What is larceny in Massachusetts and what are the penalties?

Under M.G.L. c. 266 §30, larceny is the unlawful taking and carrying away of another person's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. Massachusetts distinguishes between petit larceny (value under $1,200) — a misdemeanor carrying up to 1 year in the House of Correction — and grand larceny (value over $1,200) — a felony carrying up to 5 years in state prison. The value threshold determines whether the charge is a misdemeanor or felony, making the valuation of allegedly stolen property a critical issue in many cases.

What are the elements of larceny that the prosecution must prove?

To convict on larceny, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) a taking and carrying away; (2) of the personal property of another; (3) with the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The intent element — permanent deprivation — is the most frequently contested part of a larceny case. If the defendant believed they had permission to take the property, intended to return it, or believed the property was their own, that negates the required intent.

What are common defenses to a larceny charge in Massachusetts?

Common defenses include: (1) No intent to permanently deprive — the defendant believed they had permission, intended to return the property, or thought it was their own; (2) Consent — the owner gave actual or apparent permission; (3) Value dispute — challenging whether the property's value exceeds the $1,200 felony threshold, which can reduce a felony to a misdemeanor; (4) Misidentification — especially in workplace and retail settings where multiple people had access; (5) Insufficient evidence — larceny charges are often based on circumstantial evidence, and the circumstantial proof may not exclude a reasonable innocent explanation.

Can larceny be charged as a felony even for smaller amounts?

Yes, in certain circumstances. Larceny from a person (pickpocketing, purse snatching) is a felony under c. 266 §25 regardless of value. Larceny by fiduciary (embezzlement from a position of trust) and larceny by false pretenses also have distinct statutory bases. Repeat offenders may face enhanced charges. The standard larceny statute (§30) uses the $1,200 threshold, but the specific conduct and relationship between the parties determines which subsection applies.

What is the difference between larceny and shoplifting in Massachusetts?

Shoplifting under c. 266 §30A is a specific statute covering concealment of merchandise, price tag switching, and container transfer in retail settings. It carries its own penalty schedule: $250 fine for a first offense, up to $500 or 2 years for a second offense. When the value of shoplifted merchandise exceeds $1,200, however, the charge typically escalates to felony larceny under §30 rather than shoplifting. Shoplifting charges also trigger a civil demand letter right under c. 93 §90, which is completely separate from the criminal charge.

Criminal Defense

Larceny Defense Lawyer in Massachusetts

Q: Does a larceny conviction affect employment and professional licensing?

Yes. Larceny — especially felony larceny — appears on a CORI and is one of the categories of offenses that most directly affects employment. Many employers conduct CORI checks, and a theft-related conviction raises automatic red flags regardless of the sentence. Professional licensing boards (nursing, real estate, financial services, law) treat larceny convictions as character and fitness issues. For non-citizens, larceny is typically classified as a crime involving moral turpitude with potential immigration consequences including deportation and bar on re-entry.

Larceny under M.G.L. c. 266 §30 covers a wide range of conduct — from misdemeanor petit larceny (under $1,200) to felony grand larceny carrying up to 5 years in state prison. The $1,200 threshold and the intent to permanently deprive are the two pressure points where most larceny defenses are built.

(978) 406-9890 Meet Attorney Aprodu

Attorney Adela Aprodu — Massachusetts Larceny Defense

Larceny Is Often Charged When the Situation Is Far More Ambiguous Than the Police Report Makes It Sound

Larceny charges arise from an enormous range of situations — a workplace dispute where an employee took something they believed was authorized, a property disagreement between family members or former partners, a retail situation where intent was misread, or a business transaction that turned into an accusation. What many of these cases have in common is that the intent element is genuinely contested, not obvious.

I'm Attorney Adela Aprodu. The question in every larceny case is whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant specifically intended to permanently deprive the owner of their property. That is a high bar — and it is frequently the weakest link in the prosecution's case. The value of the property also matters enormously: whether the charge is a misdemeanor or a felony carrying up to 5 years turns entirely on whether the alleged value clears $1,200.

A larceny conviction — especially a felony — carries consequences that extend far beyond the criminal sentence. It appears on your CORI, triggers immigration consequences for non-citizens, and flags on virtually every background check. Call me before your first court date so we can assess both the intent element and the value dispute before the prosecution has locked in its theory of the case.

Intent element analyzed from day one Felony-to-misdemeanor value disputes pursued Free, confidential consultation

Call (978) 406-9890 Send a Message

The Statute, the Threshold, and What the Prosecution Must Prove

Larceny in Massachusetts is governed primarily by M.G.L. c. 266 §30. The statute creates two tiers based entirely on the value of the property allegedly taken:

Petit larceny (under $1,200) — misdemeanor, up to 1 year in the House of Correction
Grand larceny (over $1,200) — felony, up to 5 years in state prison

To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove all three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Taking and carrying away — the property was physically removed from the owner's possession and control
Property of another — the property belongs to someone other than the defendant
Intent to permanently deprive — the defendant specifically intended that the owner would not get the property back. An intent to borrow, to return, or a good-faith belief of ownership negates this element entirely.

Beyond simple theft by taking, c. 266 §30 also covers related forms of larceny: larceny by false pretenses (obtaining property through knowingly false representations), larceny by embezzlement (misappropriating property entrusted to you), and larceny by check. Each form requires the same intent element — permanent deprivation — but has distinct factual patterns and defenses.

Separate provisions impose felony treatment regardless of value: c. 266 §25 (larceny from the person — pickpocketing, purse snatching) is a felony with no value floor. Repeat offenders may face enhanced charging under other provisions.

          Defense Strategies in Larceny Cases
          No intent to permanently deprive — the most powerful defense and the most frequently available one. If the defendant believed they had permission to take the property, intended to return it, thought the property was their own, or had a good-faith claim of right to it, the required mental state is absent and the prosecution's case fails. Workplace disputes, family property disagreements, and shared-household situations are all fertile ground for this defense.
Consent — a complete defense. If the owner actually gave permission to take the property — or if the defendant reasonably believed permission had been given — there is no larceny. Apparent authority and ambiguous authorization from a supervisor or family member frequently arise in embezzlement-type cases.
Value dispute — the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony is whether the property value exceeds $1,200. The prosecution must prove the value beyond a reasonable doubt. Depreciated value, disputed market value, and contested appraisals are all grounds for challenging felony charges and obtaining a misdemeanor disposition or reduction.
Misidentification — in workplace theft cases, retail situations, and property disputes involving multiple people with access, the circumstantial evidence identifying the defendant as the person responsible is often contested. Surveillance footage, access logs, and witness credibility are all subject to challenge.
Insufficient circumstantial evidence — larceny is often charged based on circumstantial proof (property was present, then missing, defendant had opportunity). But circumstantial evidence is legally sufficient only if it excludes every reasonable innocent hypothesis. A strong defense forces the prosecution to prove it cannot.

        

Key Takeaways

Larceny under $1,200 is a misdemeanor (up to 1 year); over $1,200 is a felony (up to 5 years state prison) — the value threshold is always in dispute
The prosecution must prove specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property — intent to borrow, return, or a good-faith claim of right defeats this element
Larceny by false pretenses, embezzlement, and larceny by check all fall under the same statute and require the same intent proof
A larceny conviction — especially a felony — is one of the most damaging CORI entries for employment, professional licensing, and immigration status
Pretrial probation under c. 276 §87 results in no CORI entry if completed successfully; it is frequently available for first-offense larceny

Frequently Asked Questions

Under M.G.L. c. 266 §30, larceny is the unlawful taking of another's property with intent to permanently deprive them of it. Petit larceny (under $1,200) is a misdemeanor carrying up to 1 year in the House of Correction. Grand larceny (over $1,200) is a felony carrying up to 5 years in state prison. The $1,200 threshold and the intent to permanently deprive are the two most contested issues in larceny cases.

Three elements, all beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) taking and carrying away; (2) property of another; and (3) specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The intent element is the most frequently contestable — belief in permission to take, intent to return, or good-faith claim of ownership all negate it.

The most powerful defenses are: (1) no intent to permanently deprive — believed property was yours or intended to return it; (2) consent — the owner gave permission; (3) value dispute — challenging whether the property exceeds $1,200 to prevent felony treatment; (4) misidentification; and (5) insufficient circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable innocent explanation.

Yes, in certain circumstances. Larceny from the person (pickpocketing, purse snatching) under c. 266 §25 is a felony regardless of value. Larceny by fiduciary and larceny from the elderly or disabled also have enhanced treatment. The standard §30 threshold is $1,200, but the specific conduct and relationships between parties determine which provisions apply.

Yes significantly. Larceny is one of the most damaging CORI entries for employment — theft-related convictions raise automatic red flags on background checks. Professional licensing boards (nursing, real estate, financial services) treat larceny as a character and fitness issue. For non-citizens, larceny is typically a crime involving moral turpitude with serious immigration consequences including deportation risk.

Shoplifting (c. 266 §30A) is a specific statute for retail settings — concealing merchandise, tag switching, container transfer. It has its own penalty schedule with lower maximum fines for minor offenses. When shoplifted merchandise exceeds $1,200 in value, however, the charge typically escalates to felony larceny under §30 rather than remaining a shoplifting charge.

Related Practice Areas

Free Consultation — (978) 406-9890

A larceny charge is not a foregone conclusion. Call Attorney Adela Aprodu for a free, confidential review of the facts, the intent evidence, and the value question before your first court date.

Contact the Firm