Topolewski v. State

130 Wis. 244, 109 N.W. 1037 (1906)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

John Topolewski (defendant) was involved in a scheme to take meat from Plankinton Packing Company, facilitated by Mat Dolan. Topolewski was arrested and charged with larceny after executing the plan.

The issue before the Wisconsin Supreme Court was whether this act constituted larceny when facilitated by the property owner’s agent. The Court concluded that there was no larceny as there was no trespass due to the owner’s complicity in the act.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

John Topolewski (defendant) was implicated in a scheme to steal meat from the Plankinton Packing Company, orchestrated with the help of a former employee, Mat Dolan. Dolan, who owed Topolewski money, proposed a plan where Topolewski would load barrels of meat onto his wagon under the pretense of being a customer.

Unbeknownst to Topolewski, Dolan had informed the company of the plan, who instructed Dolan to feign cooperation in order to entrap Topolewski.

Following the plan, Topolewski loaded three barrels of meat onto his wagon and was subsequently arrested and convicted of larceny. The case hinged on whether the act of taking the meat could be considered larceny when the owner’s representative had facilitated the act.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. John Topolewski was convicted of larceny in a lower court.
  2. The case was tried again in the Municipal Court for Milwaukee County without a jury, where Topolewski was convicted a second time and ordered to pay fines and costs.
  3. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied, leading to an appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Whether goods taken and carried away with the assistance of the legal owner can sustain a charge of larceny.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

For larceny to be established, there must be a trespass; if an owner facilitates the taking of their property by another who intends to commit larceny, the essential element of trespass is absent, and thus the crime is not fully consummated.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The Wisconsin Supreme Court analyzed whether the element of trespass, critical to a charge of larceny, was present in this case. The court reasoned that since representatives of the Plankinton Packing Company had intentionally allowed Topolewski to take the barrels, thereby eliminating any element of trespass, the action could not constitute larceny. The company’s participation in the act effectively negated the unlawful taking necessary for such a charge.

The court distinguished between providing an opportunity for theft and actively facilitating it. In this case, it was deemed that the company did more than merely provide an opportunity; they were complicit in placing the barrels in an accessible area and instructing employees to allow the taking, thereby removing any notion of trespass in Topolewski’s actions.


Conclusion Icon

The charge of larceny against Topolewski cannot stand due to the absence of trespass in the taking of the meat.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. Larceny requires an element of trespass, which is absent when the property owner or their agent consents to or facilitates the taking.
  2. In situations where an owner or agent aids in the commission of a theft, even with intent to entrap, they cannot later claim larceny due to lack of trespass.
  3. The Court’s decision clarifies that facilitation by an owner or agent distinguishes criminal theft from acts that cannot be prosecuted as larceny.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes trespass in the context of the theft of goods?

Trespass in the context of theft is an unauthorized entry onto property or illegal taking of goods without the consent of the owner. To have a case of trespass, the perpetrator must intentionally infringe upon the property rights of the owner without permission.

  • For example: If a person climbs over a fence to take an unattended bicycle from someone’s yard, this would be trespass and potentially theft because the action was without the owner’s consent and against their property rights.

Does implied consent from an owner negate the element of trespass in a theft scenario?

Implied consent from an owner can negate the element of trespass by indicating that entry or taking was permitted, thus potentially invalidating a theft claim involving trespass.

  • For example: If a farm owner allows people to pick fruit from certain trees and someone takes fruit from those trees believing it is allowed, there may be no trespass or theft due to implied consent.

How does entrapment impact the legality of a purported theft?

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces a person to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. If entrapment is proven, it may negate criminal liability as it shows that the defendant’s intent originated from the persuader rather than from any criminal predisposition.

  • For example: Assume a police officer persuades someone who has no history of theft to steal an item, promising immunity. If charged, the individual could raise entrapment as a defense, arguing their lack of intent absent police encouragement.
Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Criminal Law