Legislative Amendments to Larceny Laws

Sticky-fingered Sam goes to the local shoe store to purchase a new pair of shoes. The last pair of shoes in her size are priced at $150. Deciding that these are too expensive, Sam removes a sticker from a box of shoes on the clearance shelf priced at $30 and places the sticker on the box of the shoes she wants. Sam takes the $150 shoes to the register with the $30 sticker on them, pays the lower price, and leaves. Has Sam committed a larceny? Has Sam committed the crime of larceny from a merchant under G.S. 14-72.11? Sam’s acts do constitute larceny and are similar to the acts of the defendant in State vs. Hill, 291 N.C. App. 633 (2023). However, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s use of a price label sticker from another product did not represent larceny by product code (a form of larceny from a merchant) under G.S. 14-72.11(3). The court acknowledged that there is another larceny statute that would have been more appropriate for this circumstance. In response to Hill, the North Carolina General Assembly has amended the laws related to larceny and retail theft to bring more clarity about its scope. This post discusses the holding in State v. Hill and examines the newly amended laws applicable to these specific types of larceny. Facts and holding of State v. Hill. In this case, a Walmart manager saw the defendant putting a sticker with a product code for a Tupperware [...]