larceny doctrine in Kansas

2020The single larceny doctrine was first adopted in Kansas in State v. Hall, 111 Kan. 458 , 207 P. 773 (1922).

2020The single larceny doctrine was first adopted in Kansas in State v. Hall, 111 Kan. 458 , 207 P. 773 (1922).

1992In State v. Roberts, 210 Kan. 786, 791 , 504 P.2d 242 (1972), cert. denied 414 U.S. 832 (1973), we further explained that the single larceny doctrine is a rule of evidence which may be applied in cases of larceny, embezzlement, and other thefts and “will support a jury finding of grand larceny from evidence of a series of petty thefts which the jury infers to be part of a single plan, scheme, or single larcenous impulse.

1992Grissom relies upon the discussion of the single larceny doctrine found in State v. Roberts, 210 Kan. 786 , 504 P.2d 242 (1972), cert. denied 414 U.S. 832 (1973).

2010App. 2d 130, 136-37 , 603 P.2d 221 (1979), (quoting Annot., 37 A.L.R.3d 1407 , 1409-10) and set forth the single larceny doctrine as follows: “The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions follow generally the so-called ‘single larceny doctrine’; that is, that the taking of property belonging to different owners at the same time and place constitutes but one larceny.

1998This court noted that while the single larceny doctrine had been applied to other contexts in Kansas, the appellate courts had never addressed whether the doctrine applies when a defendant is charged with two separate thefts for taking property owned by two different people from the same place and at the same time. 4 Kan.

2020The Fox court emphasized: "'The single larceny doctrine is a rule of evidence, not a rule of law, which permits but does not require the trier of fact to consider a series of larcenies, embezzlements, or other thefts to be the result of a single larcenous scheme.'" 242 Kan. at 462 (quoting Green, 213 Kan. at 549 ); see McClanahan, 251 Kan. at 535 ("single larceny doctrine is a rule of evidence"); Roberts, 210 Kan. at 791 (same). "'Each case must be determined upon its own special facts and circumstances.'" Hall, 111 Kan. at 459 .

1988In State v. Green, 213 Kan. 547, 549 , 516 P.2d 926 (1973), the court stated: “The single larceny doctrine is a rule of evidence, not a rule of law, which permits but does not require the trier of fact to consider a series of larcenies, embezzlements or other thefts to be the result of a single larcenous scheme. ...

2013App. 2d 734 , 953 P.2d 1043 (1998), which Hood cited for its application of the single larceny doctrine.

2010This court in Thomas then applied the single larceny doctrine and concluded that “when an individual commits a theft and takes property belonging to more than one individual, without a reasonable notice that the property belongs to separate individuals, as part of a single plan or scheme, then that taking constitutes a single theft. [Citation omitted.]” 24 Kan.

2020App. 2d 181, 183 , 1 P.3d 330 , rev. denied 269 Kan. 934 (2000), for the proposition that the single larceny doctrine cannot be applied to a series of felony thefts, thus prohibiting the State from charging him with a single higher severity level felony theft instead of a series of lower severity level felony thefts.

2020Citing to McClanahan, 251 Kan. 533 , and State v. Fox, 242 Kan. 457 , 749 P.2d 16 (1988), and without any detailed analysis, the Ameen panel held that the single larceny doctrine did not apply because the doctrine was "limited to cases allowing the State to charge a series of misdemeanor thefts as one felony theft where it appears the thefts resulted from a single incriminating impulse." 27 Kan.

2020See, e.g., McClanahan, 251 Kan. at 534 (defendant charged with single count of felony theft based upon aggregate value of items taken); Fox, 242 Kan. at 459-60 (defendant charged with single count of felony unemployment fraud instead of multiple misdemeanors); State v. Green, 213 Kan. 547, 547-48 , 516 P.2d 926 (1973) (defendant charged with single count of felony grand theft even though two of the three discrete takings were in amounts less than the felony limit); State v. Roberts, 210 Kan. 786, 787 , 504 P.2d 242 (1972) (defendant charged with two counts of grand larceny for theft of two pow

2020See State v. Hood, 297 Kan. 388, 390 , 300 P.3d 1083 (2013) (multiplicity); State v. Waufle, 9 Kan.

1992He contends the single larceny doctrine applies to robbery because this court has cited with approval a C.J.S. discussion stating that “ robbery is merely an aggravated form of larceny or theft.’ ” State v. Long, 234 Kan. 580, 591 , 675 P.2d 832 (1984).

1992He contends the single larceny doctrine applies to robbery because this court has cited with approval a C.J.S. discussion stating that “ robbery is merely an aggravated form of larceny or theft.’ ” State v. Long, 234 Kan. 580, 591 , 675 P.2d 832 (1984).

1992He contends the single larceny doctrine applies to robbery because this court has cited with approval a C.J.S. discussion stating that “ robbery is merely an aggravated form of larceny or theft.’ ” State v. Long, 234 Kan. 580, 591 , 675 P.2d 832 (1984).

1992He contends the single larceny doctrine applies to robbery because this court has cited with approval a C.J.S. discussion stating that “ robbery is merely an aggravated form of larceny or theft.’ ” State v. Long, 234 Kan. 580, 591 , 675 P.2d 832 (1984).

1988In People v. Soto, 76 Misc. 2d 491 , 352 N.Y.S.2d 144 (1974), it was held that, if it could be established that welfare recipients concealed facts with the expectancy of receiving undeserved benefits on a continuing basis, the individual checks received by the recipients may be aggregated to sustain a felony charge.

1988In People v. Soto, 76 Misc. 2d 491 , 352 N.Y.S.2d 144 (1974), it was held that, if it could be established that welfare recipients concealed facts with the expectancy of receiving undeserved benefits on a continuing basis, the individual checks received by the recipients may be aggregated to sustain a felony charge.

1988In the later case of People v. Vargo, 139 Mich. App. 573 , 362 N.W.2d 840 (1984), the Michigan Court of Appeals held in a case involving welfare fraud that a series of payments could be aggregated where a series of payments was made on the basis of initial information furnished by the defendant. *465 On the basis of the rationale and the various authorities cited above, we have concluded that the single larceny doctrine may be presented by the prosecution in each case now before us.

1988In the later case of People v. Vargo, 139 Mich. App. 573 , 362 N.W.2d 840 (1984), the Michigan Court of Appeals held in a case involving welfare fraud that a series of payments could be aggregated where a series of payments was made on the basis of initial information furnished by the defendant. *465 On the basis of the rationale and the various authorities cited above, we have concluded that the single larceny doctrine may be presented by the prosecution in each case now before us.

1979Hence, no general statement can adequately describe the application of this doctrine, and a reading of individual cases is necessary.” Several recent cases which have adopted this reasoning include Reader v. State, 349 A.2d 745 (Del. 1975); People v. Vaini, 33 Ill.

1979Hence, no general statement can adequately describe the application of this doctrine, and a reading of individual cases is necessary.” Several recent cases which have adopted this reasoning include Reader v. State, 349 A.2d 745 (Del. 1975); People v. Vaini, 33 Ill.

1934A very similar matter is involved in the case of State v. Boswell, 119 Kan. 670 , 240 Pac. 848 , and a similar ruling.

1934A very similar matter is involved in the case of State v. Boswell, 119 Kan. 670 , 240 Pac. 848 , and a similar ruling.