Larceny & Theft Case Study
Whether the defendant had the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
The court reversed the larceny conviction, finding that the evidence showed the defendant intended to borrow the property temporarily rather than permanently deprive the owner of it. The court held that larceny requires the intent to permanently deprive — temporary taking without intent to permanently deprive is not larceny.
Larceny requires the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. A defendant who takes property with the intent to return it — even if the return never occurs — may not be guilty of larceny. D.J. Rivera develops intent defenses in larceny cases where the evidence supports a claim of temporary taking.
This case involves § 18.2-95 of the Virginia Code. For a full analysis of how this statute applies to your case, consult with D.J. Rivera.
D.J. Rivera applies the lessons of cases like this one to defend clients throughout Richmond and Northern Virginia. Free consultation available 24/7.
Get Your Free Consultation