People v. Shaunding
People v. Shaunding
255 N.W. 770; 268 Mich. 218; 1934 Mich. LEXIS 775
(North Western Reporter)
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,
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
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.