Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 9.1

“Section 53a-119 defines the crime of larceny and sets out a nonexclusive list of ways in

which that offense may be committed. One determinant of the grade of the offense of larceny is

the value of the property stolen. Under our statutory scheme, the grades of that offense range

from first degree larceny, which includes thefts of property exceeding $10,000 in value [now

exceeding $20,000], to sixth degree larceny, which includes thefts of property valued at $250 or

less [now $500 or less]. See General Statutes §§ 53a-122 through 53a-125b. In addition, § 53a-

121 (a) explains how the value of property is to be ascertained. . . . Finally, § 53a-121 (b)

provides that the value of each of the items alleged to have been stolen may be aggregated for

purposes of determining the degree of larceny when the thefts were committed pursuant to one

scheme or course of conduct.” State v. Desimone, 241 Conn. 439, 453 (1997).

The degree of larceny depends in most cases on the type and value of the property stolen.

The means by which the larceny is committed determines the degree for two offenses: larceny by

extortion, which is first degree, and larceny from the person, which is second degree. If the

property stolen is obtained by embezzlement, false pretenses or false promise and the victim is

over sixty years old, a conserved person or is blind or physically disabled, it is larceny in the

second degree, regardless of the nature or value of the property. If the property stolen consists of

wire, cable or other equipment used in the provision of telecommunications service and its taking

causes an interruption in the provision of emergency telecommunications service, it is larceny in

the second degree, regardless of the value of the property. If the property stolen consists of

public records or scientific or technical material, it is larceny in the third degree, regardless of the

value of the property. The degree for all other larceny offenses depends on the value of the

property. Public Acts 2009, No. 09-138, effective October 1, 2009, increased the dollar amounts

for the degrees of larceny. See chart below.

Type of property Value of property

(prior to 10/1/09)

Value of property

(after 10/1/09)

Degree

Motor vehicle* > $10,000 > $20,000 First

> $5,000 > $10,000 Second

< $5,000 < $10,000 Third

From a public community > $2,000 > $2,000 First

< $2,000 < $2,000 Second

Embezzlement / vulnerable victims Any Any Second

Telecommunications equipment Any Any Second

Public records Any Any Third

Scientific / technical Any Any Third

Any other property not specified above > $10,000 > $20,000 First

> $5,000 > $10,000 Second

> $1,000 > $2,000 Third

> $500 > $1,000 Fourth

> $250 > $500 Fifth

< $250 < $500 Sixth

*Effective October 1, 2022, larceny of a motor vehicle is a stand-alone offense proscribed by

General Statutes § 53a-119c, rather than one integrated into General Statutes §§ 53a-122 through

53a-125b as before. The new offense is not delineated into different degrees, and the value of

the motor vehicle(s) stolen is no longer a relevant consideration. Different felony classifications

apply, however, depending on whether the prosecution is for a first offense (class E), second

offense (class D) or subsequent offense (class B). <See Larceny of a Motor Vehicle, Instruction

9.1-4.>

Lesser Included Offenses

Larceny in the first degree and stealing a firearm are separate offenses. State v. Roy, 34

Conn. App. 751, 769-72 (1994), rev’d on other grounds, 233 Conn. 211 (1995). “The degree of

larceny is, for the most part, determined by the value of the property taken or, in some cases, by

the way in which it is taken. It is not generally determined by the kind of property.” Id., 772.

“Thus, the legislature created other statutes that recognize that the type of property

involved is, in some instances, germane to the state’s penological interest.” Id.

Simple larceny may be a lesser included offense of robbery. “The element distinguishing

robbery from larceny is the use or threatened use of physical force.” State v. Preston, 248 Conn.

472, 478 (1999) (the defendant’s use of force was not sufficiently in dispute to entitle him to an

instruction on larceny as a lesser included offense); State v. Hansen, 39 Conn. App. 384, 406-407

(conviction of both larceny and robbery was a violation of double jeopardy), cert. denied, 235

Conn. 928 (1995).

“Robbery in the first degree . . . entails simple larceny. Larceny from the person is a

separate and distinct offense from that of simple larceny. Second degree larceny requires an

actual trespass to the person of the victim.” State v. Ortiz, 14 Conn. App. 493, 504, cert. denied,

209 Conn. 804 (1988); see also State v. Littles, 31 Conn. App. 47, 57 (larceny from the person

and robbery require proof of distinct elements), cert. denied, 227 Conn. 902 (1993).