Common Law Larceny Quiz

A legal action to remove a tenant from property due to violation of lease terms or overstaying the lease period.

A legal action to remove someone from property who has no right to be there. Often used for trespassers.

The unlawful taking of someone else's personal property. This involves temporary possession.

A trespass to chattels that permanently deprives the owner of the value of their property. This is a more serious offense than trespass to chattels.

A crime defined by the California Penal Code. It involves the unlawful taking of another person's property.

Grand theft in California is defined as theft of property worth more than $950.

The prosecution of William for the theft of gift cards, using a stolen credit card, and the subsequent altercation with a store security guard.

A set of rules that dictate legal and criminal conduct in a particular jurisdiction.

Robbery requires the felonious taking of another's property, from their person or immediate presence, against their will, by force or fear. It's an act of violence.

In common law, larceny is the unlawful taking of another's property with intent to steal and carry it away. It's like robbery without the violence or threat.

Theft by false pretenses, or fraud, involves obtaining property through deception or a false representation. The victim voluntarily hands over the property.

The taking element in both robbery and larceny must be "felonious." This means it must be unlawful and intentional, not just accidental or unintentional.

Trespassory taking happens when someone takes another's property without permission or consent. It's a key element of robbery and larceny.

In the robbery context, the "felonious taking" element specifically refers to larceny, not fraud. It means the property was taken without consent, by force or threat.

Topolewski v. State established that "felonious taking" in robbery refers to taking without permission, not to someone voluntarily giving something up due to deception.

Dolan's agreement to leave barrels of meat on the loading dock for the defendant to take was considered consent, even though he planned to mislead his employer. This negated the "felonious taking" element, making robbery difficult to prove.

A crime that is committed, but not fully completed. This means the person intended to commit the crime, but was either prevented or stopped before they could complete it.

The mental state required for a crime to be committed. For an attempt, the person must have a specific intention to commit the target crime.

This means the offender wanted to not only engage in the actions that lead to the crime but also wanted to fully complete the target offense.

The actions a person takes toward committing a crime. For an attempt, the person must take steps that go beyond mere preparation.

These are actions that might eventually lead to the crime but aren't considered significant enough to be considered an attempt.

For attempted murder, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim. This is different from murder, where it's enough to show the defendant knew their actions had a high chance of causing death.

A legal case where the defendant was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of murder. This highlights the different intent requirements for the two crimes.

A case where the defendant was convicted of attempted murder without proving specific intent. This case is a rare exception to the general rule.

A person cannot be found guilty of murder if they shoot a dead body, but they can be found guilty of attempted murder if they believed the victim was alive.

The defendant was found guilty of attempted murder because he believed the victim was alive at the time of the shooting, even though the victim may have already been dead.

A defendant can be found guilty of a crime if the facts were as they perceived them to be, even if the crime was impossible to complete.

The defendant was found guilty of attempted receiving stolen property even though the goods were not actually stolen.

A legal defense to an attempt crime, where the defendant's actions were impossible due to a legal barrier.

The action of putting someone in a position to commit a crime, even if they are not successful.

An attempt to commit a crime is an act that goes beyond mere preparation but falls short of fully executing the intended crime.

The legal principle that if all intended actions would not be criminal, even performing part of the intended plan cannot be a crime.

A crime attempt is considered an act tending directly towards the intended crime, requiring the ability to carry it out, had an external factor not intervened.

The standard of proof used in criminal trials. The prosecution must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

A defendant does not have to prove their innocence in court. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt.

This case highlights the element of 'overt acts' needed for an attempted crime conviction. "Going to the printer to order 50,000 tickets for cigars" was seen as a substantial step towards committing the crime.

A defense to an attempt crime where the suspect voluntarily abandons the criminal plan and takes steps to prevent the crime from happening.

A legal argument that concedes the acts of the defendant but presents additional circumstances that justify or excuse the defendant's actions.

This defense applies when the crime the defendant was attempting is not actually illegal. This is a rare defense due to the uncommon nature of 'legal impossibility'.

The burden of proof for an affirmative defense is typically on the defendant to prove the elements of the defense.

An affirmative defense that allows a person to use reasonable force to defend themselves against an imminent attack.

A defense raised when a crime was attempted, but the law was not in effect or was changed after the act but before the attempt.

A person's reasonable belief that they are facing immediate danger of bodily harm, the need for immediate force to defend against danger, and using only the necessary force to defend against the danger.

This case involves a defendant who claimed legal impossibility despite the fact he had already taken substantial steps. He had already taken the weapon and gone to the location where the crime was planned. Dlugash was convicted under a theory of attempted murder.

A case where a defendant used more force than necessary to defend themselves, potentially reducing the strength of their self-defense claim.

This occurs when the defendant truly believes the crime was possible (i.e. a gun was loaded when it wasn't), but in reality due to a factual circumstance, the crime was impossible. This defense is rarely successful due to an emphasis on intent.