Definition
The physical removal of personal property from its original location, constituting the asportation element required to complete the crime of larceny. Carrying away is not merely touching or grasping an item — it requires some movement of the property, however slight, away from the position in which it was found. Without this act of removal, a taking does not ripen into larceny at common law.
The term translates the Latin asportavit, the past tense form of asportare (to carry off), which appeared in the standard common-law indictment formula cepit et asportavit — "took and carried away." No single English word captures the full technical meaning of asportavit, which is why the phrase "carrying away" persists as a term of art rather than being replaced by a simpler equivalent.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Present participle of "carry away" — to physically transport something from one place to another, or figuratively, to be overcome by emotion.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To bear or transport from one place to another; in figurative use, to captivate or transport with emotion.
The gap between common and legal meaning is narrow in the physical sense but legally critical in degree. In ordinary speech, "carrying away" suggests substantial movement — walking off with something. In law, the slightest asportation satisfies the element. Moving an object an inch, lifting it from a counter, or shifting it within a container has been held sufficient. The legal standard is far more minimal than common usage implies.
Common Confusion
Carrying away is frequently conflated with the broader act of taking, but the two are distinct elements of larceny. Taking (caption) refers to the assumption of dominion and control over the property; carrying away (asportation) refers to the physical movement that follows. Both must be present. A person who seizes an item but is immediately restrained before moving it may satisfy caption without satisfying asportation. Historically, courts were divided on how little movement sufficed, but the modern consensus is that any movement, no matter how slight, completes the asportation element.
Core Elements
For carrying away to satisfy the asportation element of larceny, three conditions are generally required:
1. Actual physical movement: The property must be moved from the position it occupied. Mere touching, lifting without displacement, or attempted movement is insufficient at common law, though some jurisdictions have modified this threshold by statute.
2. Movement of the whole or part: Moving a portion of a larger mass (grain from a bin, liquid from a container) has been held sufficient to constitute carrying away of that portion.
3. No requirement of removal from the owner's premises: The property need not leave the building or land of the owner. Movement within the same room or enclosure satisfies the element if dominion and control have been assumed.
Why It Matters in Research
Carrying away is one of the most technically litigated elements of common-law larceny, and its treatment in historical sources reflects a body of fine-grained case reasoning that modern statutes have largely displaced. Researchers working in pre-20th-century criminal law materials will encounter the term constantly in indictment forms and jury instructions, always paired with "did take and carry away" as the English rendering of cepit et asportavit.
Two research traps are worth flagging. First, modern theft statutes in most American jurisdictions have consolidated larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses into a single offense and have either eliminated or substantially modified the asportation requirement. A researcher reading historical doctrine on carrying away must not assume it governs contemporary prosecutions without checking the applicable statute. Second, the Latin asportavit appears in older case reports and indictments without translation; researchers unfamiliar with the term may miss that it is the technical equivalent of "carrying away" and not a separate doctrinal concept.
The term also appears outside larceny doctrine in the context of kidnapping and child abduction — carrying away a person rather than property — where the asportation requirement has its own separate line of development. These two uses of the term should not be conflated when searching historical sources.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries are in close agreement: carrying away is the asportation element of larceny, and it denotes physical removal of personal property. Black's and Burrill's offer nearly identical language, each citing the act of removal as completing the crime. Rapalje & Lawrence frame it as one essential element among others, correctly situating it within the broader structure of larceny rather than treating it as the whole offense. Bouvier's is the most instructive on the linguistic point, noting explicitly that no single English word captures asportavit — a reminder that the term of art exists precisely because translation is imperfect.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the doctrinal question of how much movement suffices, which was actively contested in 19th-century case law. The entries treat carrying away as a defined concept without engaging the threshold debate. Researchers relying solely on dictionary definitions will miss the substantial judicial disagreement over minimal asportation that shaped how the element was charged and argued in practice.
Jurisdictional Note
At common law, the asportation requirement was uniform in theory but variable in application across courts. In modern American law, many states have enacted consolidated theft statutes that do not require asportation as a distinct element. Federal theft offenses similarly follow statutory definitions that may not mirror common-law larceny structure. English law retains the concept under the Theft Act 1968, though framed differently.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
No direct match in the Law Mind Encyclopedia. The entries on concealed carry licensing and child custody relocation are not relevant to the criminal-law doctrine of carrying away as an element of larceny.