## Facts

- Kenneth D. Davis entered a Mervyn’s department store carrying a Mervyn’s shopping bag and was monitored by store security.
- Davis took a shirt from a sales display and carried it through the store to a sales counter.
- He told the cashier he had purchased the shirt for his father, it did not fit, and he wanted to return it; he lacked a receipt and claimed it was a gift.
- Under store policy, the cashier would issue a store credit voucher (not cash) for an item over $20 without a receipt; security instructed the cashier to issue the voucher.
- Davis signed the voucher using a false name and walked away from the counter with it.
- Security detained Davis; he gave additional false identities, stated he needed money, and offered to pay for the shirt.
- Davis was charged with petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction under California Penal Code § 666, based on theft under § 484(a).
- The trial court denied a motion for acquittal asserting the evidence showed only attempted theft; a jury convicted Davis of petty theft, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether taking store merchandise with a preformed plan to obtain a refund or credit by falsely claiming ownership constitutes completed theft by larceny or only an attempt.
2. Whether intending to “return” the item in exchange for value satisfies larceny’s intent to permanently deprive (animus furandi).
3. Whether a retailer’s general permission for customers to handle merchandise, and the clerk’s issuance of store credit under security direction, negates the trespassory taking element of larceny.
4. Whether California Penal Code § 484.1 impliedly limits prosecution under the general theft statute, § 484(a), for this conduct.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- Davis committed completed theft by larceny, not merely attempted theft.
- The intent element was satisfied because Davis intended to assert false ownership and relinquish the shirt only on condition the store give him value, which constitutes intent to permanently deprive under California theft law.
- Any consent for customers to handle goods was limited and did not extend to possession for a fraudulent return; the trespass element was therefore met.
- Penal Code § 484.1 did not preclude charging under § 484(a).

## Legal Principles

- Larceny is complete upon a trespassory taking and carrying away with intent to steal; completion does not depend on successfully obtaining proceeds from a later transaction.
- Intent to permanently deprive is established when a defendant intends to return property to the owner only in exchange for a reward, refund, or other value conditioned on the owner’s payment.
- A merchant’s implied consent for shoppers to handle or carry merchandise is limited to legitimate shopping purposes; possession obtained for a fraudulent claim of ownership exceeds the scope of consent and is trespassory for larceny.
- A specific theft-related provision addressing certain fraudulent transactions does not, without clear legislative intent, displace prosecution under the general theft statute for comparable conduct involving other merchants.

## Conclusion

The court held that a fraudulent refund scheme can constitute completed larceny at the moment the defendant takes and carries away merchandise with intent to claim ownership and obtain value as the price of its return, and that ordinary retail consent to handling goods does not negate trespass when the defendant’s purpose is fraud.


People v. Davis, 19 Cal. 4th 301 (Cal. 1998)