People v. Shaunding
People v. Shaunding.
Opinion of the Court
The trial court was in error in excluding testimony offered by the respondent as to his belief that he had the right to take the property in question from the place from which it was taken.
"The felonious intent is an essential and inseparable ingredient in every larceny, and if a person takes property under a claim of right, however unfounded, he has not committed larceny." People v. Hillhouse , 80 Mich. 580 , 586 .
The judgment is reversed, and a new trial is granted.
NELSON SHARPE, C.J., and POTTER, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, BUTZEL, and EDWARD M. SHARPE, JJ., concurred. *Page 220
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- Federal District Courts1
- Military Courts1
- State Highest Courts3
- State Appellate Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.