I think in the future it would behoove you to leave the interpretation of the law up to those who know what they're doing.
According to your definition of stolen, every busboy is trafficking stolen goods when they clear a table because they're being paid to transfer abandoned property.
You're also assuming Giz has no intention of returning the phone. :-\
Cynical conclusions are quite easy to jump to aren't they?
Real Lawyer sent me this:
Ahh, my favorite!
In Tort law it's either "trespass to chattel" or "conversion" depending on how much you deprive the owner of the item's use. If the person takes it awake and never returns it, or sells it... we're talking about "conversion" and the convertor would be liable for the entire amount of the phone.
In criminal law it's called "larceny." However, since larceny requires a mental state, that is, "intent", the question becomes... whether at the time you took the phone you knew who the rightful owner was, and you intended the moment you picked it up, to "permanently deprive" the owner of it's use...
Some states use the word "theft" in their statutes... here is the applicable Texas law:
"Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:
(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;
(2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or
(3) property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another..."