united-states theft oregon
Is it legal to take something you didn&#39;t know was yours?
<p>John Doe saw James Smith's car sitting in James's driveway and decided to steal it. He walked up onto the driveway (trespassing) and broke into the car and stole it (theft). What John didn't know was that James had just died, and had willed all of his property to John. Therefore, John actually was walking in his own driveway (which is legal, of course) and broke into and &quot;stole&quot; his own car (also legal, albeit unusual). Did John commit a crime? He had intent and thought he had committed a criminal act (he thought he was trespassing and stealing), but the actions were actually legal. Does the criminal intent make them illegal?</p>

<p>Theft in Oregon (and elsewhere, substantially the same) is <a href="https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.015" rel="noreferrer">defined statutorily</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A person commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of
property or to appropriate property to the person or to a third
person, the person: (1) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such
property from an owner thereof...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The car is James' property and it is not John's, even though James is dead. There is a legal process by which at some point in the future the car could become John's, but criminal acts are defined in terms of what is the case at the time of the act, not what might happen in the future. James' intent as expressed in the will notwithstanding, it is not guaranteed that John will become the car owner. So until John is actually the owner of the car, John is taking the property of another, and this is theft.</p>

<p>On the surface the obvious answer is yes, John took something that didn’t belong to him and that is, by definition, theft.  Morally as well, John knows that he has committed a crime.</p>
<p>However, intent is meaningless unless a few other things happen…</p>
<p>Just like transferring legal ownership is a process, determining whether or not a crime has been committed in the eyes of the law is a process.  Intent and motive are important elements of that process, but they are generally evaluated during the investigation, charging, and trial phases.</p>
<p>Since John’s intent is known only to him, the only fact we can discern as an outside observer is that John is in possession of an automobile that is not registered to him.  In most places this would not automatically be considered theft because friends often loan cars to friends.  The trigger event for law enforcement to consider it car theft would be the car being reported stolen.</p>
<p>Alternately John could be pulled over and confess, (good reason to exercise your right to remain silent!) or if there was damage from breaking in and it can be seen that the car was hot-wired he could be detained on suspicion of theft.</p>
<p>But minus a stolen car report no prosecutable crime has been committed in the eyes of the law.</p>
