Definition
Grand larceny is a statutory classification of theft in which the value of the stolen property meets or exceeds a threshold set by law, distinguishing the offense from petty (or petit) larceny. The threshold triggers a higher grade of offense, typically a felony, carrying greater penalties than the misdemeanor classification applied to lower-value theft.
The term does not describe a distinct act — the underlying conduct (the unlawful taking and carrying away of another's property with intent to permanently deprive) is identical to petty larceny. Grand larceny is a classification, not a separate crime. What separates grand from petty is the dollar value of the property taken, as defined by the governing jurisdiction's statute.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "The larceny of property whose value is greater than an amount set by law to distinguish it from petty larceny."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's 1913 does not carry a separate entry for grand larceny as a common-language term; it appears only in legal and criminal law contexts.
The common understanding of grand larceny tracks the legal definition reasonably well, but the everyday use of "grand" as meaning large or serious can mislead. A researcher or layperson may assume the term implies an aggravated act — forcible theft, organized crime, or a particularly brazen offense. Legally, it means only that the value of the stolen property crossed a statutory dollar threshold. A wallet quietly lifted from a coat pocket may constitute grand larceny; a dramatic robbery of low-value goods may not.
---
Common Confusion
Grand larceny is frequently confused with aggravated theft, robbery, or burglary by non-specialists. None of those are synonyms. Robbery involves force or threat; burglary involves unlawful entry; aggravated theft involves circumstances beyond value (such as theft from a person or theft of specific categories of property). Grand larceny is a value-based classification only.
The term is also sometimes confused with "grand theft," which is the modern statutory equivalent used in many U.S. jurisdictions that have replaced common law larceny terminology with consolidated theft statutes. The concepts are functionally parallel, but the labels differ and carry different doctrinal histories.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The central research trap with grand larceny is threshold drift. The twelve-pence line from English common law became meaningless almost immediately upon American reception, and U.S. jurisdictions set their own thresholds by statute — thresholds that have changed repeatedly over time. A theft that constituted petty larceny in 1920 may have been grand larceny in 1960 and petty larceny again in 1980 depending on the jurisdiction's inflation adjustments. When researching historical cases or statutes, always identify the governing threshold at the time of the offense, not the current one.
A second trap: many U.S. jurisdictions have abolished the grand/petty larceny distinction entirely and replaced it with consolidated theft grading statutes (first-degree theft, second-degree theft, and so on). Sources from these jurisdictions after a certain date will not use the term grand larceny at all. If a search turns up no results for grand larceny in a particular state's modern case law, that silence is likely jurisdictional, not a gap in the corpus.
A third issue for historical research: in early American materials, the English twelve-pence line sometimes appears in case law even after local statutes set a different threshold. Courts occasionally cited Blackstone's framing as persuasive authority. Do not assume the twelve-pence standard governed unless you have confirmed the applicable statute.
Finally, note that the Black's entry in the corpus contains a stray sentence about the grand jury at its opening — an artifact of dictionary formatting, not a substantive connection between grand larceny and grand jury proceedings. These are unrelated terms. Do not let proximity in the source material suggest a doctrinal link.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's, Burrill's, and Bouvier's converge on the same foundational account: grand larceny was defined in English law as theft of property worth more than twelve pence, with petty larceny covering theft at or below that value. All three cite the abolition of the distinction in England by St. 7 & 8 Geo. IV c. 29 (1827). Bouvier traces the distinction further back to the Statute of Westminster I (3 Edw. I, c. 15), giving the classification genuine medieval roots.
Where the sources diverge slightly is in their assessment of American reception. Black's states the distinction "is not generally recognized in the United States," while Bouvier is more cautious, noting it "is recognized in only a few of the United States." Burrill does not address American adoption at all, confining his entry to English law. This divergence reflects the period of composition: by the time of later Black's editions, American consolidation of theft offenses was further along. Researchers using earlier editions of Black's or Bouvier's should treat the American-reception language as reflecting its era, not current law.
None of the historical dictionaries address threshold inflation, modern consolidated theft statutes, or the wide variance in current American dollar thresholds — all of which are essential for any practical research use of this term.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Jurisdictional variation on this term is substantial. Some states (New York, for example) retain the grand larceny label with tiered felony grades based on dollar value. Others (California, among them) use the term "grand theft" as the statutory equivalent. Many states have abandoned both terms in favor of unified theft grading. The dollar threshold for grand larceny or its equivalent ranges from several hundred to several thousand dollars depending on the jurisdiction and the date of the applicable statute.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Theft and Larceny — Elements and Classification (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
---