MEMORANDUM

To: Professor Elizabeth Keith

From: Justin Yao

Date: September 14, 2021

Re: Taylor Goodson (CRIM-08-051608-2021); issue regarding larceny of property and

applicable criminal charges against Blane Smith for the theft of goods amounting to $600
in value.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Under the North Carolina General Statutes for larceny, can a suspect be charged with

larceny from the person when he steals a backpack from an individual that is not attached to their

person, when the victim does not notice the theft’s occurrence, and was several feet away from

the property?

BRIEF ANSWER

Probably yes. Court precedent for the state of North Carolina establishes that larceny

from the person requires both immediate presence and protection and control of the property.

Goodson was located three feet away from the backpack when they stood up to stretch, which is

the maximum distance that the Court of Appeals of North Carolina has held to be sufficient for

establishing an immediate presence. Goodson’s break to stretch and talk with neighbors lasted

approximately one minute, which is sufficient, based on similar cases of this state, to establish

that Goodson was still guarding their property as a result of the backpack still residing within

their center of awareness despite the momentary break in direct observance of the backpack.

Therefore, the suspect Blane Smith stole a backpack that was in the immediate presence and

under the protection and control of the owner of the bag and most likely would be charged with

larceny from the person.

1
 FACTS

The legal issue being discussed in this case is defining the extent of larceny from the

person and whether or not an item not attached to the person but in the near vicinity can be

considered from the person in that context. The victim is Taylor Goodson and uses pronouns

they/them. Goodson is an aspiring law student from Burgaw, North Carolina. On August 21,

2021, Goodson attended an outdoor Shakespeare play titled, “A Very Midsummer Madness.”

The event took place in Wilmington, North Carolina, at an amphitheater. The event would begin

at 8:00 p.m. Goodson arrived at 6:30 p.m. when the doors to the amphitheater opened to the

public. Goodson brought with them a large outdoor blanket that measured six feet by five feet in

length. Goodson is six feet tall. Along with the blanket, the victim also brought with them their

backpack that contained a refurbished Dell laptop, a Samsung Galaxy smartphone, and The

Bluebook. Goodson estimates the value of the backpack and its contents at around $600.

Before the play was scheduled to begin, Goodson spent forty-five minutes working on

their electronic devices once they sat down on their outdoor blanket. Goodson sat in the center of

the blanket. At around 7:15 p.m., Goodson returned their personal items to the backpack, placed

it immediately beside them on the blanket, stood up to stretch, then proceeded to talk to the

people seated in front of them. Goodson stood at the front edge of the blanket. The conversation

lasted no more than a minute, but when the victim turned around, the backpack was gone.

Goodson’s friends arrived at the amphitheater at 7:18 p.m., and Goodson called the police

several minutes after noticing the theft of their goods.

An eyewitness identified the suspect who took the backpack. The suspect wore a Duke

basketball jersey with the name “Grant Hill” and the number “33” on the shirt. The suspect threw

2
away The Bluebook in a nearby public trash can. The police apprehended the suspect, later

identified as Blane Smith, when he tried to exit the amphitheater on a bicycle. Later that evening,

the police returned the backpack and its contents to Goodson. Most of the contents had not been

damaged. The Bluebook however was soiled by the contents of the trashcan it was dumped in.

The State’s Attorney Office is currently determining possible criminal charges against Smith.

DISCUSSION

I. Blane Smith committed larceny from the person.

The victim, Taylor Goodson, estimated the value of the backpack and its contents to

amount to around $600 in value. West’s North Carolina General Statutes Annotated defines

larceny of goods of the value of “more than one thousand dollars” as a Class H felony N.C. Gen.

Stat. Ann § 14-72(a). This part of the criminal statute does not apply to Blane Smith, as the

suspect stole goods that were less than this value to warrant a felonious charge. However, the

statute also holds that larceny of property where the value of the goods is “not more than one

thousand dollars” is a Class 1 misdemeanor. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-72(b). Therefore, since

the goods in question that were stolen are valued at less than one thousand dollars, it is likely that

Smith can be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor for larceny of property.

However, Smith can be charged with a felony, without regard to the value of the property

in question, if the larceny was from the person N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-72(c). The court must

determine if theft of a backpack that was not attached to the person but was in the near vicinity

of that person constitutes larceny from the person.

A. Smith’s theft of the backpack was likely larceny from the person because he stole
property that was both in immediate presence and under the protection and control of
the owner Goodson.

3
 To constitute larceny from the person, the theft must satisfy two elements: the theft must

occur within the immediate presence of the victim, and the object stolen must be under the

protection and control of the victim. State v. Hull, 762 S.E.2d 915, 918 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014);

State v. Sheppard, 744 S.E.2d 149, 151-152 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013); State v. Carter, 650 S.E.2d

650, 654 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007); State v. Barnes, 478 S.E.2d 188, 190 (1996); State v. Lee, 363

S.E.2d 656 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988); People v. Sims, 614 N.E.2d 893, 896 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). For

the first element to be satisfied, the theft must occur at a reasonable distance not exceeding three

feet from the victim’s presence. Hull, 762 S.E.2d at 918; Sheppard, 744 S.E.2d at 151-152;

Carter, 650 S.E.2d at 654; Barnes, 478 S.E.2d at 190; Lee, 363 S.E.2d at 656; Sims, 614 N.E.2d

at 896. To satisfy the second element, the item in question must be present or was recently

present in the owner’s center of awareness; for the latter situation, there must be a reasonable

delay between when the object was still in the victim’s possession and when it was stolen. Hull,

762 S.E.2d at 918; Sheppard, 744 S.E.2d at 151-52; Carter, 650 S.E.2d at 654; Barnes, 478

S.E.2d at 190; Lee, 363 S.E.2d at 656; Sims, 614 N.E.2d at 896. The center of awareness is

defined as the zone for which an owner of an item can reasonably ascertain the whereabouts of

the property at the exact time of the theft’s occurrence. Hull, 762 S.E.2d at 918; Sheppard, 744

S.E.2d at 151-152; Carter, 650 S.E.2d at 654; Barnes, 478 S.E.2d at 190; Lee, 363 S.E.2d at 656;

Sims, 614 N.E.2d at 896.

For the immediate presence element, the distance factor is not an arbitrary range; the

court is more likely to find an item within the limits of three feet from the person to be an

example of immediate presence. Hull, 762 S.E.2d at 918-919; Sheppard, 744 S.E.2d at 151-152.

In Sheppard, the court decided a case in which the victim’s purse was located “within a hand’s

reach away from her” and held that the theft of the purse, which was immediately noticed by the

4
victim, was sufficient to support the charge of larceny from the person. Sheppard, 744 S.E.2d at

151-152. At the very edge of this limit, a distance of three feet from the person also constitutes

immediate presence. State v. Hull, 762 S.E.2d at 918-919. In State v. Hull, the victim’s laptop

was located on a table “three feet away from her,” and the court held there was “substantial

evidence that the property was taken from the victim’s presence.” Id. Conversely, an object that

is taken from the owner at a distance much greater than three feet is less likely to be found under

the immediate presence of the victim. Barnes, 478 S.E.2d at 190. In State v. Barnes, the victim

had left his kiosk to talk to a salesperson in a neighboring shop that was “twenty-five to thirty

feet away.” Id. at 189. The court in that case decided that neither immediate presence nor

protection and control existed for the bank bag that was stolen by the suspect in that case and

therefore, larceny from the person could not be supported by the facts. Id. at 190.

The test for protection and control through an analysis of the victim’s center of awareness

focuses on whether or not the victim could reasonably ascertain the whereabouts of the property

at the moment the theft took place. Barnes, 478 S.E.2d at 189-190; Lee, 363 S.E.2d at 656;

Carter, 650 S.E.2d at 654. Often, this test for ascertaining the whereabouts of property is proven

or disproven based on where the victim was looking and what they were doing at the time of the

theft. Barnes, 478 S.E.2d at 189. In the Barnes case, the victim had not seen the theft occur at

all; he was standing outside the kiosk when the defendant placed the bank bag underneath his

shirt. Id. The court found that although the victim had discovered the bank bag after inspecting

the defendant, this inspection did not occur when the theft happened, and combined with the lack

of immediate presence, no larceny from the person could be established. Id. at 191. In the Hull

and Sheppard cases, the victims had immediately noticed the theft at the time it happened, which

therefore established protection and control of the property. Hull, 762 S.E.2d at 917; Sheppard,

5
744 S.E.2d at 151. However, the observance of the object is not necessarily required to establish

that the property is still within a person’s center of awareness. Carter, 650 S.E.2d at 652-654.

If the owner of the property takes a brief moment away from directly observing it, the

property is still being guarded. Id. at 654. In State v. Carter, the victim turned away from the

shopping cart that contained a canvas bag with money in order to replenish an ATM. Id. at 652.

Although the subsequent theft occurred while the victim was facing the other direction, the court

found that line of sight was not necessary to establish the fact that the victim was still guarding

the property. Id. They established this reasoning from the opinion in Barnes, that “if a man

carrying a heavy suitcase set it down for a moment to rest, and remains right there to guard it, the

suitcase remains under the protection of the person.” Barnes, 478 S.E.2d at 190; Carter, 650

S.E.2d at 654. So long as there is a reasonable delay between looking at the property and when

the property was taken, the property is still being guarded. Barnes, 478 S.E.2d at 190. But a

longer delay would make it more difficult to establish that a person’s property is still being

protected and controlled. Lee, 363 S.E.2d at 656. In State v. Lee, the victim took “four or five

steps away from the cart” where her shoulder bag was located and talked to the defendant’s

accomplice for “a couple of minutes” while the shoulder bag was stolen. Id. The victim did not

notice the theft at the time the bag was taken, and the delay was significant enough to consider

the grocery cart “unattended”. Id. Therefore, the court held that the facts of the case did not

establish larceny from the person as a result of a lack of protection and control of the property in

question. Id.

It might be assumed that the satisfaction of one element of the rule constitutes a

satisfaction of the other. Sims, 614 N.E.2d at 896. While there are cases in which the existence or

removal of one element contributes to the subsequent existence or removal of the other, it should

6
never be held that this is always the case. Id. There are cases in which one element is satisfied

while the other is not. Id. In People v. Sims, a case from Illinois, the court deliberated over a

situation where the victim’s purse was stolen from her shopping cart. Sims, 614 N.E.2d at 895.

Although the victim was only “two and one-half feet away” from the cart, she was “looking in

another direction” and was at the time “unaware of the theft”. Sims, 614 N.E.2d at 895-896.

Thus, while the immediate presence element could be satisfied, the protection and control

element could not, and the court determined that the evidence was not sufficient “beyond a

reasonable doubt” that the defendant committed larceny from the person. Sims, 614 N.E.2d at

897. Although this case cannot provide authority in the state of North Carolina for distinguishing

the two elements, the opinion in Barnes supports this reasoning. Barnes 478 S.E.2d at 190. The

court reasoned that “one who is asleep is not actually protecting property merely because it is in

his presence” unless the property was “attached to him.” Id. Once again, immediate presence

could be established in this scenario but not protection and control, because the property is not

being guarded. Id. Therefore, both elements must be analyzed separately based on their own

merits with relation to the facts of the case, and not merely rely on the existence of one element

as supporting causation for the other. Id.

In applying this comprehensive rule to the facts of the Goodson case, we can determine if

Blane Smith committed larceny from the person by analyzing whether or not both elements of

immediate presence and protection and control were satisfied. For the immediate presence

element, we can establish whether or not Goodson was beyond the reasonable range of three feet

from their backpack. The blanket which Goodson was sitting on, measured six feet lengthwise.

Goodson sat in the center of this blanket when working on their laptop computer. The backpack

was located beside them, also towards the center of the blanket. When they stood up to stretch,

7
they moved to the edge of the blanket. Therefore, the maximum distance between Goodson and

the backpack stolen was approximately three feet. This is sufficient to establish based on the Hull

case that Goodson was in fact in the immediate presence of the property.

The test is more difficult for determining if Goodson’s break from their work to stretch

and talk to neighbors, is a short enough delay to establish protection and control of the backpack.

We can establish that the break to stretch was not an end to the usage of the laptop, only a

temporary break. Because the event would not begin until 8:00 p.m., and because Goodson

stopped working at 7:15 p.m., it is reasonable to assume that Goodson would have continued

working on their laptop until the start of the event. Goodson only stopped to stretch and

proceeded to engage in a brief conversation with neighboring attendees; this was not a lengthy

chat and Goodson ended the conversation after about a minute had passed. The combined time

for both the stretching and the conversation is around a minute. Stretching takes up only a very

minuscule proportion of that time, as it only takes several seconds to stretch. Therefore, we can

establish with certainty that the delay between the break and when the theft occurred was small

enough to maintain that Goodson still operated within the recent center of awareness and that

protection and control of the backpack and its contents still existed.

CONCLUSION

Under the facts presented, Blane Smith will likely be charged with larceny from the

person. The suspect stole a piece of property that, although was not attached to Goodson, was in

the immediate presence and under the owner’s protection and control. Goodson was not more

than three feet away from the backpack, satisfying the standard for immediate presence.

Goodson’s break did not last much longer than a minute, also satisfying the standard for

protection and control. Therefore, with both elements sufficiently met by the facts of the case,

8
the suspect will likely be charged with larceny from the person, which is a felonious charge in

the state of North Carolina.