Opinion ID: 2464726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 19] In Appellant's third issue, he claims that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Although we reverse on the jury instruction issue, we must also determine whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant because, if the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, Appellant is entitled to be acquitted on the charge, and the State may not re-try him. Granzer, ¶ 23, 193 P.3d at 272. The standard of review when determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction is stated as follows: In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence..., we examine and accept as true the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it. We do not consider conflicting evidence presented by the defendant. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the jury; rather, we determine whether a jury could have reasonably concluded each of the elements of the crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard applies whether the supporting evidence is direct or circumstantial. Anderson v. State, 2009 WY 119, ¶ 6, 216 P.3d 1143, 1145 (Wyo.2009). [¶ 20] Appellant asserts that there was no evidence that he took or carried Corey's vehicle. He contends that, absent such proof, he cannot be convicted of larceny. He argues that the taking element is contradicted by the undisputed evidence that Corey delivered the car to Appellant's rented property. Further, Appellant argues that the carrying element was not met because there was no evidence that Appellant assisted in hauling the car away. Appellant's arguments suggest that the elements of taking and carrying can be satisfied only if he had some physical contact with the property. He contends that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, may have been sufficient to establish larceny by bailee under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-402(b), but not ordinary larceny. [¶ 21] As noted above, the State concedes that Wyoming's larceny statute requires proof of both a taking, or caption, and a carrying away, or asportation, of the property of another. Both parties cite to language from our decision in Mendicoa, 771 P.2d 1240: In Murdock v. State, 351 P.2d 674 (Wyo. 1960), the defendant was charged with stealing sheep. We stated in Murdock that, in order to support a conviction, there must be a definite showing that defendant performed some act of taking, an asportation, or that he caused or procured [an accomplice] to perform such act; and that he must have done so with the intent to steal. Id. at 678. See also 3 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 369 (14th ed. 1980) (larceny requires a taking or caption and carrying away or asportation of the property of another). Id. at 1243-44. The elements of taking and carrying were included in the common law definition of larceny, and we have recognized that the larceny statute contains substantially the same basic elements as were required at common law. McCarty v. State, 616 P.2d 782, 785 (Wyo.1980); 2 W. Blackstone, Commentaries, Book IV, ch. 17, -232. [¶ 22] The evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, indicates that Appellant knew Corey owned the 1968 Dodge Charger. Appellant, however, represented to Mark that the car was abandoned and proceeded to sell the car to Mark and his nephew for $2,000.00. The State did not produce any evidence that Appellant physically placed the car on his lot or that Appellant helped remove the car when he sold it to Mark and his nephew. However, despite the fact that there was no evidence to indicate that Appellant ever came into contact with the car, it has long been recognized that a defendant does not need to personally exercise physical control over property in order to establish that a taking has occurred. See, e.g., United States v. Morgan, 805 F.2d 1372, 1377 (9th Cir.1986); State v. Patton, 364 Mo. 1044, 1050, 271 S.W.2d 560 (Mo. 1954); Smith v. State, 11 Ga.App. 197, 198, 74 S.E. 1093 (Ga.Ct.App.1912). Rather, [a] taking may be accomplished by any means. It may be effected through an animate or inanimate agency; and, if the taking is procured by an agent, it matters not whether the agent is innocent or guilty. 3 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 364, p. 423 (15th ed. 1995) (footnotes omitted); see also Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law, § 19.3(a), p. 75 (2d. ed. 2003) ([O]ne may `take' the property of another, although he personally does not acquire dominion over it, if he sells it as his own to an innocent third person, who then takes possession of it.) (footnote omitted). Likewise, [a]n asportation may be accomplished by the defendant personally, by mechanical means, or by a human agent. Wharton's Criminal Law § 367, p. 430 (footnotes omitted). In light of these rules, the majority of courts hold that when a defendant sells property that he does not own to an innocent purchaser, the purchaser is the defendant's agent for purposes of the caption and asportation requirements, and the purchaser's taking and carrying away is attributable to the defendant. LaFave at § 19.3(b), p. 76; McAlevy v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 318, 324, 605 S.E.2d 283, 286 (Va.Ct.App.2004) ([T]he majority of jurisdictions that have considered the innocent agent doctrine in larceny cases have adopted the view that asportation by an innocent purchaser from the non-owning seller establishes the `seller' as the principal in the first degree.); see also State v. Rozeboom, 145 Iowa 620, 124 N.W. 783 (Iowa 1910); Commonwealth v. Barry, 125 Mass. 390 (Mass.1878). [¶ 23] We have never expressly decided whether the taking and carrying elements of larceny may be attributed to a defendant's innocent agent. In Murdock, 351 P.2d 674, however, we recognized that a taking and carrying may be attributed to a third party. In that case, the defendant, William Murdock, and his wife, Jean Murdock, were charged with larceny of their neighbor's sheep. Id. at 676. The State's theory of the case was that the Murdocks, who were also in the sheep business, had taken some of their neighbor's sheep and altered and defaced the brands on several of the animals. Id. Jean Murdock, however, moved for a separate trial, and, after the motion was granted, the case proceeded only against Mr. Murdock. Id. In determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support Mr. Murdock's larceny conviction, we stated that to support the conviction there must be a definite showing that defendant performed some act of taking, an asportation, or that he caused or procured Jean Murdock to perform such act; and that he must have done so with the intent to steal. Id. at 678 (emphasis added). We held there was substantial evidence to support the finding that Mr. Murdock caused his wife to commingle his neighbor's sheep with his own. Id. at 678-79. As that decision clearly indicates, a defendant does not need to personally exercise physical control over property in order to establish that the elements of taking and carrying have been met. [¶ 24] Appellant contends that, in Murdock, we held only that a taking and carrying by an accomplice may be attributed to the defendant, and that the holding in that case does not extend to innocent agents. He points to our decision in Mendicoa, 771 P.2d at 1243, in which we replaced Mrs. Murdock's name with [an accomplice] when quoting the language from that case. See also Fischer v. State, 811 P.2d 5, 7 (Wyo. 1991). However, Mrs. Murdock was never determined to be an accomplice in Murdock, and, because Mrs. Murdock was granted a separate trial, the issue of whether she was an accomplice was never considered. Even if the facts presented in Murdock had established that Mrs. Murdock was an accomplice, we have never held that the actions of an innocent third party cannot be attributed to the defendant. Indeed, in determining whether a third party's actions may be attributed to a defendant for purposes of establishing the elements of larceny, we find no reason to draw a distinction between the agent who has no knowledge of the defendant's criminal activity and the agent who has agreed to the criminal enterprise. [¶ 25] Turning now to the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a taking and carrying of the vehicle, we conclude that these elements were satisfied. At the time Mark bought the vehicle from Appellant, Corey was the owner of the car. Consequently, Mark's purchase of the vehicle constituted a taking from Corey. With regard to the asportation element, we can easily conclude that the evidence of Mark's loading the vehicle onto a trailer and transporting it to his house was sufficient to establish that he carried the property away. As noted above, both the taking and carrying by Mark are attributable to Appellant. For that reason, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the taking and carrying elements were satisfied. [¶ 26] In his final issue, Appellant claims that the district court erred in refusing to allow the defense to impeach one of the State's witnesses by presenting evidence of that witness's prior felony convictions. Because the jury instruction issue is dispositive, we need not address this issue. [¶ 27] Reversed and remanded for a new trial.