OUJI-CR 5-93


No person may be convicted of grand larceny unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, taking;
Second, carrying away;
Third, of (personal property)/(one or more firearms);
Fourth, of another;
Fifth, (valued at ($1,000-$2,499.99)/($2,500-$14,999.99/($15,000 or more)/(from the person of another);
Sixth, by fraud/stealth;
Seventh, with the intent to deprive permanently.


Statutory Authority: 21 O.S. Supp. 2019, §§ 1701, 1704, 1705.

Notes on Use

If the property that was taken was firearms, the Fifth Element should be deleted, and the remaining elements should be renumbered.

Committee Comments

The statutory language seems relatively clear as to the elements of grand larceny. The case law, however, has added the technical element of "carrying away": asportation. Although any slight carrying-away motion after possession has been acquired by the thief will be sufficient to satisfy the second element, basic research indicates "carrying away" to be a distinct element of the crime of larceny. Turner v. State, 1973 OK CR 430, ¶ 4, 515 P.2d 1167, 1168; Hutchinson v. State, 1967 OK CR 48, ¶ 6, 427 P.2d 112, 114; Mercer v. State, 1950 OK CR 89, 219 P.2d 1035, 92 Okl. Cr. 37.
When discussing the element "of another," the cases usually speak of the other as the owner of the property. Ownership of the personal property by the other person is not required, however, and larceny has been committed if another's possession has been disturbed. Hence, the owner of personal property can be convicted of larceny of his property if the owner were to take the property from the lawful possession of another with intent to deprive the possessor of his property right permanently. Borrelli v. State, 1969 OK CR 135, ¶ 6, 453 P.2d 312, 314 (possession of car by owner's wife was sufficient ownership to justify charge of larceny of automobile). Grand larceny is thus a crime against lawful possession. Pershica v. State, 1974 OK CR 154, ¶ 17, 525 P.2d 1374, 1377.
The fifth element lists the two alternatives which distinguish grand larceny from petit larceny in accordance with section 1704.
The word "stealth," one of the two alternative means by which the personal property must be obtained for larceny, will encompass the situation illustrated by section 1702 concerning lost property. As previously mentioned in the commentary to the introductory instruction, section 1702 does not create a separate crime but simply illustrates one factual situation which can, in certain instances, constitute larceny. Taking the property by fraud or stealth simply indicates that the taking is trespassory.

The mens rea as stated in section 1701 is "intent to deprive." Case law indicates that it is more appropriate to describe the mens rea as "intent to deprive permanently." Tate v. State, 1985 OK CR 116, ¶ 9, 706 P.2d 169, 171; Barnes v. State, 1963 OK CR 102, 10, 387 P.2d 146, 148. The seventh element reflects the case law on the mens rea element of larceny. See Phipps v. State, 1977 OK CR 337, ¶ 10, 572 P.2d 588, 591; Simmons v. State, 1976 OK CR 89, ¶ 15, 549 P.2d 111, 116.

(2019 Supp.)