Grand Larceny
Grand larceny in Nevada is a specific-intent theft crime, and two pieces of the printed scope do the heavy lifting on the exam.
6. Grand Larceny
Nevada defines several categories of theft as grand larceny. NRS 205.220. The Nevada FLE tests three of those categories, while omitting others. The statutory sections attached to this outline include only the categories that will be tested. 41
- The grand larceny statute requires proof of specific intent. The defendant must intend to deprive another person of the types of property listed in the statute.
- The defendant, however, does not need to know how much the property was worth.
- The three categories of grand larceny tested on the Nevada FLE each contain several detailed provisions. Test-takers should be able to read those provisions closely and apply them to hypothetical fact patterns.
- Some sections of the grand larceny statute specify a minimum value of the stolen property. Nevada, like most jurisdictions, has held that for purposes of larceny, the value of property is the fair market value. Romero v. State, 116 Nev. 344, 347, 996 P.2d 894, 897-897 (2000).
Grand larceny is a specific-intent theft crime built on two anchors: the intent runs to depriving the owner of the property, and where a category sets a minimum, value is measured by fair market value.
Two pieces of the printed scope do the heavy lifting on the exam. First, the mental state. The defendant must intend to deprive another person of the property; this is specific intent, so a taking by honest mistake, or a taking the defendant believes is rightful, does not satisfy it. The intent runs to depriving the owner of the property, not to its dollar value, so a thief who grabs a bag with no idea what is inside still has the required intent to deprive, and the value question is answered separately, by the property's actual worth, not by the thief's belief about it.
Second, value. Some categories carry a minimum-value floor, and value is measured by fair market value, what the item would sell for, not its replacement cost, not its original retail price, not what it was insured for, and not its sentimental worth.
The defendant does not need to know how much the property was worth. The exam loves to feed you a wrong measure of value, so do not let a 'didn't know its worth' or 'thought it was worth less' fact decide the case.
- 1Personal goods or property of another worth the statutory minimum or more.
- 2Bedding, furniture, or other property a lodger is to use with the lodging, worth the minimum or more.
- 3Converted real property severed from another's land and worth the minimum or more.
- 4Intentional misuse of a card or device to withdraw or transfer money the person knows they are not entitled to.
- 5Livestock or, at the listed aggregate value, domesticated animals or birds owned by another.
Read the facts against whichever category the stem invokes, and pin value to fair market value.
"Intend to deprive, value is fair market."
Two anchors carry most questions. One: the intent runs to depriving the owner of the property, and the thief need not know its worth. Two: when a category sets a minimum value, you measure it by fair market value, not replacement cost, retail price, insured value, or sentiment. Throwaway facts that never decide the case: "didn't know how much it was worth" and "thought it was worth less." If a No answer rests on the thief's ignorance of value, eliminate it.
A person snatches a closed laptop bag from a cafe table and runs, intending to keep whatever is inside. The bag turns out to hold a laptop whose fair market value comfortably exceeds the statutory minimum. The thief insists at trial that he had no idea the bag held anything valuable and assumed it was nearly empty.
He is guilty of grand larceny. Now flip the value measure: if the bag's contents had a fair market value below the statutory minimum, the grand-larceny value floor would not be met, even if the items would cost far more to replace new, because value is fair market value, not replacement cost.
A sympathetic “No” resting on the defendant not knowing how much the property was worth, or believing it was worth less than the threshold.
The scope says the defendant need not know the value; the specific intent runs to depriving the owner of the property.An option that measures value by replacement cost, original retail price, insured value, or sentiment.
For larceny, value is the property's fair market value.An option calling grand larceny a general-intent crime, or saying the defendant only needed to intend the physical taking.
Grand larceny requires specific intent to deprive the owner of the property; an honest claim of right negates it.An absolute “Yes” (any taking of a container or removal of any property is grand larceny) or absolute “No” (lodging furniture or severed land can never be grand larceny).
The offense has elements and category and value boundaries; lodging furnishings and severed-and-converted real property are expressly tested categories.the stem has someone take and carry away (or lead, drive, or entice away) another person's property, then loads in a fact about the thief's ignorance of the value ("had no idea what it was worth") or feeds you a tempting but wrong way to measure value (replacement cost, retail price, insured amount, sentiment).
did the defendant intend to deprive the owner of the listed property?
That is the specific intent, and it does not require knowing the value.
if the category sets a minimum, is the fair market value at or above it?
Pin value to fair market value and discard any answer that turns on the thief's ignorance of worth or on a non-market measure.
A pickpocket lifted a sealed envelope from a stranger's coat pocket on a crowded train, intending to keep whatever was inside and never return it. The pickpocket assumed the envelope held nothing more than a few small bills and was indifferent to its contents. In fact the envelope contained cash whose amount was well above the statutory threshold for grand larceny. The pickpocket is charged with grand larceny and argues that he never knew the envelope held that much.
Is the pickpocket likely to be convicted of grand larceny?
A thief took a used designer watch from another person's home, intending to keep it permanently. At trial the parties agreed that an identical new watch would cost well above the grand-larceny threshold to buy at retail, but that this particular used watch, given its age and wear, would sell on the open market for an amount below the threshold. The prosecution urged the court to use the cost of a new replacement watch to measure the property's value. The thief is charged with grand larceny.
Is the thief likely to be convicted of grand larceny?
A handyman doing repairs at a homeowner's property mistakenly believed that a power tool sitting in the garage was his own identical tool, which he had brought to the job. Acting on that honest belief, he loaded the homeowner's tool into his truck and drove off, intending to keep what he thought was his own property. The tool's fair market value was above the grand-larceny threshold. The handyman is charged with grand larceny.
Is the handyman likely to be convicted of grand larceny?
A worker rented a furnished room from a lodging house and was given the use of the room's bedding and furniture, all of which belonged to the owner. When the worker moved out, he loaded the room's bed frame, mattress, and dresser into a van and took them, intending to keep them for himself. The combined fair market value of the furniture he took was above the grand-larceny threshold. The worker is charged with grand larceny and argues that, as the lodger, he was entitled to use those furnishings.
Is the worker likely to be convicted of grand larceny?
A landscaper hired to trim hedges at an estate noticed a row of mature ornamental stone columns that were firmly set into and part of the land. Wanting them for resale, the landscaper pried the columns loose from their footings, severing them from the land, loaded them onto a trailer, and hauled them away, intending to keep and sell them. Once severed and carried off, the columns had a fair market value above the grand-larceny threshold. The landscaper is charged with grand larceny and argues that the columns were part of the real estate, not personal property that can be stolen.
Is the landscaper likely to be convicted of grand larceny?