United
States v. Whitten, 56 MJ 234 (the crime of larceny
by
taking continues as long as asportation of the property continues;
factually,
the original asportation continues as long as the perpetrator is not
satisfied
with the location of the goods and causes the flow of their movement to
continue relatively uninterrupted).
(viewed under the standard for assessing legal sufficiency of the
evidence,
Court finds legally sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty of
conspiracy
to commit larceny and larceny where: (1) R and M formed an agreement,
manifested by their conduct, to steal a duffel bag; (2) appellant
joined the
ongoing conspiracy to steal the duffel bag; (3) several overt acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy were committed after appellant joined the
conspiracy; and (4) appellant aided and abetted the larceny before
asportation
of the stolen property was complete).
2001
United
States v. Binegar, 55 MJ 1 (an honest mistake of
fact as
to a soldier’s entitlement or authorization to take property is a
defense to a
charge of larceny under Article 121, UCMJ, one element of which is the
specific
intent to steal).
(a
military superior’s
permission to his subordinate to dispose of government property to
other
servicemembers is not the type of fact which is unrelated to a specific
intent
of the subordinate to steal from the Government; therefore, any mistake
of fact
must only be honest to provide a defense).
(military
judge’s
instructional
error informing the members that appellant’s mistake must have been
both honest
and reasonable, rather than only honest in order to provide a defense
to
larceny was materially prejudicial where: (1) the instruction placed a
lesser
burden on the government to prove appellant’s guilt because it could
secure his
conviction by disproving either the honesty or the reasonableness of
the
mistake; (2) trial counsel exploited the erroneous instruction in his
findings
argument; and (3) the government presented a substantial case on the
unreasonableness of appellant’s conduct, creating a reasonable
possibility that
the members resolved this case against appellant on this basis.
United
States v. Pacheco, 56 MJ 1 (evidence was legally
sufficient to
show the wrongfulness of appellant’s taking or withholding of a weapon,
as well
as his intent permanently to deprive the owner of the use and benefit
of the
weapon, where that evidence revealed that appellant did not return the
pistol
or inform the authorities of its taking after being informed that the
taking of
weapons was not permitted and that all weapons had to be returned prior
to a
shakedown).
2000
United
States v. Reed, 54 MJ 37 (viewing evidence as a
whole,
Court finds evidence of larceny and false official statements legally
sufficient where the evidence showed that appellant stole a modem and
then
engaged in an elaborate cover-up after the modem was discovered to be
missing).
1999
United
States v. Russell, 50 MJ 99 (appellant’s guilty plea
admission
that stolen items were military property used by Air Force, even though
items
were never actually turned over to the government, provided sufficient
basis in
record to support guilty plea to larceny of military property).