Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-125b

Current with legislation from the 2024 Regular and Special Sessions.

Section 53a-125b - Larceny in the sixth degree: Class C misdemeanor

(a) A person is guilty of larceny in the sixth degree when he commits larceny as defined in section 53a-119 and the value of the property or service is five hundred dollars or less.

(b) Larceny in the sixth degree is a class C misdemeanor.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-125b

(P.A. 82-271, S. 6; P.A. 09-138, S. 6.)

Amended by P.A. 09-0138, S. 6 of the the 2009 Regular Session, eff. 10/1/2009.

Cited. 201 Conn. 559; 202 Conn. 369; 203 Conn. 682; 208 Conn. 387; 210 Conn. 435; 212 Conn. 50; 213 Conn. 233; 237 C. 613; 241 Conn. 439. Convictions under this section, Sec. 53a-129d and Sec. 53a-128d(2) do not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. 326 C. 310. When circumstantial evidence is capable of raising the logical inference of ownership, such evidence is sufficient as a matter of law despite the absence of testimony by the owner identifying the specific property as his own. 327 Conn. 297. Cited. 3 Conn.App. 132; 4 Conn.App. 676; 5 Conn.App. 599; 10 Conn.App. 130; Id., 503; 13 Conn.App. 214; Id., 438; Id., 578; 14 Conn.App. 88; Id., 205; Id., 272; Id., 309; 15 Conn.App. 197; 17 Conn.App. 273; 19 Conn.App. 48; 23 Conn.App. 123; 28 Conn.App. 195; 29 Conn.App. 843; 33 Conn.App. 432; 37 Conn.App. 228; 39 CA 384; 44 Conn.App. 125; 46 CA 778. Statutory requirement of "value" set forth in statute is satisfied where witness testified about the usefulness of coats that had been left in her vehicle; it was not necessary to prove coats were spun from silk or fashioned from the finest cloth to satisfy statutory requirement of "value". 101 CA 144. Subsec. (a): Cited. 214 Conn. 161. Cited. 24 Conn.App. 502; 28 Conn.App. 469; 37 Conn.App. 482; 38 Conn.App. 643; 45 CA 6. No double jeopardy where defendant convicted of larceny in the sixth degree and robbery in the third degree. 100 CA 122. Ownership of property by store could not be inferred from evidence offered by state concerning value of such property, and state therefor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an essential element of larceny in the sixth degree. 163 Conn.App. 810; judgment reversed in part, see 327 Conn. 297. Evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant or alleged coconspirator stole headphones, either as a substantive crime or as overt act in furtherance of conspiracy to commit larceny under Sec. 53a-48. 164 CA 25.