Criminal Law

Question 1

Larceny

Answer 1

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property. When an initial taking was trespassory but there was no intent at the time to permanently deprive the person of the property, then the continuing trespass rule serves to deem the original trespass “continuing” so that it coincides with later-acquired criminal intent.

Question 2

Embezzlement

Answer 2

Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person who is in lawful possession of the property. Conversion is the inappropriate use of property, held pursuant to a trust agreement, which causes a serious interference with the owner’s rights to the property.

Question 3

Receipt of Stolen Property

Answer 3

To be guilty of receiving stolen property, the defendant must receive control of stolen property, know that the property is stolen, and intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Property that is unlawfully obtained through larceny, embezzlement, or false pretense is stolen property. The act of receiving the property must coincide with the recipient’s knowledge that the property is stolen. Some jurisdictions require that the defendant have actual, subjective knowledge that the property has been stolen. Other jurisdictions permit the defendant’s knowledge to be inferred from facts that would alert a reasonable person to unlawful acquisition of the property.

Question 4

False Pretenses

Answer 4

False pretenses (also called “obtaining property by false pretenses” or “larceny by false pretenses”) requires: (i) obtaining title to the property; (ii) of another person; (iii) through the reliance of that person; (iv) on a known false representation of a material past or present fact; and (v) the representation is made with the intent to defraud.

The crime of false pretenses requires the defendant to (i) know that the representation is false and (ii) specifically intend to defraud the other person. Most courts find that a defendant acts knowingly and has knowledge of a particular fact when the defendant is aware of a high probability of the fact’s existence and deliberately avoids learning the truth. Some states require actual knowledge by the defendant of a particular fact. A defendant has the intent to defraud required to establish false pretenses when the defendant intends that the person to whom the false representation is made will rely upon it.

Question 5

Murder Mens Rea

Answer 5

To be guilty of second-degree murder, a defendant must have acted with the requisite mens rea of malice aforethought. Malice aforethought includes the following mental states: the intent to kill, the intent to inflict serious bodily injury, reckless indifference to a known and unjustifiably high risk to human life (i.e., a “depraved heart”), or the intent to commit certain felonies. In this jurisdiction, second-degree murder is “all murder that is not deliberate or premeditated.” Premeditation is the element that distinguishes first-degree murder from other types of murder. Premeditation means the defendant reflected on the idea of killing (even briefly) or planned the killing prior to carrying it out.

Question 6

Murder Causation

Answer 6

To prove murder, the prosecution must show that the defendant caused the victim’s death. The prosecution must prove both actual and proximate causation.

Actual Cause

If a victim would not have died “but for” the defendant’s act, then the defendant’s act is the actual cause (i.e., “cause-in-fact”) of the killing. And when a defendant sets in motion forces that lead to the death of the victim, the defendant is the actual cause of the victim’s death.

Proximate Cause

Proximate cause exists only when the defendant is deemed to be legally responsible for the crime. For the defendant to be legally responsible for the crime, the victim’s death must be foreseeable. That is, the death must be the natural and probable result of the defendant’s conduct (i.e., not too remote or accidental in its occurrence as to be unforeseeable). For example, actions by a force of nature that are not within the defendant’s control are generally not foreseeable. However, an intervening cause will not relieve the defendant of criminal responsibility unless it was so out of the ordinary that it would be unjust to hold the defendant responsible. Consequently, an act that accelerates impending death is a legal cause of the death.