Sartin, Sartin, and Pierce v. State

1969

Court: Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Facts: Kids stole a car, it got wrecked, and they abandoned it. They claim this was more like joyriding than theft, because they didn't plan to own the car in the long run.

Posture: Appealed from trial.

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt

Holding: Yup, it's sufficient. Affirmed.

Rule: All we're really talking about is permanent deprivation. Abandoning after a wreck is a form of this.

Reasoning: They wouldn't have abandoned it if it were not wrecked. You don't need intent for long, just long enough to make it so you're doing the permanent depriving on purpose. [Maybe you don't need intent for all elements simultaneously?]

Dicta: