Court Opinion

ID: 9740957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:45:56.881164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:21.196433
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION

Arterburn, C. J.
I cannot agree with the majority opinion that there is no evidence of the taking of property sufficient to constitute petty larceny in this case. A showing is made that the lock on the gasoline tank was found broken. One of the witnesses stated that he could hear the sound of the flow of gasoline going out of the tank into the cans in the rear of the truck. The owner of the gasoline testified that there were 165 gallons missing from his tank. The evidence also showed gasoline spilled on the ground around the tank. This is sufficient evidence to show a taking of the property. The mere movement of an article is a sufficient taking or asportation in larceny. Warnke v. State (1929), 89 Ind. App. 683, 167 N. E. 138; 52 C. J. S., Larceny, §6a (b), p. 802.
The market price of the gasoline was shown. The fact that the cans into which the gasoline was poured leaked and the gasoline flowed out on the bed of the truck where it saturated the floor, does not negate a taking, but rather substantiates the charge of petty larceny.
Note. — Reported in 165 N. E. 2d 380.