## Facts

- Eiseman and Landsman, using aliases, approached Sarah Silverberg in Cleveland and attempted to persuade her to withdraw her bank funds and turn the cash over to them for supposed real-estate investments.
- At their urging, Silverberg withdrew about $22,000 from various Cleveland banks.
- Eiseman and Landsman supplied Silverberg with a briefcase in which she placed the cash.
- The next day, Landsman went to Silverberg’s home and left with the briefcase containing the money.
- After obtaining possession of the money, Eiseman and Landsman traveled to Detroit, Michigan, and checked into a hotel.
- In Detroit, they used some of Silverberg’s money to purchase a diamond ring.
- They exchanged the remaining cash for smaller denominations and placed it in a Detroit safety-deposit box.
- The state indicted Eiseman and Landsman for larceny.
- The proof at trial was mixed on the manner of the taking: some evidence suggested Landsman took the money without Silverberg’s consent and left paper and glass in the briefcase so it would feel as though it still held the cash, while other parts of Silverberg’s testimony suggested she voluntarily gave Landsman custody of the money.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support larceny convictions where the owner’s testimony conflicted on whether she voluntarily delivered the money or it was taken without consent.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the larceny convictions.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence as a whole, the jury could reasonably find the required elements of larceny despite conflicting testimony about consent and delivery.

## Legal Principles

- Larceny requires a wrongful taking and carrying away of another’s personal property with intent to permanently deprive the owner.
- A conviction may stand even when a complaining witness gives inconsistent or conflicting testimony, so long as other evidence permits the jury to find the elements of the offense.
- When the surrounding circumstances permit a finding that any “consent” amounted only to temporary custody induced by deception, the jury may treat the taking as larcenous rather than as a legitimate transfer of possession.
- On appellate review, the court does not retry facts; it sustains the verdict if the record contains evidence from which the jury could find guilt under the charged offense.

## Conclusion

Eiseman and Landsman were properly convicted of larceny because the evidence allowed the jury to conclude that the $22,000 was obtained and carried away with intent to steal, even though portions of Silverberg’s testimony suggested she may have voluntarily handed over custody of the money.


Eiseman & Landsman v. State, 1932 WL 1699 (1932)