context: The defendant places much emphasis on the fact that she never left the store with the merchandise. However, it is well-recognized in Massachusetts and elsewhere that taking goods beyond a store's premises is not a necessary precondition to a larceny conviction; the element of asportation may be satisfied if the defendant's behavior establishes that he or she removed the goods from the store's control to his or her own.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 222 A.2d 848, 849
citation_a.parenthetical: defendant briefly concealed pants, then attempted to place them with other merchandise when he noticed that he was being observed
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., McRae v. United States, 222 A.2d 848, 849 (D.C. Ct. App. 1966) (defendant briefly concealed pants, then attempted to place them with other merchandise when he noticed that he was being observed); People v. Baker, 365 Ill. 328, 330-332 (1936) (defendant went to rest room and hid merchandise under her coat; when questioned as she emerged, she returned to rest room and abandoned the items).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 99 Mass. 431, 432-433
citation_b.parenthetical: "It is not indeed necessary that the pocket-book . . . should have been removed from the pocket, if once within the grasp of the thief, to constitute larceny"
citation_b.sentence: Cf. Commonwealth v. Luckis, 99 Mass. 431, 432-433 (1868) (“It is not indeed necessary that the pocket-book . . . should have been removed from the pocket, if once within the grasp of the thief, to constitute larceny”).