Grand Larceny amount adjusted for inflation?

In another one of my probably frivolous legal musings, suppose a person is charged with grand larceny for stealing goods worth $1035. The statute clearly states that larceny in excess of $1000 is grand larceny, a felony, and larceny below the value of $1000 is petit larceny, a misdemeanor.

Is there any merit to the argument if the statute was passed in 1994, then the value of those items should be considered as the value of the dollar as of 1994?

Prosecutors have substantial discretion in both charging and what kind of sentences they will accept in a plea bargain. So he could charge you with petit larceny and accept a plea bargain of 100 hours of community service–or whatever.

A thousand years from now, the harshest sentences will be reserved for Burglarsonarceny- a really cool crime that combines burglary, arson, and larceny.

Could be. OTOH I’ve seen a trend among legislatures to *expand *what can carry a felony conviction, or ratchet up the “class” of offenses in the jurisdictions that use that system. As PastTense mentions WRT prosecutorial discretion, that in turn creates a situation in which it becomes presumed/expected as a matter of course that the stiffer charges will be used to reliably extract a guilty plea to a lesser offense. So de-facto you have done the adjusting, only that rather than as indexing for inflation, it’s instead a strategy to save the state money for full trials and for penitentiary facilities and staff.