Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-122
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 124; 1971, P.A. 871, S. 25; P.A. 73-639, S. 7; P.A. 81-248, S. 1; 81-351, S. 3; P.A. 82-271, S. 1; P.A. 86-275, S. 1; P.A. 92-260 , S. 51 ; P.A. 00-103 , S. 1 ; P.A. 09-138 , S. 1 .)
Inference based on possession of recently stolen property (driver versus passenger of motor van containing stolen property); meaning of "possession". 171 C. 119 . Mere presence of passenger in vehicle containing stolen goods is insufficient to support conviction. Id., 127. Cited. 174 Conn. 253 ; Id., 338; 182 Conn. 52 ; 183 C. 383 ; 186 Conn. 648 ; 188 C. 715 ; 189 C. 717 ; 190 C. 559; 194 C. 361 ; 196 Conn. 18 5; 197 Conn. 201 ; Id., 247; 199 Conn. 30 ; Id., 207; 202 Conn. 86 ; 204 Conn. 52 ; 213 Conn. 233 ; 224 Conn. 711 ; 237 Conn. 501 ; 241 Conn. 413 ; Id., 439. Cited. 3 CA 359 ; 5 Conn.App. 113 ; Id., 347; 6 Conn.App. 164 ; 7 CA 326 ; Id., 532; 9 CA 349 ; 12 Conn.App. 585 ; 14 Conn.App. 272 ; 20 CA 810 ; 21 Conn.App. 431 ; 29 Conn.App. 843 ; 34 Conn.App. 599 ; Id., 751; judgment reversed, see 233 Conn. 211 ; 36 Conn.App. 364 ; 37 Conn.App. 40 ; 45 CA 455. Cited. 31 CS 501 . Subsec. (a): Cited. 169 Conn. 581 ; 176 Conn. 239 ; 177 Conn. 243 ; 178 Conn. 427 ; Id., 163; Id., 416; Id., 480; Id., 649; 180 C. 182 ; Id., 662. 181 Conn. 172 ; Id., 254, 255; Id., 299; 182 Conn. 52 ; 183 Conn. 225 ; 185 Conn. 211 ; 188 Conn. 671 ; Id., 681; 189 Conn. 114 ; Id., 201; Id., 337; Id., 383; 190 C. 541 ; 192 Conn. 405 ; 195 Conn. 421 ; 196 Conn. 225 ; 197 Conn. 17 ; Id., 413; Id., 629; 198 Conn. 348 ; Id., 369; 199 Conn. 1 4; 208 Conn. 420 ; 214 Conn. 132 ; Id., 717; 218 Conn. 151 ; 219 Conn. 93 ; 221 Conn. 685 ; 227 Conn. 611 ; 232 C. 691; 233 Conn. 527 ; Id., 552; 235 Conn. 502 ; 242 Conn. 345 . Subdiv. (2): Although lack of consent is not specifically enumerated as element of larceny in the first degree, donative victim's inability to consent to a taking is a factor properly considered in the context of a traditional understanding of larceny statute. 256 Conn. 135 . Cited. 3 Conn.App. 633 ; 4 CA 251 ; 5 Conn.App. 129 ; 7 CA 292 ; Id., 445; 8 CA 125 ; Id., 376; 9 CA 121 ; Id., 313; Id., 365; 10 Conn.App. 447 ; 11 Conn.App. 684 ; 13 CA 576; 15 Conn.App. 416 ; 16 Conn.App. 402 ; 17 CA 50 ; Id., 359; Id., 486; 20 CA 354 ; Id., 665; 21 Conn.App. 386 ; 22 Conn.App. 449 ; 24 Conn.App. 502 ; 25 Conn.App. 149 ; Id., 181; 26 Conn.App. 279 ; 28 Conn.App. 306 ; Id., 521; 29 CA 394 ; 30 Conn.App. 190 ; 31 Conn.App. 614 ; 33 Conn.App. 368 ; 3 4 CA 69 4; 35 Conn.App. 566 ; Id., 740; 36 Conn.App. 774 ; 37 CA 589 ; Id., 619; 38 Conn.App. 481 ; Id., 643; 39 Conn.App. 96 ; 41 CA 695 ; 43 Conn.App. 499 ; 44 Conn.App. 187 ; Id., 476; 4 7 CA 1 . Defendant's claim that evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of larceny in the first degree was unavailing; the evidence, when construed in the light most favorable to sustaining verdict, was sufficient to support jury's finding that value of victim's car exceeded $10,000, as required by statute, and it was not improper for trial court to permit victim to testify as to his opinion of car's value at time of the crime. 81 CA 377 . Subdiv. (3): Vehicle's owner was competent to testify as to the value of his property and that testimony was sufficient to satisfy statutory element that its value exceeded ten thousand dollars. 95 Conn.App. 248 .