MBE Criminal Law Flashcards
Larceny
Trespassory taking of another’s personal property with the intent to permanently deprive.
- Specific Intent crime
- If you changed your mind after completing the crime you’re still guilty
- If intent was to give the property back after taking then no larceny
Did you commit larceny if your intent was to give the property back at the time you took it?
No, because if your intent was to return the property afterwards, then there was no intent to permanently deprive at the time of the taking
Criminal Battery
Unlawful application of force to the person of another
the US can criminalize and prosecute crimes that occur where?
> occur anywhere in the U.S.
Occur on ships and places
are committed abroad by U.S. nationals
States can criminalize and prosecute crimes that occur where?
only crimes that occur with some connection to the state
> crime wholly/partially occurred inside the state
conduct outside the state that involved an attempt to commit a crime inside the state
a conspiracy to commit a crime if an overt act occurred within that state
Actus Reus
the voluntary physical act of committing a crime
*act can be speech
is a failure to act sufficient actus reus
Yes:
> Failure to comply with a statutory duty
> special relationship between D and vic
> D causes the danger and fails to mitigate harm to the vic
4 types of common law mens rea
(1) specific intent
(2) general intent
(3) malice
(4) strict liability
Mens Rea–Common-Law State of Mind:
Specific Intent
D committed the actus rea for the very purpose of causing the result that law criminalizes
Common Law mens rea:
4 types of Specific Intent
FIAT:
First Degree murder
(not all murders)
Inchoate crimes
(conspiracy, attempt, solicitation)
A ABA= Assault w/ battery attempt
Theft offenses
(larceny, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, robbery)
Common Law mens rea:
Malice
MAlice (i AM)
(1) murder
(2) arson
D acts in reckless disregard of high degree of harm
- they realize risk and act anyway
Common Law mens rea:
General intent
an intent to perform an act that is unlawful
ex: manslaughter, battery, kidnapping, rape, and false imprisonment (bark)
Common Law mens rea:
Strict Liability
(1) Statutory/Regulatory offenses
(2) Morals offenses
buzz words for common law mens rea:
(1) “With intent to…”
(2) “Knowingly or recklessly….”
(3) No mens rea language
(1) “With intent to…”
> Specific Intent
(2) “Knowingly or recklessly….”
> General Intent
(3) No mens rea language
> consider strict liability
4 types of MPC Mens Rea
(P FKN R)
(1) Purpose—highest level of culpability
(2) Knowledge
(3) Recklessness
(4) Negligence—lowest level of culpability
MPC Mens Rea:
Purposely
Ds conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or to cause a certain result.
MPC Mens Rea:
Knowingly or Willfully
D is aware that
> their conduct is of the nature required to commit the crime and
> the result is practically certain to occur
MPC Mens Rea:
Recklessly
D acts w conscious disregard
of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person.
MPC Mens Rea:
Negligently
D should have been aware
of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation
does transferred intent apply to attempted crimes
no; just completed ones
Merger
> D cant be convicted of lesser-included offenses
(unless two separate victims)
Inchoate:
> CANT be charged for:
- attempt and the completed crime
- solicitation and the completed crime
> CAN be charged for:
- conspiracy and competed crime
guilt of children at common law
under 7
> never liable for a crime
7-13
> presumed incapable of committing crimes
14+
> could be charged as adults
principals
> Ds whose act/omission form the actus reus of the crime
have the required mens rea
there can be multiple principals
Accomplices
have the same degree of responsibility as the principal
(just diff theory of guilt)
> help before/after crime
MUST act with the intent of assisting the principal
what can an accomplice be liable for?
both the planned crime and any other foreseeable crimes that occur from it
Can an accomplice can be criminally liable even if they cannot be a principal or even if the principal cannot be convicted?
yes
*exception: : A person protected by a statute can’t be an accomplice in violating the statute (minor cant be accomplice of underage sex)
what can an accomplice be guilty for if they:
> helped before or during the crime
> helped after the crime
Helped BEFORE/DURING the crime:
> guilty of same crime as principal
Helped AFTER the crime:
> guilty of separate crime
Accessory after the fact
Helped AFTER the crime:
> guilty of separate crime
3 reasons why a D might not have the required mens rea
(1) mistake
(2) insanity
(3) intoxication
Mistakes of Law
> mistakes about what the law forbids/permits
ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse
EXCEPT:
> reliance on high level govt interpretation
> lack of notice
> FIAT CRIMES!! Bc ) Mistake of law that goes to an element of specific intent negates the intent
mistake of fact
Strict liability crime:
> mistake of fact not a defense
General intent:
> mistake of fact a defense if mistake was reasonable
Specific Intent:
> mistake of fact will be a defense whether the mistake was reasonable/unreasonable
Insanity
4 tests:
(1) M’Naghten:
D either didn’t know the nature/quality of the act was wrong bc mental disease
(2) Irresistible Impulse
D cant control himself bc mental disease
(3) Durham Rule:
D wouldn’t have committed the crime but-for his mental disease
(4) MPC:
D didn’t have substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or to conform his conduct of the law
burden of proof for insanity defense
D has the burden of proving insanity either by a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.
Involuntary Intoxication
valid defense when it negates the mens rea
Occurs when person:
> doesn’t realize they received intoxicating substance
> is coerced into ingesting it
> expected reactions to prescription meds
Voluntary Intoxication
> can be valid defense to specific intent crimes (FIAT) if prevented D from forming the mens rea
> Unless D got intoxicated just to commit the crime
(bc intent was created prior)
is in intoxication a defense to general intent crimes?
no cus u didn’t specifically have to mean to do it
MPC: Voluntary Intoxication
voluntary intoxication is only a defense to crimes that have a material element requiring purpose or knowledge, which the intoxication prevents from forming
Conspiracy
> Common law:
an agreement between 2 or more ppl to commit an unlawful act
Modern law: (fed law+ mpc)
> adds element: performance of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
MPC: (unilateral)
> Only D has to agree to commit the unlawful act
> overt act in furtherance!!!
(whether act legal or illegal just had to be done w purpose of furthering)
Liability of co-conspirator
Any crime committed by 1 conspirator will make other conspirators guilty of all those crimes
if they were in furtherance of the conspiracy, meaning it was foreseeable
Chain Conspiracy
Co-conspirators are engaged in an enterprise consisting of many
steps; each participant will be liable for the substantive crimes of his co-conspirators
Spoke-Hub Conspiracy
Involves many people dealing with a central hub
participants are NOT liable for the substantive crimes of their co-conspirators
because each spoke is treated as a separate agreement rather than one larger general
agreement
Withdrawal from a Conspiracy
> Common law:
impossible to withdraw bc crime is committed the second you agree
> Federal and MPC:
- can withdraw BEFORE commission of any overt act by telling all other conspirators or police
- after overt act: can withdraw only by helping to thwart success of conspiracy
*if can’t withdraw on time or wtv, D can still limit liability by informing others of withdrawal or timely advising authorities
attempt
(1) specific intent to to commit a criminal act; and
(2) substantial step toward the crime
> Attempt is a specific intent crime
> you wanna do it, you tried to do it, you’re guilty
can defenses for specific intent crimes be used as defenses to attempt
yes
can you be convicted of attempted murder and murder?
no; but you can be convicted of both conspiracy to commit murder AND murder
solicitation
when someone intentionally invites, requests, or commands another person to commit a crime
(even if they dont agree to do it)
If A solicits B to rob a bank and B agrees, what crimes have been commmited?
A: conspiracy (solicitation merges into conspiracy)
B: conspiracy
does solicitation merges into conspiracy
yes
Under the _______________ approach, a person cannot withdraw from a conspiracy after an agreement has been made.
common law u cant withdraw
fed/mpc you can if you let the conspirator know or police
true or false:
Attempt is a specific intent crime.
true
homicide
the killing of a living human being by another human being
homicide:
2 types of causation
(1) Actual cause:
vic wouldn’t have died but-for Ds actions
(2) Proximate cause:
the unlawful death was a foreseeable consequence of D’s actions.
*independent actions by a 3rd party generally aren’t foreseeable
* consent never a defense to homicide
3 kinds of homicide
(1) first-degree murder
(2) common-law murder
(3) manslaughter
first degree murder
> specific intent crime (FIAT)
deliberate and premeditated murder or felony murder
** The question will TELL YOU if first degree murder. Otherwise assume common law murder
4 types of common law murder
common law murder: unlawful killing of another with malice
(1) intent to kill
(2) intent to inflict serious bodily harm
(3) Depraved Heart
(acted w reckless disregard of human life and someone died)
(4) Felony Murder
(death occurred during commission/attempt of dangerous felony aka BARRK)
in a felony murder is a D guilty if a co-felon is killed by a resister or a police officer
Maj: no
For purposes of common-law murder, which of the 4 is NOT considered malice aforethought?
intent to inflict serious bodily harm
manslaughter
all unlawful killings of another that aren’t first degree murder or common law murder
2 types of manslaughter
(1) Voluntary Manslaughter
> there was adequate provocation and D acted in the heat of passion w no time to cool off
> or under extreme motional disturbance
(2) Involuntary Manslaughter
> criminally negligent killing
> engaged in negligent conduct and someone died
> D doing less serious felony or a misdemeanor
larceny
taking of another’s property without his consent and with the intent to permanently deprive him of it
elements of larceny
property
> tangible property
taking
> any movement no matter how slight
trespassory taking (w/out consent)
> real lack of consent; not by trick
> D bears burden to prove consent
intent perm deprive
> borrowing isn’t larceny
> if u borrow and its destroyed in your car, its not larceny
is larceny a specific or general intent crime
> specific intent crime
(theft crime from T in FIAT)
> meaning as long as D thought he was taking HIS property, however unreasonable, he wont be guilty of larceny
Embezzlement
D initially has the victim’s property w their consent but commits embezzlement when D converts the property to his own use
(guilty for value of the property at the time of conversion)
False Pretenses
> D obtained TITLE through an act of deception
> title = look for some piece of paper
2 way transaction:
give/give, take/take, cash = title, any buy/sell, exchange. Based on a lie its false pretenses. Fake goods
MPC theft
crimes such as larceny, false pretenses, and embezzlement are treated as a single statutory crime of theft
Common law robbery
larceny + assault
(1) D intentionally took vic’s property w/ intent to permanently deprive
(2) property was taken from vic’s person or presence by force, fear, or intimidation
Extortion
(A Variation of Robbery)
obtaining property through threat of future harm
(including non-physical harm like ratting someone out)
Burglary
breaking and entering the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a felony
> requisite intent needed at time of entry
*modern law: doesn’t need “at night” element
elements of burglary
> breaking
anything to obtain entry, even by fraud
> entering
even just sticking ur hand in
> dwelling
common law a home; modern even a commercial building
Battery
unlawful application of force to another person that causes bodily harm or an offensive touching
(Some touching that caused bodily harm to another)
what defenses are not available for battery as a general intent crime
> voluntary intoxication
unreasonable mistake of fact
2 forms of assault
(1) Attempted Battery
(2) Regular assault (fear of harm)
Assault:
Attempted Battery
> D took a substantial step toward completing a battery but failed
> a specific-intent crime because it is an attempt; specific-intent defenses are available
Assault:
fear of harm
> Intentionally placing another in fear of imminent bodily harm
> general intent crime
defenses for specific intent crimes
> intoxication unless on purpose
> mistake of law of negates specific intent element
> mistake of fact
(all mistakes of fact are potential defenses, even if unreasonable mistakes)
> insanity
rape
> general intent crime
voluntary intoxication can’t be a defense
modern rape statutes: Require lack of consent rather than the force requirement from common law
Statutory Rape
> strict liability offense
can’t claim mistake of vic’s age
Kidnapping
the unlawful confinement someone against their will either by moving or hiding the victim
true or false:
For a kidnapping to occur incident to the commission of another offense, the movement of the victim must be more than is necessary to complete the other offense.
true
Arson
malicious burning of a dwelling/commercial building
> requires fire damage to the actual building structure—not just the contents of the dwelling
> malicious
Intent to act in a way that will cause burning, or is substantially likely to do so
are scorching of the walls, smoke damage, and burning of the dwelling’s contents sufficient for arson?
no; there needs to be fire damage to the actual building structure
Perjury
Willful act of falsely promising to tell the truth, either verbally or in writing, about material matters
ex: Pauline says on stand she saw A rob house as she was walking by. But really she saw it from her neighbors husband’s bed bc sleeping together. Not perjury bc place she saw it from was not material
Subornation of Perjury
A person persuades someone else to commit perjury, such as paying
someone to testify falsely
Bribery
common law:
> Corrupt payment to influence an official and in discharge of his official duties
Modern law:
> Allows a bribery charge for brining anyone, not just a public official
> can be guilty of either
- offering a bribe
- receiving a bribe
can someone who couldn’t receive the bribe and didn’t offer be guilty?
yes if D aids and abets the bribing of a public official by helping the official accept the bribe
Defenses
(1) Intoxication
(2) Insanity
(3) Mistake of fact
(4) self defense
(5) defense of others
(6) defense of property
(7) duress
(8) necessity
Intoxication
Specific-intent crimes (FIAT or MPC statute with “purposely”):
> voluntary or involuntary intoxication are valid defenses
General-intent crimes:
> only involuntary intoxication
Insanity
D unable to follow the law bc of a mental disease/defect
Mistake of fact
> Specific-intent crimes:
All mistakes of fact are defenses, even unreasonable mistakes.
> General-intent crimes:
Only reasonable mistakes of fact can be used
2 types of self defense
(1) deadly force
(2) non-deadly force
When can a vic use non-deadly force?
anytime he reasonably fears imminent unlawful harm
When can a vic use deadly force?
only when he reasonably believes that deadly force will be used against him
MPC: deadly force against him OR reasonably believes crime will cause serious bodily injury
do you have to retreat before using deadly force?
> Majority Rule:
No duty to retreat when you’re entitled to use deadly force
> Minority Rule:
If safe, you have to retreat before using deadly force
When is retreat never required?
retreat is never required when the person using deadly force is in his own home
On the MBE, the question will tell you if have a duty to retreat.
Otherwise, assume that you don’t have to retreat before using deadly force if needed
Defense of Others
you have the right to defend others against a criminal as you would defend your own self
what type of force can you use to defend property
> Non-deadly force
NEVER deadly force
Duress
D claims committing a crime only because he was threatened by a third party; and reasonably believed it was the only way to avoid death/injury to himself/others
what needs to be present in order to use duress defense?
> a threat of death or serious bodily harm
mere injury (esp to property) isn’t enough
What crimes can duress be a defense for?
Any except intentional murder
necessity
Available in response to natural forces
(i.e., choice was the lesser of
two evils)
For a specific-intent crime, _________ mistakes of fact can be a defense. For a general intent crime, __________ mistakes of fact can be a defense.
all; only reasonable
Accessory before the fact
vs.
Principal in the second degree
> Accessory before the fact
An accomplice who is neither physically nor constructively present during the crime, but who possesses the requisite intent
> Principal in the second degree
An accomplice who is physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime is a principal in the second degree.
What is the test for insanity under the MPC?
Note: This test combines the irresistible-impulse test and the M’Naghten test.
D not guilty if he didnt have the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform his conduct to the law bc of mental illness
common-law murder
unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought
Note: Remember that common-law murder is a malice crime, not a specific-intent crime.
(the M in i “AM”)
3 requirements for an accomplice to legally withdraw and avoid accomplice liability
The accomplice must:
(i) Repudiate prior aid;
(ii) Do all that is possible to countermand prior assistance; and
(iii) Do so before the chain of events is in motion and unstoppable.
Is a change of heart, a flight from the crime scene, an arrest by law enforcement, or an uncommunicated decision to withdraw, an effective way to withdraw?
no
What is depraved-heart murder?
Depraved-heart murder is a killing that results from reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. The majority rule requires the defendant to be aware of the danger involved.
What are malice crimes, and what common-law crimes fall into this category?
These crimes require reckless disregard of a high risk of harm. They do not require the defendant to act with ill will toward the victim.
Common-Law murder and arson are malice crimes.
malum in se
malum prohibitum
Malum in se means wrong in itself or inherently dangerous
malum prohibitum refers to wrongs that are merely prohibited, but not inherently immoral or hurtful.
true or false
To be guilty of felony murder, a felony independent of the death must have occurred.
true; For example, a battery that causes the victim to die might be a felony, but it’s not independent of the victim’s death so not felony murder
What are the three usual statutory elements of the crime of receiving stolen goods?
It requires:
(i) Receiving control (not necessarily possession) of stolen property;
(ii) Knowledge that the property is stolen; and
(iii) Intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
What is the continuing trespass rule relating to larceny?
there was a taking but D didn’t have intent to deprive > eventually he develops that intent
Can the owner of property be guilty of larceny regarding that property?
Yes. The owner of property can be guilty of larceny when someone other than the owner is entitled to current possession of the property.
What two elements are added to common-law larceny to establish a robbery?
A robbery is a larceny
(i) from the person or presence of the victim, and
(ii) achieved by force or intimidation.
Under the modern rule, in most jurisdictions, what are the three possible parties to a crime?
(1) The principal
(2) An accomplice
(3) An accessory after the fact
Note: Conspirators are not a distinct party to a crime because they are treated as a principal
Under the majority and MPC rules, what elements are added to and/or removed from the common-law elements of conspiracy?
The Majority/MPC rules:
(i) Add the requirement of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (but the MPC does not apply this requirement if the conspiratorial crime is a felony); and
(ii) Remove the requirement of “two or more persons,” allowing unilateral conspiracies.
What are the five most common inherently dangerous felonies associated with felony murder?
BARRK
burglary
arson
robbery
rape
kidnapping
What are the four common-law elements of battery?
Battery is the:
(i) Unlawful;
(ii) Application of force;
(iii) To another person;
(iv) That causes bodily harm or offensive touching.
Note: Battery is a general-intent crime.
When is consent obtained by fraud a valid defense to the offense of rape, and when does it provide no grounds for defense?
Consent obtained by fraud in the inducement is a valid defense.
Consent obtained by fraud in factum (i.e., regarding the nature of the act itself) is not a valid defense.
Is a defendant guilty of felony murder when the defendant’s co-felon is justifiably killed by a victim or police office
No.
A defendant is not guilty of felony murder when the defendant’s co-felon is justifiably killed by a victim or police officer.
What is the effect of withdrawal on liability for the conspiracy itself (three approaches)?
Common law: Withdrawal never a defense
Federal/Majority rule: May only withdraw after the agreement but before an overt act has been committed, by (i) communicating notice of his intent not to participate to the other potential co-conspirators or (ii) informing the police about the agreement.
MPC/Minority view: May only withdraw by acting voluntarily to “thwart the success” of the conspiracy.
when is involuntary intoxication a defense
Involuntary intoxication is a defense when the intoxication serves to negate an element of the crime, including specific as well as general intent crimes and malice crimes.
Involuntary intoxication may also be a defense to a strict liability crime by negating the required actus reus (i.e., voluntary act).
Under the common law and the MPC, is renunciation a defense to solicitation?
Common law: Renunciation was no defense to solicitation.
MPC: Voluntary renunciation may be a defense, provided the defendant thwarts the commission of the solicited crime.
How can a defendant limit his liability as a co-conspirator for the substantive crimes that are the subject of the conspiracy?
By withdrawing from the conspiracy at any time after it is formed by
(i) giving notice to his co‑conspirators or
(ii) timely advising legal authorities of the existence of the conspiracy.
(1) When is impossibility a defense to an attempt charge?
(2) When is abandonment a defense to an attempt charge?
(1) When the act is not a crime); not when the act is factually impossible to commit bc that’s never a defense
(2) Generally and at common law, the defense of abandonment is available until the defendant has completed the actus reus.
What are the four categories of specific-intent crimes? (Think FIAT)
(i) First-degree murder;
(ii) Inchoate offenses (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy);
(iii) Assault with intent to commit a battery; and
(iv) Theft offenses (larceny, larceny by trick, false pretenses, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, robbery).
(1) When can an honest mistake of fact serve as a valid defense?
(2) What can a mistake of law serve as a valid defense?
(1) Any mistake of fact that negates the required criminal intent can be a defense to specific-intent crimes, but a mistake of fact must be reasonable to be a defense to a general-intent or malice crime.
(2) A mistake of law is only if
(i) the defendant relied on a court decision/administrative order or official interpretation;
(ii) a statutory definition of a crime was not available before the defendant’s conduct; or
(iii) an honestly held mistake of law negates the required intent or mental state.
What is an accessory after the fact?
A person who aids or assists a felon to avoid apprehension or conviction after commission of the felony; the person must know a felony has been committed, and is only liable for a separate crime.
What is the main difference between larceny by trick and false pretenses?
Under larceny by trick, the defendant obtains possession.
Under false pretenses, the defendant obtains title.
What is the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?
Felony: Punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year
Misdemeanor: Punishable by imprisonment for one year or less, or by a fine, or by both
does there need to be completion of the felony when committing a burglary?
No, D just needed to have intended to commit the felony
BUT if D does not commit the underlying felony will also be guilty of attempted commission of that felony
Is a person who finds lost or misplaced property guilty of larceny?
Yes, if at the time of the finding the person
(1) knows or believes he/she can locate the owner and
(2) takes and carries away the property with the intent to steal it.
Does solicitation merge into conspiracy?
yes
can there be abandonment or withdrawal of attempt?
No;
The crime of attempt is complete once the defendant takes the substantial step, so there can be no abandonment or withdrawal after that
Is factual impossibility a defense to attempt/
never; just bc D doesn’t know its impossible doesn’t spare them of guilt
Attempt occurs when a person (1) takes a substantial step toward the commission of a crime (2) with the specific intent to commit the crime
Will D be liable for burglary if they enter a dwelling w consent and later break into a part of the structure once inside?
(ex: opening a closet door or wall safe)
Yes
Criminal assault
Criminal assault occurs when a defendant
(1) attempts to commit a battery or (2) intentionally places another in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Can a person commit larceny by taking property freely given by another—even if the person was unaware of this fact?
no they cant
ex: if store giving it out for free you cant commit larceny. but you’d be guilty for attempted larceny
Is factual impossibility a defense to conspiracy.
never; its irrelevant that the D didn’t know couldn’t happen
true or false:
In a rape case, obtaining consent through fraud will not negate the consent.
D wont be liable
true
forgery
(i) creating or altering
(ii) a document w purported legal significance (doc w legal value like a check, K, etc)
(iii) to be false (alteration/creation changed the legal significance of the dc)
(iv) w the intent to defraud
> specific intent cri that falls under theft from FIAT)
not necessary actually defraud someone just to intend to
is manslaughter specific or general intent?
general intent
can larceny be committed by a D through an agent who isn’t aware of Ds intent to commit larceny?
yes
(Q about husband putting ring on wife’s finger w/out paying and leaving store)
when will an accomplice be guilty for crimes other than the ones they provided assistance for?
when the other crimes were the natural and probable consequence of the accomplice’s conduct.
A mistake of law based on erroneous legal advice is generally no defense to criminal liability. However, reliance on such advice may serve as a defense when the mistake negates the required mental state.
When a statute doesn’t specify the requisite mental state, what is the minimum required mental state according to the MPC?
recklessness—i.e., the conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk
murder
intent to inflict serious bodily harm
depraved heart
felony murder
(specific intent is first degree which is FIAT not I AM)
Is knowledge that another person intends to commit a crime enough to make that person an accomplice?
No,
they’d have to (1) aid or abet (2) w/ the specific intent that the crime be committed
However, the use of deadly force against an intruder exiting the dwelling is generally not permissible. Here, although the owner had the right to use deadly force against the burglar in order to prevent the burglar from stealing property from the owner’s home, the owner did not have that right to prevent the burglar from exiting the home.
there cant be a conspiracy between people when one of the parties is a protected class
ex: statutory rape when illegal to have sex w 15 year old minor
15 boy and 18 agree to have sex
conspiracy? nope cus he’s protected
false pretenses
vs.
larceny by trick
False pretenses:
> obtaining title to the property (including money) of another person bc they relied on a false representation of a material fact w intent to defraud
Larceny by trick:
> D obtain possession of, but not title to the property owned by another.
when is solicitation completed?
at encouragement
common law:
cant renounce
mpc:
if u stop it
is offering to sell drugs to someone considered solicitation?
yes bc ur encouraging them to possess an illegal substance
if they get possession of something through larceny by trick then it cant be embezzlement
