N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 14
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-70 (2026)

Distinctions between grand and petit larceny abolished; punishment; accessories to larceny

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 14 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All distinctions between petit and grand larceny are abolished. Unless otherwise provided by statute, larceny is a Class H felony and is subject to the same rules of criminal procedure and principles of law as to accessories before and after the fact as other felonies. (R.C., c. 34, s. 26; Code, s. 1075; Rev., s. 3500; C.S., s. 4249; 1969, c. 522, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 1163; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2023 · leading case: State v. Buckom, 401 S.E.2d 362 (N.C. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Buckom, 401 S.E.2d 362 (N.C. 1991). · cites it 3× “N.C.G.S. § 14-70 (1986). In N.C.G.S. § 14-72, however, the legislature declared inter alia that the larceny of goods of a value of not more than $400.”
State v. Thompson, 185 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. 1972). · cites it 3× “G.S. § 14-70; G.S. § 14-72(b) (2); G.S. § 14-54(a).”
State v. Cooper, 124 S.E.2d 91 (N.C. 1962). · cites it 3× “The statute now codified as G.S. 14-70 appears as Section 1075 of *374 the Code of 1883.”
State v. Wilson, 337 S.E.2d 470 (N.C. 1985). · cites it 3× “This act was in violation of the following law: G.S. 14-70; 14-72(a). Defendant contends that the indictment fails to allege felonious larceny, since it does not specifically state that the larceny was “pursuant to” or “incidental to” a breaking or entering, and the amount of…”
State v. Boone, 239 S.E.2d 459 (N.C. 1977). “The following appears in the record: *712 “The Court by statement in open court to counsel for the defendant, with the defendant present, indicated that he would be compelled to give the defendant an active sentence due to the fact that the defendant had pleaded not guilty and…”
Pruitt v. Pernell, 360 F. Supp. 2d 738 (E.D.N.C. 2005). · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-70. However, the Court will construe Plaintiffs pro se complaint liberally to state a claim for conversion.”
State v. Harrison, 369 S.E.2d 624 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “Defendant was arrested and tried for felonious larceny, in violation of N.C.G.S. §§ 14-70 and 14-72(a), and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, in violation of N.”
State v. Frank, 200 S.E.2d 169 (N.C. 1973). “Defendant’s remaining assignments of error relate to motions for nonsuit, new trial and arrest of judgment.”
State v. Jones, 168 S.E.2d 380 (N.C. 1969). “Reference is made to: (1) Chapter 522, Session Laws of 1969, which rewrites G.S. 14-70 and G.S. 14-72; and (2) Chapter 543, Session Laws of 1969, which amends G.”
State v. Bennett, 76 S.E.2d 42 (N.C. 1953). “The rule governing treason and misdemeanors was also applied to petit larceny at common law, although it was a felony.”
State v. Walker, 171 S.E.2d 91 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969). “G.S. 14-70. (For a discussion of the history of the larceny statutes in this State see opinion of Bobbitt, J.”
State v. Meshaw, 98 S.E.2d 13 (N.C. 1957). “Rather, he takes the position that there is no error in respect of the larceny count; and that, since a single sentence was pronounced, the general verdict of “guilty as charged” is sufficient to support a valid judgment and sentence on the larceny count notwithstanding error,…”
Show all 30 citing cases →
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.