United States v. Mafnas
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1983.
Author: Jim

Facts:  Defendant was an armored truck drive who took money out of the money bags on three occasions.  Defendant was found guilty or larceny.  Defendant argues that he had the lawful possession of the bags and therefore he cannot be charged with larceny.

Issue: Was the defendant guilty of larceny?

Holding: Yes

Rationale:  According to the court, the defendant did not have the possession of the bags, but he only had the custody.  “Ordinarily,…if a person receives property for a limited or temporary purpose, he is only acquiring custody.  Thus, if a person receives property from the owner with the instruction to deliver it to the owner’s house, he is only acquiring custody; therefore, his subsequent decision to keep the property for himself would constitute larceny. “  Defendant further argues that he was the bailee and thus he required possession of the money bags.  But rule has been settled that the bailee-career is given possession of a bale, but not its contents.   So if the bailee steals the whole bale, he is not guilty of larceny.  But if he breaks into the bale and steals its contents, he has committed trespass and is guilty of larceny.