Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-42 (2026)
Larceny; taking possession of or taking away a motor vehicle; second or subsequent offense
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Any person who shall, willfully and without authority, take possession of or take away a motor vehicle of any value belonging to another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily convert it or to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of possession or ownership, and any person who knowingly shall aid and abet in the taking possession or taking away of the motor vehicle, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) or imprisoned in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed fifteen (15) years, or both.
- (2) Any person convicted under this section who causes damage to any motor vehicle shall be ordered by the court to pay restitution to the owner or owners of the motor vehicle or vehicles damaged in the amount of damages caused to the vehicle and reasonable repair costs.
- (3) This section shall not apply to the enforcement of a security interest in a motor vehicle.
- (4) Any person who shall be convicted for a second or subsequent offense under this section shall be fined not more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) or imprisoned in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of not less than five (5) years but not to exceed twenty (20) years, or both.
- (5) Notwithstanding the penalties authorized in subsections (1) and (4) of this section, the penalty for a person convicted of an offense under this section where the motor vehicle was in the possession of a commercial entity in the business of buying, selling, leasing, renting, storing or transporting motor vehicles shall be instead a fine of not more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) or imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of not less than ten (10) years but not to exceed thirty (30) years, or both.
- (6) As used in this section, "motor vehicle" includes every self-propelled device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway and shall also include any and all other land-based, self-propelled devices which are not designed for use upon a highway, including, but not limited to, farm machinery, construction equipment, all-terrain vehicles and off-road vehicles.
Laws, 1996, ch. 544, § 1; Laws, 2003, ch. 499, § 2; Laws, 2007, ch. 464, § 1, eff. 7/1/2007.
Amended by Laws, 2024, ch. 483, SB 2174,§ 1, eff. 7/1/2024.
Amended by Laws, 2014, ch. 457, HB 585, 16, eff. 7/1/2014.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Richmond v. State, 751 So. 2d 1038 (Miss. 1999).
Richmond v. State, 751 So. 2d 1038 (Miss. 1999). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42 (Supp.1996) ¶ 9.”
Mixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 275 (Miss. 2005). “Darryl Mixon was tried and convicted by a jury of motor vehicle theft under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42 in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County.”
Jimmy Shinn v. State of Mississippi, 174 So. 3d 961 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “A jury in the Lowndes County Circuit Court convicted Jimmy Shinn of motor vehicle theft, Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42 (Supp.2013), and the trial judge sentenced him to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with three years suspended and three years…”
Spearman v. State, 80 So. 3d 116 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-42 (1). Spearman argues, in amending section 97-17-42, the Legislature added additional essential elements to the crime of auto theft.”
Gillett v. State, 56 So. 3d 469 (Miss. 2010). “Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants took the vehicle from the presence or person of Heintzelman or Hulett as part of a “continuous chain of events.” The State may have proven that Gillett and Chamberlin killed two people.”
Davis v. State, 18 So. 3d 842 (Miss. 2009). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42(1) (Rev. 2006).”
Rickie Omar Smith v. State of Mississippi, 250 So. 3d 421 (Miss. 2018). “At the top of the indictment, Richmond was specifically informed that he was charged with a violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-42 , "mot. veh. theft.”
Smith v. State, 907 So. 2d 292 (Miss. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42(1) (Rev.2000)(emphasis added).”
Hooghe v. State, 138 So. 3d 240 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42(1). ¶ 13. Hooghe expressly acknowledged under oath that he understood the charge *245 he was pleading guilty to and its factual basis.”
Wilson v. State, 815 So. 2d 439 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “1999); Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-42 (Rev.2000). The Court held that the trial judge properly denied a motion to delete the reference to $250 as doing so would cause "a substantive change in the indictment.”
Brunner v. State, 37 So. 3d 645 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42 (Supp. 2008). 5 .”
Blount v. State, 111 So. 3d 1216 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42(1) (Supp.2011).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-42(1) — 6 cases
Davis v. State, 18 So. 3d 842 (Miss. 2009). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42(1) (Rev. 2006).”
Spearman v. State, 80 So. 3d 116 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-42 (1). Spearman argues, in amending section 97-17-42, the Legislature added additional essential elements to the crime of auto theft.”
Smith v. State, 907 So. 2d 292 (Miss. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42(1) (Rev.2000)(emphasis added).”
Hooghe v. State, 138 So. 3d 240 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42(1). ¶ 13. Hooghe expressly acknowledged under oath that he understood the charge *245 he was pleading guilty to and its factual basis.”
Blount v. State, 111 So. 3d 1216 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-42(1) (Supp.2011).”
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.