Brooks v. State - 35 Ohio St. 46 (1878)

Rule:

The finder of lost property is not bound to use diligence or to take pains in making search for the owner. His belief, or grounds of belief, in regard to finding the owner, is not to be determined by the degree of diligence that he might be able to use to accomplish that purpose, but by the circumstances apparent to him at the time of finding the property. If the property has not been abandoned by the owner, it is the subject of larceny by the finder, when, at the time he finds it, he has reasonable ground to believe, from the nature of the property, or the circumstances under which it is found, that if he does not conceal but deals honestly with it, the owner will appear or be ascertained. But before the finder can be guilty of larceny, the intent to steal the property must have existed at the time he took it into his possession.

Facts:

The complainant, Charles B. Newton, lost a sum of money near a hitching post and published notices of the loss in the newspapers. Defendant, George Brooks, found the money, did not tell his co-workers who were with him of his discovery, quit his job, and used the money for his personal benefit. He was not aware of the published notices and did not have notice that the complainant had lost the money. Defendant sought review from the judgment of the trial court, which denied his motion for a new trial and convicted him of larceny. The defendant contended that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury that to find him guilty of larceny, he must know, have reason to know, or had the means of identifying the owner of the money.

Issue:

In order to be convicted of the crime of larceny, must a defendant know or have reason to know the owner of the money at the time he took it? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the trial court properly refused the instruction because a conviction for larceny did not require that defendant know or have reason to know the owner of the money. Defendant was bound to reasonable diligence to ascertain the owner. According to the Court, the defendant's intent to steal the money at the time he took possession of it was demonstrated by his failure to tell his co-workers of his discovery, his quitting his job shortly after finding the money, and his immediate actions to spend it. Defendant was not entitled to a new trial because from an examination of the evidence the case was fairly submitted to the jury.