## Facts

- Majid Khoury spent several hours in a Fed Mart store pushing a shopping cart.
- He placed store merchandise into a large cardboard box labeled as a chandelier and loosely taped it.
- Khoury pushed the box on the cart to a checkstand to pay the marked price for the box.
- The cashier insisted on opening the box to verify its contents before allowing the purchase.
- Khoury walked back into the store, leaving the box with the cashier.
- The opened box contained more than $900 of store merchandise (batteries, tools, and chain saws) and no chandelier.
- Khoury was detained by store security and convicted by a jury of grand theft under California Penal Code § 487.
- On appeal, Khoury argued the evidence showed, at most, attempted theft because there was no sufficient carrying away (asportation).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the asportation element of theft by larceny when the defendant moved concealed merchandise within the store to a checkstand but did not leave the premises with it.
2. Whether, under the substantial evidence standard, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant completed grand theft rather than merely attempted theft.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the grand theft conviction.
- The court held there was substantial evidence of asportation because the merchandise was removed from its original location, placed under the defendant’s control, and moved within the store with intent to steal.
- The court rejected the argument that larceny requires removal of the property from the store premises.
- A dissent would have treated the evidence as insufficient for completed larceny, viewing it as no more than an attempt.

## Legal Principles

- Theft by larceny requires a taking and asportation (carrying away), plus intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
- Asportation is satisfied when property is severed from the owner’s possession or custody and comes into the thief’s possession, even briefly.
- Any movement of the property from its original place, however slight, can satisfy asportation when accompanied by the requisite intent; exit from the premises is not required.
- On appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency, the judgment is upheld if substantial evidence supports each element under a view of the evidence favorable to the verdict.

## Conclusion

Because Khoury concealed valuable merchandise in a mislabeled box, exercised control over it, and moved it from its original locations to the checkstand with an apparent intent to steal, the evidence supported the asportation element and the conviction for completed grand theft.


People v. Khoury, 166 Cal. Rptr. 705 (Cal. Super. Ct. App. Dep’t 1980)