Court Opinion

ID: 9661989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:56:32.083842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:35.495199
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe,, the majority interpretation of the city ordinance to' be overly restrictive.
I understand “larceny” to include obtaining another’s property by trick or artifice with the intent to convert 'it. That'is what is involved in this case.
Defendant admittedly exchanged price tag stickers with the ihtént to obtain the more expensive rifle-scope *541at the lower price. He then took possession of the item and carried it to the checkout counter. He was apprehended when he attempted to pay the lower price.
This court said in McIntosh v. State (1920), 105 Neb. 328, 180 N. W. 573: “One of the elements of larceny is. asportation. It is not necessary, however, that the property stolen be retained in the possession of the thief. To remove it with the requisite felonious intent from one part of the premises to another, or from the spot where it is found, is a sufficient asportation.”