People v. Shaunding
People v. Shaunding
268 Mich. 218
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.
βThe 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.β People v. Hillhouse, 80 Mich. 580, 586.
The judgment is reversed, and a new trial is granted.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.