State v. Hernandez ( 1979 )

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

Can a dog be the subject of larceny? Appellant concedes that if the answer is affirmative, his conviction for receiving stolen property was proper. We hold that a dog can be the subject of a larceny and affirm.

A dog was not the subject of larceny at common law. Sentell v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 166 U.S. 698, 17 S.Ct. 693, 41 L.Ed. 1169 (1897). We believe, however, that Arizona, through statutory law, has made a dog the subject of larceny and receiving stolen property. A.R.S. Sec. 13-621(A) states:

“A person who, for his own gain . buys, sells, possesses, conceals or receives personal property, knowing or having reason to believe that the property is stolen' ... is guilty of a felony if the value of the property is one hundred dollars or more.” (Emphasis added)¹

A.R.S. Sec. 13-663(A)(1) states that grand theft is: “Theft of money, labor or property of the value of more than one hundred dollars.” (Emphasis added) A.R.S. Sec. 1-215, which contains definitions of words and terms used in our statutes, states that unless the context otherwise requires, “personal property” includes dogs² and the word “property” includes personal property.³ There is nothing in the statutes dealing with theft and receiving stolen property which requires a definition different from that contained in A.R.S. Sec. 1-215(25) and (27).⁴

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY, J., and RICHMOND, C. J., concurring.

1 . The value of the dog here was over $100.

2 . A.R.S. Sec. 1-215(25).

3 . A.R.S Sec. 1-215(27).

4 . See definition of “property of another” in the new Criminal Code, A.R.S. Sec. 13-1801(6) (amended 1978).