## Facts

- Three defendants in consolidated appeals were convicted of petit larceny based on conduct occurring inside self-service retail stores; intermediate appellate courts affirmed.
- Olivo concealed a set of wrenches in his clothing after looking around furtively, walked toward an exit past multiple cash registers without paying, and was stopped a few feet from the exit; he denied having the wrenches and attempted to keep them hidden while escorted to security.
- Gasparik removed a price tag and an anti-theft alarm device from a store jacket, hid them on a rack, left his own jacket behind, wore the store jacket, passed several cash registers, and was apprehended while heading toward an exit within the store.
- Spatzier concealed a book in a closed attaché case after furtive looking; during a confrontation inside the store, the book fell out, and he was apprehended before leaving.
- Each defendant argued larceny was not complete because the merchandise had not been taken out of the store.

## Issues

1. Whether a person may be convicted of larceny for shoplifting when apprehended inside a self-service store before leaving the premises.
2. When permissive custody of merchandise in a self-service store becomes a wrongful taking through dominion and control inconsistent with the owner’s rights.

## Decision

- The court affirmed all convictions.
- Larceny may be complete inside the store when the evidence shows the defendant exercised dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the owner’s rights, with intent to steal.
- The court rejected a bright-line rule requiring exit from the store to establish a completed taking.
- Applying the rule, concealment and other larcenous acts (including bypassing registers and moving toward exits) supported the findings of completed takings for all three defendants.

## Legal Principles

- Modern larceny focuses on wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding with intent to deprive, not a technical requirement of removal from the premises.
- In self-service settings, customers have implied permission to handle and carry items for purchase; larceny occurs when conduct exceeds that permission by asserting control inconsistent with the owner’s continued rights.
- Factors supporting a finding of dominion and control inconsistent with the owner’s rights include concealment of merchandise, removal of tags or security devices, furtive conduct, bypassing registers, movement toward or proximity to exits with secreted goods, and use of shoplifting devices or concealment containers.
- Apprehension inside the store does not defeat larceny if the defendant’s acts and intent show a completed wrongful taking.

## Conclusion

The court held that shoplifting can constitute completed larceny before a defendant exits a self-service store when the defendant’s conduct demonstrates intent to steal and an exercise of dominion and control over the merchandise that is wholly inconsistent with the owner’s rights, and it affirmed the defendants’ petit larceny convictions on that basis.


People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309 (N.Y. 1981)