Topolewski v. State
Facts
The packing company's agent, Dolan, acting to trap the accused, arranged with him for the accused to take barrels of the company's meat from the loading platform. The company packed and placed the barrels on the platform knowing the accused would soon arrive, and its platform boss was told the barrels were for a man who would call for them. When the accused arrived, the platform boss stood by while the barrels were loaded, helped arrange the wagon, and treated the accused as entitled to take them. The accused was then prosecuted for larceny of the meat.
Issue
Whether a defendant commits larceny when the owner, through its agents, not only knows of the planned taking but helps arrange it and in practical effect delivers the property to the defendant in order to entrap him. More specifically, the question was whether such conduct removes the trespass or nonconsent element essential to larceny.
Rule
There can be no larceny without a trespass, and thus without the owner's nonconsent. An owner may passively furnish an opportunity for a would-be thief to carry out a preexisting design, but if the owner or the owner's agent actually or constructively aids in the commission of the offense by performing, facilitating, or rendering unnecessary an act essential to the taking, or by delivering the property, the element of trespass is absent and larceny is not consummated.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If Devin is prosecuted for larceny, what is the best argument that the offense was completed?