People v. Olivo, 428 N.E.2d 313 (N.Y. 1981)
In the context of self-service stores, larceny can be established if a customer exercises control over merchandise that is wholly inconsistent with the store’s continued rights, even if the customer is apprehended before leaving the store.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a person could be convicted of larceny for shoplifting if apprehended with goods inside a store, before exiting. The Court held that a larceny conviction could be sustained even if the shoplifter was caught inside the store, provided that the customer’s actions demonstrated control over the merchandise inconsistent with the owner’s rights. The Court emphasized that the evolution of larceny law necessitates a focus on the defendant’s intent and exercise of dominion and control over the property, particularly within the context of self-service stores.
Facts
In People v. Olivo, the defendant concealed wrenches in his clothing while in a department store and was apprehended a few feet from the exit. In People v. Gasparik, the defendant removed the price tag and sensormatic device from a leather jacket, put it on, and headed toward the exit of the floor before being stopped. In People v. Spatzier, the defendant placed a book in his attaché case while in a bookstore, and an altercation ensued when he was accused of stealing.
Procedural History
In all three cases, the defendants were convicted of petit larceny. The convictions were affirmed by the Appellate Term. The cases were consolidated on appeal to the New York Court of Appeals due to the common legal issue.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to establish the elements of larceny when the shoplifter was apprehended inside the store, before exiting.
Holding
Yes, because in the context of self-service stores, a taking can be established by evidence that a customer exercised control over merchandise wholly inconsistent with the store’s continued rights, even without leaving the store.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court traced the evolution of larceny from common law to modern statutes, noting that the emphasis has shifted from a trespassory taking to the intent and exercise of dominion and control over the property. The Court acknowledged that self-service stores invite customers to handle merchandise, thus implying consent to possession for a limited purpose. However, this consent does not preclude a larceny conviction if the customer’s actions are inconsistent with the owner’s rights.
The Court stated, “If the customer exercises dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner, and the other elements of the crime are present, a larceny has occurred. Such conduct on the part of a customer satisfies the ‘taking’ element of the crime.”
The Court identified several factors that could demonstrate such control, including concealment of goods, furtive behavior, proximity to an exit, and possession of shoplifting devices.
The court reasoned that it is impossible to delineate all situations establishing a taking, but any attending circumstance bearing on whether the shopper exercised control inconsistent with the owner’s rights is relevant.
Applying these principles, the Court found sufficient evidence in each case to raise a factual question as to the defendants’ guilt. In Olivo, the defendant concealed goods and was near the exit. In Gasparik, the defendant removed the price tag and sensor and attempted to leave the floor. In Spatzier, the defendant concealed a book in his attaché case after looking furtively around.
The Court concluded that a customer crossing the line between limited rights to handle merchandise and the store owner’s rights may be prosecuted for larceny. This rule supports the interests and operation of self-service shops.
There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.