## Facts

- Edgar Glen Cude left his automobile at a repair shop to have it repaired.
- The shop owner gave Cude an estimate of about $180, though there was evidence Cude authorized the repairs regardless of cost.
- Cude left the state and returned several days later.
- When Cude came back for the car, the shop presented a bill totaling $345.
- Cude could not pay the bill and left without the car; the shop kept the vehicle, claiming a lawful right to retain possession until payment.
- After the shop closed for the night, Cude entered the premises and, using a duplicate key, drove the car away without paying.
- A few days later, police recovered the car in the possession of one of Cude’s friends.
- Cude stated he took the car intending to sell it to raise money to pay the repair bill.
- The State charged Cude with grand larceny.
- At trial, Cude requested a jury instruction that he could not be convicted if, at the time of the taking, he honestly believed he had a right to possession of the car; the trial court refused the request.
- The jury found Cude guilty, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that an honest, good-faith belief in a right to possess the property (claim of right) negates the felonious intent required for larceny?

## Decision

- The conviction was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that larceny requires proof of felonious intent, and the defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed on his theory that he acted under a good-faith claim of right when there was evidence that could support that theory.
- The court recognized that, even though Cude was the owner, an owner may commit larceny of his own property when another has a lawful possessory interest; in that setting, the State still must prove a fraudulent intent to deprive the possessor of its rights.
- Because the evidence could support an inference (or at least a reasonable doubt) that Cude honestly believed he had a right to take immediate possession of the car, the failure to give the requested instruction improperly removed a material intent question from the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Larceny is a specific-intent crime; the State must prove a felonious intent to steal at the time of the taking.
- A good-faith claim of right to possession, even if mistaken, can negate the felonious intent required for larceny.
- An owner can be guilty of larceny of his own property when another person has lawful possession or a special property interest (such as a repair shop’s possessory right tied to unpaid charges), if the owner takes the property with fraudulent intent to defeat that possessory right.
- When the evidence would allow a jury to find the defendant acted under an honest belief of a right to possession, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction presenting that theory; refusal can be reversible error.

## Conclusion

Because larceny requires felonious intent and the record contained evidence from which a jury could find (or reasonably doubt) that Cude acted under an honest belief that he was entitled to possession of his car, the trial court’s refusal to instruct on claim of right was reversible error, requiring a new trial.


State v. Cude, 383 P.2d 399 (1963)