The monetary value of property alleged to have been stolen affects both the severity of the larceny charge and the forum in which that charge is likely to be adjudicated. Higher-value thefts trigger more serious charge designations and are more likely to be referred to a general court-martial, while lower-value cases may be handled at a special court-martial or through non-judicial punishment. Prosecutors also have the ability to aggregate multiple thefts into a single higher-value charge, which can change both the exposure and the forum.
The defense has tools to contest valuation. The government’s assessment of what property was worth at the time of the taking is not always accurate, and an independent valuation may support a different conclusion. When aggregation is used, the defense can challenge whether the separate incidents are properly combined and whether the total value calculation reflects the actual losses involved. These arguments can affect not only the severity of the charge but the entire trajectory of how the case is handled.
How Value Affects the Severity of the Larceny Charge
The monetary value of property alleged to have been stolen is a formal element that determines the severity of the larceny charge under the UCMJ. Property with a value of one thousand dollars or more at the time of the taking supports the most serious form of the charge, while property of lesser value is charged differently and carries a lower maximum punishment. This threshold creates a clear line that affects sentencing exposure, forum selection, and the entire trajectory of how the case is handled.
The government’s valuation of the property is not automatically accepted by the court. The defense may challenge the method of valuation, the specific items included in the calculation, and the basis for the dollar figure the government relies on. Independent appraisal, reference to market value at the time of the taking, and examination of the government’s own records are all potential tools. In cases where the charged value falls close to the threshold between severity levels, a successful challenge to the valuation can change the charge itself.
The Threshold Amounts That Influence Forum Decisions
The monetary value of the property alleged to have been stolen influences both the charge severity and the forum selection decision. Larceny of property valued at one thousand dollars or more is the highest tier of the offense and is most likely to be referred to a general court-martial. Larceny of lesser amounts may be referred to a special court-martial or handled through non-judicial punishment. The specific threshold amounts and their effect on the charge are defined in the Maximum Punishment Table of the Manual for Courts-Martial, and defense counsel must understand those figures before advising on the realistic range of outcomes.
The forum selection decision is influenced by but not determined by the value of the property alone. The accused’s rank, prior disciplinary history, the circumstances of the taking, and the command’s overall assessment of how serious the case is all factor into the convening authority’s decision. A high-value theft by a soldier with an otherwise clean record may be treated more leniently than a lower-value theft that is part of a pattern or that involved a breach of special trust. Value sets the floor on seriousness but does not fix the ceiling.
When Prosecutors Aggregate Multiple Thefts to Reach a Higher Charge
When a service member is alleged to have committed multiple separate thefts from the same victim or as part of a common scheme, prosecutors may aggregate the values of the individual takings to reach a higher charge tier. Aggregation is not automatic and is subject to legal requirements: the separate thefts must be part of a continuous course of criminal conduct or a common scheme and design rather than truly independent incidents that happen to involve the same target.
Defense counsel must examine the aggregation theory carefully when the combined value crosses a threshold that affects the charge or the forum. If the separate incidents do not satisfy the requirements for aggregation, the defense can challenge the combined charge and may succeed in reducing the charge to the lower-value tier applicable to the single highest-value taking. That reduction can change the forum, the maximum punishment, and the entire posture of the case.
Challenging Valuation Evidence at Trial
The government’s evidence of value typically consists of the original purchase price, a replacement cost estimate, or an appraisal. Each of these methods of valuation has limitations that defense counsel can exploit. Original purchase price may reflect a value that has depreciated significantly by the time of the taking. Replacement cost may reflect a value higher than what the property was actually worth to the government in its actual condition. An appraisal obtained after the property has been recovered may not accurately reflect its value at the time of the taking.
Defense counsel who retain an independent appraiser to evaluate the property’s value at the time of the alleged taking can present testimony that contradicts the government’s valuation. When that contradiction brings the value below the threshold between charge tiers, the independent appraisal becomes one of the most important elements of the defense. Even when the value is not close to a threshold, a challenge to inflated government valuations can affect how the panel assesses the government’s overall reliability and the significance of what was actually taken.
How Restitution Affects Charging and Sentencing Decisions
Restitution offered before trial can affect how the command and the prosecutor assess the case and what forum they choose for adjudication. A service member who promptly identifies the property, returns it in full or compensates for its loss, and demonstrates genuine remorse presents differently to a convening authority than one who denies the conduct or offers no remedy. In cases close to the threshold between forum levels, a demonstrated willingness to make the government whole may influence the referral decision.
At sentencing, evidence of restitution is one of the most concrete and persuasive mitigating factors available. A panel that has found the accused guilty is then asked to determine a sentence, and the fact that the government has been made whole reduces the most tangible harm the panel would otherwise factor into its sentencing determination. Counsel who understand how sentencing works in practice before a military panel know when restitution evidence is most likely to influence the panel’s deliberations and how to present it effectively.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.