as well. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Green, 399 Mass. 565, 567 (1987) (lack of consent implicit in legal definition of both assault and battery and indecent assault and battery). 11 Our view that larceny may be proved by evidence that the property owner lacked the mental capacity to consent is in harmony with most of the cases from other jurisdictions where the courts have interpreted similar statutes that do not include lack of consent as an element of the crime. See Gainer v. State, 553 So. 2d 673, 679 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) (“even without an express statutory provision . . . mental deficiency on the part of the victim, which is known or should be known to the defendant, can render ineffective the apparent consent by that victim in a prosecution for theft”); Calonico, 256 Conn, at 153 (<HOLDING>); People v. Cain, 238 Mich. App. 95,128-129
holding that mental capacity may be considered on issue of victims intent holding that as a matter of due process an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding is entitled to psychiatric assistance when his mental capacity is at issue holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court holding that jury may consider victims mental capacity in determining whether defendant acted with victims knowledge and consent