Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialtrustwillcommon law

appealtrialwillcommon lawappellant

Related Cases

Farlow v. State, 9 Md.App. 515, 265 A.2d 578

Facts

E. Stephen Farlow was hired as the General Manager of Crown Industrial Park and Warehouse in June 1967 and was responsible for managing the sale of goods stored in the warehouse. After being informed of damaged goods, Farlow engaged an independent broker, George W. Krauss, to sell these goods. Krauss sold insecticides stored by Union Carbide and delivered the proceeds to Farlow after deducting his commission. Farlow was later indicted for larceny after trust and embezzlement related to these funds, but the jury only considered the charge of larceny.

In the case before us it is clear that E. Stephen Farlow (appellant) unlawfully appropriated monies belonging to John D. Schapiro and others, trading as Crown Industrial Park and Warehouse (Crown). Farlow was hired by Crown as its General Manager in June 1967 and fired 18 July 1968. Crown rented space to various manufacturers for the storage of goods. An inventory of the goods of each manufacturer was maintained and goods withdrawn from Crown, as evidenced by a bill of lading, were deducted from the inventory.

Issue

Was there sufficient evidence to support Farlow's conviction for common-law larceny of the funds received from the sale of goods?

Rule

Common law larceny requires a wrongful and fraudulent taking of personal property from the possession of another against their will, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. A trespassory taking is essential for a conviction of larceny.

Simple common law larceny is the wrongful and fraudulent taking and removal of personal property from the possession of another against his will, with intent to deprive the person entitled thereto of his ownership therein.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Farlow's actions constituted a trespassory taking of the funds. It determined that Krauss, who delivered the funds to Farlow, was in lawful possession of the money as the proceeds of a sale. Since Krauss freely gave the money to Farlow, there was no trespassory taking, which is a necessary element for a larceny conviction. The court noted that even if Farlow had committed other offenses, such as embezzlement or larceny of the goods, he was not charged with those.

Conclusion

The Court of Special Appeals reversed Farlow's conviction, concluding that there was no trespassory taking of the funds, which is essential for a common law larceny conviction.

Judgment reversed; costs to be paid by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.

Who won?

E. Stephen Farlow prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the evidence did not support the conviction of larceny due to the lack of a trespassory taking.

Farlow prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the evidence did not support the conviction of larceny due to the lack of a trespassory taking.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Hebron v. State, 331 Md. 219, 627 A.2d 1029

Alvarez v. State, 147 So.3d 537, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D197

Baggett v. State, 849 So.2d 1154, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1659

Burrows v. State, 260 Cal.App.2d 29, 66 Cal.Rptr. 868

Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824