## Facts

- Tyronne Lynn Welch took two televisions from a display area in a Lowe’s store in Henrico County, Virginia, and placed them in a shopping cart.
- He moved the cart to the lawn-and-garden area, a fenced section outside the main store building with no cash registers and a gate opening directly to the parking lot.
- A store manager saw Welch pushing the cart toward the gate and asked for a receipt; Welch had none and said he was looking for a register to pay.
- When asked to return inside, Welch initially agreed but then fled; during the chase he threatened that he had a gun and would shoot.
- After he was apprehended, he gave police false identifying information and had no means to pay for the televisions.
- A jury convicted Welch of grand larceny; on appeal he challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence for grand larceny.

## Issues

1. Whether moving merchandise from its display location to another area of the store premises can satisfy the “taking” and “asportation” elements of larceny when the goods never leave the owner’s property.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property, rather than ordinary customer handling of merchandise.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the grand larceny conviction.
- The court held the evidence permitted the jury to find a trespassory taking because Welch’s conduct exceeded any implied consent given to customers to handle merchandise for purposes of purchase.
- The court held asportation was satisfied because, once property is taken with felonious intent, even slight movement within the premises completes larceny.
- The court concluded intent to steal could be inferred from Welch’s movement of the televisions to a non-checkout area with direct access to the parking lot, his flight and threat, his false identification, and his inability to pay.

## Legal Principles

- Larceny requires an actual taking (a severance from the owner’s possession) coupled with intent to steal.
- A retailer’s implied consent allows bona fide customers to handle and move merchandise only for lawful purposes connected to purchase; that consent is exceeded when a person takes possession with intent to steal.
- The mere removal of merchandise from a shelf to a cart and movement within the store is not larceny unless other evidence shows the taking was with intent to steal.
- Once a felonious taking occurs, the slightest asportation is sufficient; the property need not be removed from the owner’s premises.
- Intent to permanently deprive may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct and surrounding circumstances, including flight, threats, resistance, concealment, and use of a false name as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Welch’s grand larceny conviction, holding that the jury could infer intent to steal from his conduct and that minimal movement of merchandise within store premises, when coupled with felonious intent, satisfies the taking and asportation elements of larceny even if the goods never leave the property.


Welch v. Commonwealth, 425 S.E.2d 101 (Va. Ct. App. 1992)