In 2022 Emma Neilander broke up with her boyfriend and left the apartment they shared in Boston. On her way out the door, she took their dog, Bo.
Emma brought Bo to Connecticut where they moved in with Emma’s mother. Days later, Emma’s ex went to the police for help retrieving Bo.
Ultimately, police charged Emma with larceny over $1,200 (a felony) for taking the dog.
Emma was arraigned in Boston Municipal Court in June 2022. After a year and a half of pretrial proceedings, the matter was settled at a bench trial in January 2023.
The judge convicted Emma of larceny over $1,200 and the disposition became part of Emma’s criminal record.
Emma appealed the verdict claiming, in part, that a dog is not property and thus it falls outside the state’s larceny statute.
The Appeals Court rejected this argument.
The defendant argues that a domesticated dog is not property, and therefore cannot be the subject of a larceny prosecution. The extent to which a dog may be treated as property or is a possessor of certain rights that limit the extent to which it can be treated as such is a complex question that has been answered in different contexts and by different courts in different ways. But the very definition of “property” in the larceny statute includes “any domesticated animal, including dogs.” G. L. c. 266, § 30 (2). Thus it is clear that one can commit larceny by stealing someone else’s dog. (Emphasis added.)
According to the Appeals Court, the prosecutors established all other elements of the crime and the conviction was merited.
The full opinion is attached below.
Law Office of Justin R. McCarthy 