2022 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 53a - Penal Code
Chapter 952 - Penal Code: Offenses
Section 53a-122. - Larceny in the first degree: Class B felony.

(a) A person is guilty of larceny in the first degree when such person commits larceny, as defined in section 53a-119, and: (1) The property or service, regardless of its nature and value, is obtained by extortion, (2) the value of the property or service exceeds twenty thousand dollars, or (3) the property is obtained by defrauding a public community, and the value of such property exceeds two thousand dollars.

(b) Larceny in the first degree is a class B felony.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 124; 1971, P.A. 871, S. 25; P.A. 73-639, S. 7; P.A. 81-248, S. 1; 81-351, S. 3; P.A. 82-271, S. 1; P.A. 86-275, S. 1; P.A. 92-260, S. 51; P.A. 00-103, S. 1; P.A. 09-138, S. 1; P.A. 22-115, S. 8.)

History: 1971 act deleted detailed description of extortionist acts in Subsec. (a)(1), i.e. threat of physical injury, damage to property, etc., and made first degree larceny a Class C, rather than a Class D, felony; P.A. 73-639 made first degree larceny a Class B felony; P.A. 81-248 amended Subsec. (a) to clarify the proscribed conduct; P.A. 81-351 included property consisting of a motor vehicle having a value exceeding $2,000 in the definition of larceny in the first degree inserted new Subsec. (b) enumerating conditions constituting prima facie evidence of a larcenous intent in regard to motor vehicles and relettered former Subsec. (b) accordingly; P.A. 82-271 amended Subsec. (a)(2) by increasing from $2,000 to $10,000 the value of the property or service obtained and added Subsec. (a)(4) concerning defrauding a public community; P.A. 86-275 amended Subsec. (a)(3) to increase the value of a motor vehicle subject to the section from in excess of $2,000 to in excess of $10,000; P.A. 92-260 made a technical change in Subsec. (a)(3); P.A. 00-103 made technical changes in Subsecs. (a) and (b) and amended Subsec. (b) by defining “motor vehicle” and by adding provisions re prima facie evidence of knowledge that vehicle is stolen and possession of vehicle with larcenous intent; P.A. 09-138 amended Subsec. (a) to increase in Subdiv. (2) the value of the property or service obtained from in excess of $10,000 to in excess of $20,000 and increase in Subdiv. (3) the value of a motor vehicle obtained from in excess of $10,000 to in excess of $20,000; P.A. 22-115 amended Subsec. (a) to make a technical change, delete Subdiv. (3) re property consisting of a motor vehicle and redesignate existing Subdiv. (4) as Subdiv. (3), deleted former Subsec. (b) defining “motor vehicle” and redesignated existing Subsec. (c) as Subsec. (b).

Inference based on possession of recently stolen property (driver versus passenger of motor van containing stolen property); meaning of “possession”. 171 C. 119. Mere presence of passenger in vehicle containing stolen goods is insufficient to support conviction. Id., 127. Cited. 174 C. 253; Id., 338; 182 C. 52; 183 C. 383; 186 C. 648; 188 C. 715; 189 C. 717; 190 C. 559; 194 C. 361; 196 C. 185; 197 C. 201; Id., 247; 199 C. 30; Id., 207; 202 C. 86; 204 C. 52; 213 C. 233; 224 C. 711; 237 C. 501; 241 C. 413; Id., 439.

Cited. 3 CA 359; 5 CA 113; Id., 347; 6 CA 164; 7 CA 326; Id., 532; 9 CA 349; 12 CA 585; 14 CA 272; 20 CA 810; 21 CA 431; 29 CA 843; 34 CA 599; Id., 751; judgment reversed, see 233 C. 211; 36 CA 364; 37 CA 40; 45 CA 455.

Cited. 31 CS 501.

Subsec. (a):

Cited. 169 C. 581; 176 C. 239; 177 C. 243; 178 C. 427; Id., 163; Id., 416; Id., 480; Id., 649; 180 C. 182; Id., 662. 181 C. 172; Id., 254, 255; Id., 299; 182 C. 52; 183 C. 225; 185 C. 211; 188 C. 671; Id., 681; 189 C. 114; Id., 201; Id., 337; Id., 383; 190 C. 541; 192 C. 405; 195 C. 421; 196 C. 225; 197 C. 17; Id., 413; Id., 629; 198 C. 348; Id., 369; 199 C. 14; 208 C. 420; 214 C. 132; Id., 717; 218 C. 151; 219 C. 93; 221 C. 685; 227 C. 611; 232 C. 691; 233 C. 527; Id., 552; 235 C. 502; 242 C. 345. Subdiv. (2): Although lack of consent is not specifically enumerated as element of larceny in the first degree, donative victim's inability to consent to a taking is a factor properly considered in the context of a traditional understanding of larceny statute. 256 C. 135.

Cited. 3 CA 633; 4 CA 251; 5 CA 129; 7 CA 292; Id., 445; 8 CA 125; Id., 376; 9 CA 121; Id., 313; Id., 365; 10 CA 447; 11 CA 684; 13 CA 576; 15 CA 416; 16 CA 402; 17 CA 50; Id., 359; Id., 486; 20 CA 354; Id., 665; 21 CA 386; 22 CA 449; 24 CA 502; 25 CA 149; Id., 181; 26 CA 279; 28 CA 306; Id., 521; 29 CA 394; 30 CA 190; 31 CA 614; 33 CA 368; 34 CA 694; 35 CA 566; Id., 740; 36 CA 774; 37 CA 589; Id., 619; 38 CA 481; Id., 643; 39 CA 96; 41 CA 695; 43 CA 499; 44 CA 187; Id., 476; 47 CA 1. Defendant's claim that evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of larceny in the first degree was unavailing; the evidence, when construed in the light most favorable to sustaining verdict, was sufficient to support jury's finding that value of victim's car exceeded $10,000, as required by statute, and it was not improper for trial court to permit victim to testify as to his opinion of car's value at time of the crime. 81 CA 377. Subdiv. (3): Vehicle's owner was competent to testify as to the value of his property and that testimony was sufficient to satisfy statutory element that its value exceeded ten thousand dollars. 95 CA 248.