## Facts

- Charles Riley owned 29 black-faced lambs.
- Riley asked John Clarke for permission to place his 29 lambs in Clarke’s field overnight, agreeing to pay one penny per lamb.
- Clarke agreed, and Riley’s lambs were placed in the field.
- Ten white-faced lambs belonging to John Burnside were already in Clarke’s field.
- The next morning, Burnside discovered that one of his lambs was missing and that Riley’s lambs had been removed from the field.
- That morning, Riley went to John Calvert to sell his flock, offering 29 lambs.
- Calvert counted the animals and found 30 lambs, including a white-faced lamb that did not match Riley’s flock.
- After Calvert pointed out the extra, white-faced lamb, Riley nevertheless agreed to sell all 30 lambs to Calvert and kept the proceeds.
- Riley was indicted and convicted of larceny; the legal question was reserved for the Court for Crown Cases Reserved.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant commits larceny when he mistakenly takes another’s chattel without intent to steal at the moment of taking, but later forms the intent to steal while still wrongfully possessing it.
2. Whether a trespassory taking can be treated as continuing so that later-formed felonious intent coincides with the taking and carrying away required for common-law larceny.

## Decision

- The court upheld Riley’s conviction.
- Riley’s removal of Burnside’s lamb from the field was a wrongful interference with Burnside’s possessory rights and therefore a trespass as to that lamb, even if Riley initially acted under a mistake.
- The trespass was treated as continuing while Riley retained the lamb in his possession without Burnside’s consent.
- When Calvert pointed out that there were 30 lambs and that one was white-faced, Riley’s decision to sell all 30 and keep the money showed an intent to appropriate Burnside’s lamb.
- Because that intent arose during the continuing trespassory possession and asportation, the act and intent requirements for larceny were satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law larceny requires a trespassory taking and carrying away of another’s property with intent to permanently deprive the owner at the time the law treats the taking as occurring.
- If the defendant initially obtains possession lawfully (for example, by consent or as a bailee), a later decision to convert the property is not common-law larceny, though it may be another offense.
- If the defendant’s initial acquisition is trespassory, the wrongful taking may be treated as continuing so long as the defendant retains the property under that wrongful possession.
- When intent to steal is formed during that continuing trespass and the defendant then appropriates or disposes of the property as his own, the law treats the elements as coinciding, supporting a larceny conviction.

## Conclusion

Regina v. Riley holds that when a defendant mistakenly takes another’s property in a trespassory manner and later, after the mistake is brought to his attention, chooses to dispose of the property as his own, the continuing-trespass doctrine allows the later-formed intent to satisfy the concurrence required for common-law larceny, so Riley’s sale of the extra lamb supported his conviction.


Regina v. Riley, 169 Eng. Rep. 674 (1853)