## Facts

- Paul Varszegi was the commercial landlord of premises leased to Executive Decisions Support, Inc., whose president was Catherine Topp.
- The lease included a default clause purporting to allow the landlord to enter the tenant’s premises, seize the tenant’s personal property, and sell it to recover unpaid rent or charges.
- Varszegi claimed Topp failed to pay three months’ rent (March–May 1990).
- On May 5, 1990, Varszegi entered Topp’s office by picking the lock and removed two computers and attached printers.
- On May 7, 1990, Topp discovered the lock had been tampered with and the computers were missing; she contacted police.
- Topp called Varszegi, who admitted taking the computers due to the alleged rent default and stated he believed his actions were lawful under the lease.
- A responding officer expressed doubt about the lawfulness of Varszegi’s conduct; Varszegi maintained he acted in accordance with the lease.
- A police supervisor told Varszegi he had no legal right to confiscate the equipment and should arrange to return it.
- Varszegi did not return the property and sold the computers on May 23, 1990.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Varszegi acted with the specific intent required for larceny—intent to deprive another of property or appropriate it to himself—given his asserted good-faith claim of right under the lease.
2. Whether the trial court’s jury instructions on larceny intent denied due process and a fair trial by inadequately addressing the effect of a claim-of-right theory.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court reversed the conviction for larceny in the third degree.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Varszegi had the requisite larcenous intent.
- Because the reversal rested on insufficiency of the evidence, the conviction was reversed rather than remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Larceny requires proof that the defendant wrongfully took, obtained, or withheld property with intent to deprive the owner of it or to appropriate it to the defendant.
- A good-faith claim of right to the property, even if legally mistaken, can negate the specific intent element of larceny.
- Conduct arising from a civil rent-collection dispute and asserted contractual self-help may be wrongful yet still fail to establish criminal intent if the evidence does not exclude a reasonable good-faith belief in a right to the property.
- Police warnings that conduct is unlawful may be relevant but do not, by themselves, establish larcenous intent where the record permits a continued good-faith belief in an asserted contractual right.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the larceny conviction because the state’s proof did not exclude the reasonable possibility that the landlord acted under a bona fide, lease-based claim of right, defeating the required intent to deprive for larceny.


State v. Varszegi, 33 Conn. App. 368, 635 A.2d 816 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993)