Court Opinion

ID: 9778606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:13:49.810414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:12.088541
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Justice,
specially concurring.
[128] I agree wholly with the majority opinion, but only because of the distorted way in which this case was charged and tried. The State's theory was, and it produced evidence intending to prove, that the appellant was rightfully in possession of the vehicle as a result of his conversations over the years with its owner, Corey. Under those cireumstances, the proper charge against the appellant, if any, was larceny by a bailee under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-402(b) (LexisNexis 2009). "Bailee" is defined in the larceny statute as "a person other than the owner of property who rightfully possesses property[(.]" Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-401(a)@) (LexisNexis 2009). To commit larceny, a bailee does not "take and carry"; he "converts the property to his own or another's use[.]" Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-402(b). If properly charged, the factual issues in this case for the jury would have been whether the appellant rightfully possessed the vehicle and, if so, whether he converted it as contemplated by the statute.
[129] I write separately only to suggest that, by answering the questions that were presented in this case, this Court is not announcing that the traditional "take and carry" form of larceny necessarily was the correct charge.