## Facts

- Brown, a 17-year-old, entered an acquaintance’s house and took a bicycle.
- The prosecution charged burglary based on entry with intent to commit larceny.
- At trial, Brown admitted taking the bicycle but testified he intended only to keep it briefly as “retribution” and then return it.
- The trial court instructed the jury that larceny was complete regardless of how long Brown intended to deprive the owner of the bicycle, treating temporary deprivation as sufficient.
- Brown was convicted of burglary and appealed, challenging the larceny instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether larceny requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of property, as opposed to an intent to deprive only temporarily.
2. Whether an instruction permitting a larceny finding based on temporary deprivation misstated the law and required reversal of a burglary conviction predicated on intent to commit larceny.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the burglary conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that larceny requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of property.
- The court found the jury instruction erroneous because it allowed the jury to treat any intended deprivation, even temporary, as larceny.
- Because the burglary charge depended on intent to commit larceny at entry, the erroneous definition of larceny required reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Larceny requires a felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of property; a mere temporary taking or detention is insufficient.
- When a theft-based mental state is an element of a charged offense (such as burglary based on intent to commit larceny), the jury must be correctly instructed on that mental-state requirement.
- A conviction cannot stand where the jury instructions permit conviction on a legally insufficient mental state, even if the jury could have disbelieved the defendant’s account.

## Conclusion

The court held that a temporary taking does not satisfy larceny’s intent element and reversed because the jury was instructed that temporary deprivation could constitute larceny, improperly supporting a burglary conviction predicated on intent to commit larceny.


People v. Brown, 105 Cal. 66, 38 P. 518 (Cal. 1894)