Which doctrine addresses a later change of intent to retain property in larceny?

• A. Concurrent doctrine
• B. Continuing trespass doctrine
• C. Subsequent intent doctrine
• D. Remorse doctrine

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is that larceny requires the intent to permanently deprive the owner to exist at the exact moment the property is taken. The concurrent doctrine encapsulates this by saying the mens rea and the act must occur together. If a person initially takes property without the intent to steal and only later decides to keep it, that later change in intent does not retroactively make the initial taking a larceny under the concurrent view. The crime hinges on what the person intends at the moment of taking, not on a change of mind afterward.

For example, if someone grabs a wallet believing it’s someone else’s but plans to return it, there’s no larceny at the moment of taking because the intent to deprive wasn’t present. If they later decide to keep it, that later decision doesn’t retroactively create larceny from the initial act under concurrent doctrine. If, however, the person took with the intent to steal from the start, the offense exists regardless of any later change in intention.