily be removed from a victim’s pocket for theft to be alleged. However, the defendant must for an instant at least have had perfect control of the property.
Commonwealth v. Sullivan(1870) ruled that a person who orders goods is in constructive possession of them once delivered to a common carrier, absent a shipping agreement to the contrary.
Commonwealth v. Finn(1871) ruled that a person could legally steal from a thief.
Gordon v. Mass. (1965) ruled that an “owner” includes anyone with a possessory or property interest. A complaint about “the property of x” legally reads as “the property of x, or of another but in x’s actual or ‘constructive’ possession”. A driver with a shared dominion of a registered vehicle in his or her spouse’s name is legally considered to be “the owner”.
Commonwealth v. Salerno(1970) ruled that taking could be proved by circumstantial evidence.
Commonwealth v. Flowers(1973) ruled that transfer of property from a victim’s control to a thief’s is sufficient to proceed with prosecution under this statute. Literal “carrying away” is not required. Transfer can be through an agent or a victim.
Commonwealth v. Bradley(1974) ruled that momentary transfer is sufficient to proceed with prosecution under this statute.
Commonwealth v. Fielding(1976) ruled that any separation of property from a victim’s dominion, even if brief in space and time, is sufficient to proceed with prosecution under this statute.
Commonwealth v. Beckett(1977) ruled that intent to commit larceny from a welfare department can be inferred from circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Ellison(1977) ruled that intent to make restitution later is not a defense to larceny by stealing in a building. It is not enough that the theft be committed within a building. The building—rather than a particular person—must be protecting the property.
Commonwealth v. Youraski(1981) ruled that intellectual property, such as a taped performance, is NOT subject to a larceny statute.
Commonwealth v. Stephens(1982) ruled that it is sufficient to prosecute theft if the victim put property in a bag at the orders of the defendant, though the defendant never touched the property in question.
Commonwealth v. Souza(1986) ruled that the identity of an owner does NOT need to be proved. Only that the owner was NOT the defendant needs to be proved. As long as the defendant is not mislead, a misnomer of the owner is immaterial.
Commonwealth v. Graham(2004) ruled that larceny in a building is a felony regardless of the value of the property stolen.
YES, larceny by stealing in a building applies also to stealing in a ship, vessel, or railroad car.
IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH LARCENY BY STEALING IN A BUILDING, AND YOU NEED AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER WORKING ON YOUR SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.