FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103
Go to Volume 7 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter 103 Table of Contents

103.3 Theft/Larceny, Auto Or Vehicular

     103.3.4 Auto Theft/Larceny: Lesser Offenses

    103.3.4.1 Joyriding As Lesser Included Of Vehicle Taking

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103

PRACTICE NOTE: In many jurisdictions the elements of auto theft include all of the elements of unauthorized use (joy riding) except intent to deprive. Therefore, under such schemes joyriding is a lesser included offense of auto theft. (See e.g., Sandoval v. People (CO 1971) 490 P.2d 1298, 1299 [joyriding statute includes "for the purpose of temporarily depriving the owner" and theft requires "knowingly intends to permanently deprive that person"]; State v. Tomes (ID 1990) 801 P2d 1303, 1305; State v. Wall (NC 1967) 157 SE2d 363, 365 [joyriding, "sometimes referred to as 'temporary larceny,'" is committed when "any person who drives or otherwise takes ... a vehicle, not his own, without the consent of the owner thereof, and with the intent to temporarily deprive said owner of his possession of such vehicle, without intent to steal the same"]; State v. Eyle (OR 1963) 388 P2d 110, 111-12 [a joy riding statute is designed to condemn the acts of a person who takes another's automobile without permission, but "without the intent to steal" it or permanently deprive the owner of its use]; Spencer v. State (TN 1973) 501 SW2d 799, 800 [holding that joyriding is a lesser included offense of larceny because, in spite of the phrase "without the intent to deprive" in the joyriding statute, the only difference between the two statutes was that joyriding did not include the intent to steal]; State v. Cornish (UT 1977) 568 P2d 360, 361 [finding joyriding to be a lesser included offense of auto theft after concluding that the phrase "without intent to steal" in the theft statute is not an element for the state to prove]; Henry v. State (MD 1974) 328 A2d 293, 297 ["an element of larceny of an automobile is the intent to deprive the owner of his property permanently while as to unauthorized use the intent is to deprive the owner of his custody or use of his property temporarily without intent to steal it"]; but see In re Lakeysha (MD 1995) 665 A2d 264, 278-80 [refusing to apply Henry and holding that joyriding is a lesser included offense of theft]; State v. Kamai (AZ 1996) 911 P2d 626, 629; People v. Barrick (CA 1982) 33 C3d 115, 133 [187 CR 716].)

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.20.3 [Theft/Larceny].

See FORECITE National™ 103.1.1.2 [Theft/Larceny: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].