Definition
Petit larceny (also spelled petty larceny) is the theft of property whose value falls below a threshold set by law, historically distinguished from grand larceny by the lesser value of the thing taken. At common law, the dividing line was twelve pence — a figure reflecting medieval English economic conditions rather than any principled moral distinction. Below that threshold, the offense was petit larceny; above it, grand larceny. Modern statutes have replaced this common law line with dollar-amount thresholds that vary by jurisdiction, typically ranging from $500 to $1,000 or more, though the underlying structure — a tiered larceny offense defined by value — is the direct descendant of the common law scheme.
The practical consequence of the classification is criminal grade: petit larceny is generally a misdemeanor, carrying lighter penalties and fewer collateral consequences than grand larceny, which is typically charged as a felony.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Alternative form of petty larceny.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not separately defined; subsumed under larceny entries distinguishing petit from grand by value.
The common and legal meanings here are essentially continuous — "petit" simply means small or minor, and that is exactly what the legal term conveys. The one gap worth noting is spelling: "petit" is the legal form derived from Law French, while "petty" is the anglicized form in everyday and modern statutory usage. Researchers searching historical sources must account for both spellings.
Common Confusion
Petit larceny and petty larceny are the same offense; the difference is purely orthographic. Legal sources before the twentieth century favor "petit"; modern statutes and most current usage favor "petty." Researchers who search only one spelling in historical corpora will miss material.
Petit larceny should also be distinguished from shoplifting as a statutory category. Many jurisdictions have enacted separate shoplifting or retail theft statutes that functionally cover low-value theft from merchants but operate under different procedural rules, civil demand provisions, and penalty structures. A historical petit larceny charge and a modern shoplifting charge may describe the same conduct but exist in entirely different statutory frameworks.
Why It Matters in Research
The threshold problem is the central research trap. The common law figure of twelve pence is meaningless as an economic benchmark today, but it persisted as the operative rule in many American jurisdictions well into the nineteenth century before legislatures began substituting nominal dollar amounts. If you are reading a case or treatise from that period, the word "petit" tells you the value was legally trivial — it does not tell you the modern equivalent or how the court applied the threshold in practice.
Threshold amounts have been raised repeatedly by statute across jurisdictions. An act that was grand larceny in a given state in 1970 may be petit larceny today, and vice versa for inflation-adjusted comparisons. When using the Law Mind corpus to trace larceny classifications across time, check the statutory threshold in force at the date of the source, not the current threshold.
The misdemeanor/felony divide attached to the petit/grand distinction has significant downstream consequences in historical sources: access to jury trial, availability of counsel, collateral consequences on civil rights and immigration status. Researchers examining due process or equal protection arguments in criminal cases need to know how the classification affected procedural entitlements, which varied by era and jurisdiction.
Petit larceny charges also appear frequently in historical court records at the lowest tier of the criminal court system — magistrate courts, justice of the peace records, and police court dockets. These sources are often underrepresented in formal legal databases. Researchers using the Law Mind corpus should supplement reported cases with attention to treatise discussions of summary proceedings, which often address petit larceny as the paradigm case.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary defines petit larceny as "the larceny of things whose value was below a certain arbitrary standard, at common law twelve pence," directing the reader to the main entry for larceny. The definition is accurate but deliberately spare — it captures the threshold structure and acknowledges the arbitrariness of the twelve-pence line without elaborating on the procedural consequences or the legislative reforms that displaced it.
The word "arbitrary" in Black's is editorially significant. The twelve-pence standard was not derived from a principled theory of harm or culpability; it was a historical accident that American jurisdictions inherited and then progressively modified. Historical dictionaries generally agree on this point, treating the common law threshold as a baseline from which statutory deviation is the norm rather than the exception.
What historical dictionary sources do not address is the twentieth-century consolidation trend: many jurisdictions collapsed the petit/grand distinction into broader theft statutes with multiple grading tiers, or merged larceny with embezzlement and false pretenses into a unified theft offense. In those jurisdictions, "petit larceny" as a distinct charge has effectively disappeared, replaced by tiered misdemeanor theft. Researchers should not assume the common law two-tier framework survives in the jurisdiction they are examining.
Jurisdictional Note
Most U.S. jurisdictions retain some form of value-based larceny grading, but the thresholds, labels, and grade structures differ substantially. Some states use "petit larceny" and "grand larceny" as statutory terms; others use "misdemeanor theft" and "felony theft" without the historic nomenclature. A handful of states have adopted consolidated theft statutes that eliminate the petit/grand distinction as a formal category entirely.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: "Theft and Larceny — Elements and Classification" (criminal_57)