Every person who shall steal any money, goods, or chattels, or any note of the general
treasurer of this state for the payment of money, any bank bill, any certificate of
any bank or of any public officer or corporation securing the payment of money to
any person or certifying it to be due, any certificate of stock in any corporation,
any order entitling a person to money or other article, or any bill of exchange, bill
of lading, railroad ticket, bond, warrant, obligation, bill, or promissory note for
the payment of money, or other valuable property, or any record or paper belonging
to any public officer, or any writ, warrant, or other legal process, or any book or
part of one containing an account, any receipt for money or other article paid or
delivered, any adjustment or document of any kind relating to the payment of money
or delivery of any article, any indenture of apprenticeship, or any deed, covenant,
indenture, or assurance whatsoever respecting any property, real or personal, shall
be deemed guilty of larceny.
Notes of Decisions
Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Carbone, 898 A.2d 87 (R.I. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Carbone was criminally charged on November 15, 2001, for larceny over $500 pursuant to G.L.1956 §§ 11-41-1 and 11-41-5 and for bypassing an electrical meter pursuant to § 11-35-9.”
State v. Guerra, 12 A.3d 759 (R.I. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Ahlborg & Sons on October 10, 2005 of two laptop computers valued at *761 more than $500, in violation of G.L.1956 § 11-41-1 and § 11 — 41-5. A jury trial was held in the Superior Court for Providence County on May 19 and 20, 2008.”
State v. Erwin Grantley, 149 A.3d 124 (R.I. 2016).
· cites it 2× “1956 § 31-9-1; and not guilty of larceny under $500 in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-41-1. On September 6, 2013, the trial justice sentenced Grantley.”
State v. DeMasi, 419 A.2d 285 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-41-1. At approximately 4:10 a.m. on October 8, 1974, Officer Thomas Calabro of the Pawtucket police department was on routine patrol in an industrial section of the city when he noticed a 1968 Mercury at the intersection of Industrial Highway and…”
State v. Flori, 963 A.2d 932 (R.I. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See G.L.1956 §§ 11-41-1 and 11-41-5. The penalty for misdemeanor larceny cannot exceed one year imprisonment.”
State v. John Whiting, 115 A.3d 956 (R.I. 2015).
· cites it 3× “The defendant, John Whiting, appeals from a judgment of conviction for felony larceny in violation of G.L.1956 §§ 11-41-1 and 11-41-5 and criminal solicitation in violation of G.”
State v. Smith, 662 A.2d 1171 (R.I. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Section 11-41-1. Additionally, the Legislature has enacted other statutes specifically criminalizing the theft of other than goods and chattels: §§ 11-41-8 (animals), 11-41-9 (poultry), G.”
State v. CIRESI, 45 A.3d 1201 (R.I. 2012).
“…§§ 11 — 41—2 and 11-41-5 (count 3); one count of attempted larceny of currency from an ATM machine, in violation of §§ 11-41-1 and 11-41-6 (count 4); one count of harboring a criminal in violation of G.L.1956 § 11 — 1—4 (count 5); and one count of obstructing two police…”
State v. Dellay, 687 A.2d 435 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 2× “1956 § 11-23-1, with felony larceny in violation of G.L.1956 §§ 11-41-1 and 11-41-5, and with failure to report a death in violation of G.”
State v. Aurgemma, 358 A.2d 46 (R.I. 1976).
“—Any person convicted of any offense *430 under §§11-41-1 to 11-41-6, inclusive, if the value of the property or money * * * obtained, received, taken or secreted by false pretenses or otherwise with intent to cheat or defraud * * * exceed five hundred dollars ($500), shall be…”
State v. Patrick Timothy McDonald, 157 A.3d 1080 (R.I. 2017).
“…abetting defendant to commit embezzlement in violation of §§ 11-41-3 and 11-1-3 (count 7), larceny in violation of §§ 11-41-1 and 11-41-5 (count 8), embezzlement or fraudulent conversion in violation of §§ 11-41-3 and 11-41-5 (count 9), obtaining money under false pretenses…”
State v. Desrosiers, 559 A.2d 641 (R.I. 1989).
“1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 11-41-1 and § 11-41-5, as amended by P.”
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.