## Facts

- Frank Meyer was charged by information with stealing an overcoat valued at $20, owned by Harris Joseph and Lewis Joseph.
- Lewis Joseph displayed the overcoat buttoned on a dummy outside the store.
- The coat was chained to the dummy by a chain running through a sleeve, and the dummy was tied to the building.
- Joseph heard the chain rattle and went outside, finding Meyer with the coat unbuttoned and under his arm.
- The coat had been entirely removed from the dummy and was about two feet from where Joseph had placed it.
- Joseph testified Meyer was about to walk off with the coat but was stopped because the chain prevented removal from the display.
- The prosecution presented no evidence beyond Joseph’s testimony.
- A jury convicted Meyer of petit larceny; after admission of prior petit larceny convictions, the court sentenced him to two years in state prison.
- The trial court denied Meyer’s motion for a new trial; Meyer appealed from the judgment and the denial order.

## Issues

1. Whether removing a chained overcoat from a store dummy, holding it under one’s arm, and moving it about two feet constitutes the “carrying away” (asportation) element of larceny when the chain prevents escape.
2. Whether the evidence proved completed larceny or only an attempt.

## Decision

- The court held the evidence was sufficient to prove asportation and thus a completed larceny rather than an attempt.
- The court rejected the claim that a physical tether (chain/string) prevents larceny as a matter of law when the defendant obtains control and moves the property.
- The court reversed the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial on a separate ground unrelated to the sufficiency of the evidence on asportation.

## Legal Principles

- Larceny requires severance of the property from the owner’s possession or custody and the property’s coming into the thief’s possession, even briefly.
- Asportation is satisfied by any movement of the property after severance, however slight.
- A mechanical connection to the premises (e.g., chain or string) does not defeat asportation where the defendant has taken dominion over the item and moved it from the owner’s custody.
- The line between attempt and completion turns on whether the defendant achieved severance and obtained possession with at least minimal movement.

## Conclusion

The court treated larceny as complete once the coat was detached from the owner’s custody, placed under the defendant’s control, and moved a short distance, even though a chain prevented the defendant from leaving the scene; nonetheless, the conviction was reversed on other trial error.


People v. Meyer, 75 Cal. 383, 17 P. 431 (Cal. 1888)