necessary that the property be carried any specific distance. The slightest movement of the property is sufficient. Third, that the owner of the property did not consent to its taking and carrying away; fourth, that at the time of the taking the defendant intended to deprive the owner of its use permanently; fifth, that the defendant knew that he was not entitled to take the property; and, sixth, that the property was taken after a breaking or entering. (R p. 43; T Vol. II, p. 103) During deliberations, the jury asked the court whether it had to find all of the elements for each charge or just one or more of the elements. (R p. 47) The court, without first consulting the parties, reinstructed the jury on the elements of breaking and entering and felonious larceny. (T Vol. III, p. 111-112) The jury later asked the court to explain the and in the terms “taking” “carrying away” context of the felonious larceny charge, expressing confusion over what proof was necessary: (1) What is the difference between stipulation #1- “took and stipulation (slightest property” #2 “carried away” movement) of property? Ie, is stipulation #2 intended to be a clarification and definition of stipulation #1? Does “carrying as defined in the law constitute If away” “taking” property? not, what does constitute “taking?” (2) Does the word appear in stipulation #6? Is the “taking” definition of in stipulation 6 the same as in stipulation “taking #1? (R p. 48) The court responded to the as follows: jury’s inquiry
necessary that the property be carried any specific distance. The slightest movement of the property is sufficient. Third, that the owner of the property did not consent to its taking and carrying away; fourth, that at the time of the taking the defendant intended to deprive the owner of its use permanently; fifth, that the defendant knew that he was not entitled to take the property; and, sixth, that the property was taken after a breaking or entering. (R p. 43; T Vol. II, p. 103) During deliberations, the jury asked the court whether it had to find all of the elements for each charge or just one or more of the elements. (R p. 47) The court, without first consulting the parties, reinstructed the jury on the elements of breaking and entering and felonious larceny. (T Vol. III, p. 111-112) The jury later asked the court to explain the terms “taking” and “carrying away” in the context of the felonious larceny charge, expressing confusion over what proof was necessary: (1) What is the difference between stipulation #1- “took property” and stipulation #2 “carried away” (slightest movement) of property? Ie, is stipulation #2 intended to be a clarification and definition of stipulation #1? Does “carrying away” as defined in the law constitute “taking” property? If not, what does constitute “taking?” (2) Does the word “taking” appear in stipulation #6? Is the definition of “taking in stipulation 6 the same as in stipulation #1? (R p. 48) The court responded to the jury’s inquiry as follows:
Harvell,%20Montice%20Terrill.docx