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 criminal theft, 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 but is located in the near vicinity of that person and in which the contents of the

stolen goods amount to $600 in value?

BRIEF ANSWER

Probably yes.

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 larceny 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. 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, and 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

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. Under West’s North Carolina General Statutes Annotated, Smith is guilty of the felony of
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. Blane Smith likely is guilty of larceny from the person, because although he did not
steal the laptop from Taylor’s person, if the laptop was under the protection and
presence of the person, it is still considered from the person.

To prove larceny from the person, the court must determine what “larceny from the

person” is defined as. To constitute larceny from the person requires that that the property is not

left unattended. State v. Lee, 363 S.E.2d 657 (N.C.App. 1988). If the larceny occurs in a

circumstance where the property is not being watched or is left unattended, the lesser sentence of

misdemeanor applies instead, as it is not defined as “from the person”. In State v. Lee, the Court

of Appeals of North Carolina reversed the lower court’s decision in convicting the defendant Lee

of larceny from the person because he had taken a shoulder bag from the victim’s shopping cart

while she was preoccupied with looking at nearby shelves. Because the property was left in an

unattended shopping cart, the court determined that the charge of larceny from the person did not

apply in this case.

Distance from the property and direction of the victim’s line of sight are also factors to

consider. The “mere taking of property from the presence of a victim who is unaware of the theft
which occurred several feet away” is not larceny from the person. People v. Sims, 614 N.E.2d

896 (III.App. 3 Dist. 1993). The victim must witness and be aware of the theft while nearby the

property being taken to apply the charge of larceny from the person.

Whether or not the property is attached to the victim is another element of larceny from

the person to consider. Property is stolen from the person if “it was under the protection of the

person at the time” and property attached to the person is considered under that protection. State

v. Barnes, 478 S.E.2d 190 (N.C. 1996). Property is attached to a person if it is held in the hand, is

affixed to a body part (like a piercing), worn around the person’s neck, or anything in the pockets

of clothing on the person’s body at that very moment. Id. However, property may also be under

the protection of the person although not actually “attached” to them. If a person decides to sit

down place a bag under their seat, or a jeweler want to place items from the display case and

onto the counter for inspection, these and similar examples can be seen as attachment to the

person. State v. Barnes, 478 S.E.2d 190.

Even if the property is not located in the line of sight of the victim, if he or she is stops

for a moment to rest and “remains there to guard it”, the property can still be considered under

the protection of the person. State v. Carter, 650 S.E.2d 654 (N.C.App. 2007). In State v. Carter,

the victim was standing near a shopping cart which contained the bag of money that he had

placed therein. Although the victim was not looking at the money at the time of the theft, he was

in the nearby vicinity and was waiting to place the money in an ATM. Therefore, the property

can be considered under his protection and from the person.

If the property taken is not attached to the victim, but within the victim’s reach, and

where the victim immediately realizes the theft has occurred, then the actions taken can be

considered larceny from the person. State v. Sheppard, 744 S.E.2d 152 (N.C.App. 2013). The
very close proximity of the property to the person suggests that the presence and protection

factors apply even if the property is not attached.

Finally, to determine the extent of from the person when the item stolen is not physically

to the person, we look to see what the physical boundaries for which an item can still be

considered from the person. Larceny from the person can still occur even if an object not

attached to the person is taken in the presence and protection of the victim at the time that the

property was taken. State v. Hull, 762 S.E.2d 915 (N.C.App. 2014) consisted of a case where the

defendants entered an apartment and stole several items, including a laptop that belonged to the

victim Stuart that was not in the immediate vicinity of the Stuart, but was three feet away on a

separate table. Stuart was using the laptop to do her physics homework and had stepped away to

play a video game. The appellate court determined that the computer was “within her protection

and presence at the time it was taken” and that even though it was not attached to her, it was

taken from her person. State v. Hull, 762 S.E.2d 918, 919 (N.C.App 2014).