United States v. Martin

I join in the affirmance of the findings and sentence in the appellant’s case. However, insofar as the majority seems to say that the taking of property to secure a debt is per se a violation of Article 121, it goes beyond the material facts of this case and the decisions of our senior Court. It also seems to ignore authority that recognizes a defense to a charge of larceny when the property is taken to secure a debt. 3 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 366 at 340 (14th ed. 1980). In fact, one old line of authority states the general rule is that “one who openly and avowedly takes…