Carter v. Com.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that in a self-service store customers have implied permission to move merchandise about the premises of the store
• holding that larceny offenses do not necessarily involve violent conduct
• stating that a trespassory taking occurs when “there is some conduct by the customer which makes the customer’s possession clearly adverse to the store” (emphasis added)
• stating that “[w]here there is evidence that an individual has acted in a manner that is inconsistent with that of a prospective purchaser, and has exercised immediate dominion and control over the property,” there is sufficient possession to constitute larceny in a self-service store
• “According to their scheme, Carter and his accomplice intended to return the paint [to the store] upon receipt of a payment [from the store] for returning it, a condition which they had no right to impose.”
• “If the defendant does not leave the premises, the evidence must establish that the defendant in some way, within the store, exercised trespassory possession of the goods inconsistent with the owner’s rights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).