It frequently happens that the accused, after being caught, claims that he always intended to return
the property, but never got around to doing so. If he has never treated the property in any way which
would interfere with its eventual return to the true owner, then the only circumstance which would rebut
his statement is the length of time he kept the property. If he has had the property for 18 months, while
in the same unit as the owner, this might suggest that his denial of his intent to keep the item
permanently is less than sincere. On the other hand, if he has kept it only over the weekend, it would be
easier to believe his claim. Of course, his treatment of the property might also easily rebut his claim that
his intent was to return the property. If the property in question is an automobile and he has had it
repainted a different color and had false license plates mounted, it might readily be concluded that he
intended to keep it permanently from the possession of the owner.
QUESTION: A SOLDIER REPEATEDLY FINDS A PARTICULAR TRAINEE'S LOCKER
UNSECURED. IN ORDER TO "TEACH THE TRAINEE A LESSON," THE SOLDIER REMOVES
THE CONTENTS OF THE LOCKER BUT PLANS TO RETURN THE ITEMS AT A LATER DATE.
IS THIS AN OFFENSE?
ANSWER: YES. DESPITE THE HONEST MOTIVE, THE SOLDIER'S INTENT ESTABLISHES
THE OFFENSE OF WRONGFUL APPROPRIATION. IF THE ACCUSED WRONGFULLY TOOK
PROPERTY AS A "JOKE" OR "TO TEACH THE OWNER A LESSON," THIS WOULD NOT BE A
DEFENSE. IF THE ACCUSED INTENDED TO RETURN THE PROPERTY, HE WOULD BE
GUILTY OF WRONGFUL APPROPRIATION, NOT LARCENY. IN THE CASE OF UNITED
STATES V. McCOY, 17 CMR 246 (CMA 1954), THE ACCUSED SAW THAT ONE OF HIS
ROOMMATES HAD LEFT A LOCKER UNSECURED. HE PICKED UP A WALLET FROM
INSIDE THE LOCKER AND TOLD ANOTHER ROOMMATE THAT HE WANTED TO KEEP THE
WALLET FOR ONE WEEK IN ORDER TO TEACH THE OWNER A LESSON. HE PUT THE
WALLET ON A BOX IN A TRUCK AND HID THE MONEY FOUND INSIDE THE WALLET
BEHIND SOME LOOSE BOARDS NEAR THE CEILING OF A NEARBY GYMNASIUM. IN
SUCH A SITUATION, IF THE ACCUSED'S STORY IS BELIEVED, HE COULD BE FOUND
GUILTY OF WRONGFUL APPROPRIATION AS SUCH A MOTIVE (I.E., TEACHING A LESSON)
IS NOT A DEFENSE. THE ACCUSED WRONGFULLY WITHHELD PROPERTY FROM THE
TRUE OWNER, AND THE OWNER LOST THE USE OF HIS PROPERTY. UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF GUILTY
TO A CHARGE OF WRONGFUL APPROPRIATION. SIMILARLY, AN ACCUSED COULD BE
FOUND GUILTY OF A WRONGFUL APPROPRIATION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AFTER
TAKING 35 DETONATION FUSES, 100 TEAR GAS GRENADES, 100 GRENADES, AND 2
LIGHT ANTITANK WEAPONS FROM AN AMMUNITION STORAGE BUNKER ALL IN AN
EFFORT TO "DEMONSTRATE THE LACK OF SECURITY AT THE DEPOT." UNITED STATES
V. KASTNER, 17 MJ 11 (CMA 1983).
It is not a defense to larceny or wrongful appropriation that the accused merely took the property as a
joke. This is true because the "joke" was the motive for the act, but the intent was to temporarily or
permanently deprive someone of their property wrongfully. It is the intent element which establishes
this as a criminal offense.
C. Robbery (Article 122, UCMJ). An accused will be convicted of robbery if he has the intent
to steal and takes anything of value from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by
means of force or violence or fear of immediate or future injury to his person or property or to the
person
MP1019
1-30
Previous Page
