(a) A person is guilty of larceny in the sixth degree when he commits larceny as defined in section
53a-119 and the value of the property or service is five hundred dollars or less.
(b) Larceny in the sixth degree is a class C misdemeanor.
(P.A. 82-271, S. 6; P.A. 09-138, S. 6.)
History: P.A. 09-138 amended Subsec. (a) to increase the maximum value of the property or service obtained from $250 to $500.
Cited. 201 C. 559; 202 C. 369; 203 C. 682; 208 C. 387; 210 C. 435; 212 C. 50; 213 C. 233; 237 C. 613; 241 C. 439. Convictions under this section, Sec. 53a-129d and Sec. 53a-128d(2) do not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. 326 C. 310. When circumstantial evidence is capable of raising the logical inference of ownership, such evidence is sufficient as a matter of law despite the absence of testimony by the owner identifying the specific property as his own. 327 C. 297.
Cited. 3 CA 132; 4 CA 676; 5 CA 599; 10 CA 130; Id., 503; 13 CA 214; Id., 438; Id., 578; 14 CA 88; Id., 205; Id., 272; Id., 309; 15 CA 197; 17 CA 273; 19 CA 48; 23 CA 123; 28 CA 195; 29 CA 843; 33 CA 432; 37 CA 228; 39 CA 384; 44 CA 125; 46 CA 778. Statutory requirement of “value” set forth in statute is satisfied where witness testified about the usefulness of coats that had been left in her vehicle; it was not necessary to prove coats were spun from silk or fashioned from the finest cloth to satisfy statutory requirement of “value”. 101 CA 144.
Subsec. (a):
Cited. 214 C. 161.
Cited. 24 CA 502; 28 CA 469; 37 CA 482; 38 CA 643; 45 CA 6. No double jeopardy where defendant convicted of larceny in the sixth degree and robbery in the third degree. 100 CA 122. Ownership of property by store could not be inferred from evidence offered by state concerning value of such property, and state therefor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an essential element of larceny in the sixth degree. 163 CA 810; judgment reversed in part, see 327 C. 297. Evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant or alleged coconspirator stole headphones, either as a substantive crime or as overt act in furtherance of conspiracy to commit larceny under Sec. 53a-48. 164 CA 25.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
108
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case:
State v. Fauntleroy, 921 A.2d 622 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
State v. Fauntleroy, 921 A.2d 622 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 7× “General Statutes § 53a-125b entitled, “Larceny in the sixth degree: Class C misdemeanor,” provides: (a) A person is guilty of larceny in the sixth degree when he commits larceny as defined in section 53a-119 and the value of the property or service is two hundred fifty dollars…”
State v. Schovanec, 163 A.3d 581 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 4× “The defendant, Frank Schovanec, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d, credit card theft in violation of General Statutes § 53a-128c(a), illegal use of a credit…”
State v. Adams, 173 A.3d 943 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 5× “to 2005) § 53a-125b 1 was not *945 supported by the evidence.”
State v. Rios, 954 A.2d 901 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 8× “On November 18, 2004, the defendant was charged in docket number CR-04-24808, with one count of larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125b, and one count of conspiracy to commit larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-125b…”
State v. Carpenter, 562 A.2d 35 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 6× “The first information is based on the following six incidents: (1) burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-103 and larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125b for a break-in at Jesus’ Grocery Store on January 28,1986; (2)…”
State v. Graham, 636 A.2d 852 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 4× “In the first case, for actions allegedly occurring on July 15,1988, the state charged the defendant with (1) unlawful possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277, (2) unlawful possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes §…”
State v. Dougherty, 3 A.3d 208 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 6× “1 With respect to the Maple Court incident; see footnote 1 of this opinion; the jury found the defendant guilty of one count of robbery in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-136 and one count of larceny in the sixth degree in violation of *874 General…”
State v. Daniels, 726 A.2d 520 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 4× “As a result, he was charged with criminal mischief in the third degree in violation of *68 General Statutes § 53a-117, 5 burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-103, 6 larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125b 7 and…”
State v. Szymkiewicz, 678 A.2d 473 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 4× ““Waterford police officer Mark Willard responded and, after [conducting a brief investigation and] observing the defendant’s behavior, arrested her for shoplifting [in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125b 3 ] .... He handcuffed the defendant, and he and Montigny led the…”
State v. Rodriguez, 796 A.2d 611 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 5× “The defendant, Billy Rodriguez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (4), 1 larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-125b (a) 2 and 53a-119,…”
State v. Hansen, 666 A.2d 421 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 4× “The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes *386 § 53a-134 (a) (4) 1 and larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125b. 2 On appeal, the defendant…”
Town of Groton v. United Steelworkers of Am., 757 A.2d 501 (Conn. 2000).
· cites it 3× “” General Statutes § 53a-125b provides: “Larceny in the sixth degree: Class C misdemeanor, (a) A person is guilty of larceny in the sixth degree when he commits larceny as defined in section 53a-119 and the value of the property or service is two hundred fifty dollars or less.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.