Burglary, robbery, larceny: What's the difference?

Two people have been arrested and charged in a brazen armed robbery of a bank on Martha's Vineyard earlier this month. This is a case that captured the attention of people across Massachusetts. GBH News legal analyst and Northeastern law professor Daniel Medwed joined Paris Alston and Jeremy Siegel on Morning Edition to explain the difference between larceny and burglary, and odd legal aspects around bank robberies. This transcript has been lightly edited.

Jeremy Siegel: Let's start with law 101. You actually had a tweet earlier this morning that literally made me laugh out loud. You said, "Have you ever heard someone say I was robbed and your reaction was, 'or was it larceny?'" That really is a great question. Like, what makes something robbery, larceny, burglary?

Daniel Medwed: It is confusing, I think in part, Jeremy, because the legal definitions vary from how we use these terms in our everyday conversation. Robbery is typically when you take property with force or the threat of force: Someone comes up to you with a gun and says "your money or your life," and you hand over your wallet. That's a robbery. Larceny is the taking of property without force: You're sitting at a cafe getting ready for Morning Edition and somebody swipes your laptop — that's probably larceny.

Now, burglary has a very peculiar definition that dates back to Ye Olde England, from where we inherited it. And typically it's when you enter a dwelling, a residence, at night, not during the daytime, with the intent to commit a crime inside. So that's really how the three different terms vary. And I think you're ready for the final exam after you pay your tuition.

Paris Alston: So, Daniel, what makes bank robberies so unique from a legal perspective? I know from a cultural perspective, we're kind of obsessed with them. They show up in movies all the time. Even this one on Martha's Vineyard captured so much attention.

Siegel: Well, there are so many in Massachusetts too: There's "The Thomas Crown Affair," there's "The Town," there's "Friends of Eddie Coyle."

Alston: And you know, the bank robbery happened in Massachusetts, way back in the 1800s. So now we're really geeking out here, Daniel. But how are they treated differently from, say, other types of robberies?

Medwed: Yeah, Boston is called the hub because it's the hub of bank robberies, I guess, right? There are a lot of idiosyncrasies for bank robberies. For one thing, many of them can be treated as both a state or a federal crime. There's concurrent jurisdiction for a lot of bank robberies. Most robberies generally, not bank robberies, are treated as state crimes. And in Massachusetts, armed robbery can be punishable by a minimum sentence of five years in prison for your first offense if you wear a disguise or a mask. So it's a very serious crime. For another thing, bank robberies have one of the highest case clearance rates of any crime. More than 60% of bank robbers are actually caught, which is unusual as compared to other types of crimes.

Now, there are lots of reasons for this. One is that the FBI devotes a lot of resources to investigating bank robberies. Also, technology like dye packets and silent alarms and cameras make it very, very easy to detect bank robbers. Also, many bank robberies occur during the daytime because that gives you automatic access to the premises. And then you add into the mix that some people inexplicably rob banks on small, isolated vacation islands. That maybe will increase the likelihood of getting caught as well.

Siegel: So Daniel, you said most robberies are treated as state crimes, but you were also just talking about the FBI dedicating resources to all of this and how they can be treated as federal crimes. Has that always been the case? And why do feds have jurisdiction over them?

Medwed: It hasn't always been the case. So for the feds to have jurisdiction over a crime, it usually has to involve an incident on federal property, like an assault at the U.S. Post Office, or a crime that involves interstate commerce or interstate movement, like a kidnaping that crosses state lines. In 1934, however, Congress did criminalize bank robberies, made them federal crimes, because it was the height of John Dillinger's escapades. And Dillinger and the gang, they were getting a lot of attention for their bank robberies. It was politically expedient for Congress to act. So now it's a federal bank robbery. If someone robs a national bank or a state member bank of the Federal Reserve System. Not all banks qualify. Many do because of the benefits of being a part of the Federal Reserve for a state bank, benefits to both the bank and the customer in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It means our deposits are federally insured, and that's a huge, huge attribute. At the federal level, bank robberies are also treated very seriously, just like in Massachusetts. You can get up to 20 years in prison for a first offense.

Alston: So let's talk about the state level, because the two suspects who've been identified in the Martha's Vineyard robbery are facing state charges.

Medwed: That's right. The Cape and Islands D.A.'s office and the Tisbury police have announced the apprehension of two suspects. One, Omar Johnson, is being charged with armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Another man, Miquel Jones, is being charged with being an accessory after the fact. At least one other person appears to be at large. There may be other people involved.

Siegel: Let's go back to our law lesson here, professor. What is an accessory after the fact and how is that different from an accomplice?

Medwed: As the name implies, an accessory after the fact is someone who helps in the aftermath of a crime. Maybe the person helps the perpetrators escape, like the getaway car driver, or maybe they launder the proceeds of the robbery. That's an accessory after the fact. An accomplice is someone who aids or abets, and abets is just a fancy word for encourages, the crime itself. So maybe you supply a gun to somebody who intends to rob a bank, or maybe you act as a lookout while the crime is occurring. So that's really the difference.

Alston: So many images. Have you seen the movie "Dead Presidents"? So many images from that movie, you have to watch it. I'm thinking about like, Morning Edition executive producer Karen Marshall or associate producer Rachel Armany. If I encourage either of them to go rob a bank just for some reason —

Siegel: The first two people, that come to mind when I think of bank robbery.

Alston: Because they would do it, right? Would I then be considered an accomplice? Especially now that I've said it on air, right?

Medwed: I think Paris, you would be an accomplice for abetting Karen and Rachel, the criminal mastermind. They would be the principals. They're the ones who are committing the bank robbery. And then just to add to that, if Jeremy drives, the getaway driver in the getaway car, he's the accessory after the fact.

Siegel: I like this situation. I like driving the getaway car. So all of us in this situation — the accomplice, the principal, the accessory after the fact — are we all facing the same type of punishment in this case?

Medwed: No. Good news for you, Jeremy. The accomplice and the principal, the idea is you share in the criminal liability, you share in the blame, and you usually face the same type of sentencing exposure. But an accessory after the fact is considered to be less significant and you might get more leniency. So you could be a solo host in the future.