Legal Opinion
People v. Shaunding
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 2, 1934No. Docket No. 113, Calendar No. 37,786PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The trial court was in error in excluding testimony offered by the respondent as to his belief that he had the right to take the property in question from the place from which it was taken.
"The felonious intent is an essential and inseparable ingredient in every larceny, and if a person takes property under a claim of right, however unfounded, he has not committed larceny." People v. Hillhouse, 80 Mich. 580, 586.
The judgment is reversed, and a new trial is granted.
NELSON SHARPE, C.J., and POTTER, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, BUTZEL, and EDWARD M. SHARPE, JJ., concurred.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People v. HillhouseMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by8 opinions
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- State v. MarleyHawaii Supreme Court · 1973
- United States v. RowanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1954
- People v. KarasekMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
- United States v. One 1941 Chrysler Brougham SedanDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.