Questions and Answers
What are the elements of common law larceny?
What are the two elements of theft by unlawful taking according to the MPC - 223.2?
Movable Property and Immovable Property
The doctrine of continuing trespass states that if taking is trespassory at the beginning, that element continues until intent to steal is formed.
True
In People v. Alamo, what was the key issue regarding the jury's instruction?
Signup and view all the answers
What was the conclusion in People v. Zombo regarding the significance of movement in the theft case?
Signup and view all the answers
In State v. Donaldsen, the court held that absence of movement is sufficient to prove guilt in larceny.
Signup and view all the answers
What is the significant issue in People v. Olivo regarding shoplifting?
Signup and view all the answers
In People v. Jennings, why was the act of taking money considered potentially insufficient for larceny?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
Common Law Larceny
- Six essential elements for common law larceny include:
- Trespassory taking without permission.
- Taking involves capturing or exerting dominion over the property.
- Carrying away, which can be minimal movement.
- Personal property, excluding services.
- Property must belong to another, not the accused.
- Intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
Model Penal Code (MPC) Theft
- MPC defines theft with two primary elements:
- Movable Property: Guilt arises if a person unlawfully takes or controls movable property with intent to deprive the owner.
- Immovable Property: Guilt results from unlawfully transferring immovable property with intent to benefit oneself or an unauthorized party.
Doctrine of Continuing Trespass
- Concurrence is required between the act of taking and the intent to steal.
- If the taking begins as trespassory, that element persists until the intent to steal develops.
- Larceny cannot be established at common law if the initial taking isn't trespassory, even if there’s intent to steal later.
Case Study: People v. Alamo
- Facts: Suspect was stopped by police when they found a vehicle with no registration, leading to an arrest.
- Evidence: Conflicting witness accounts regarding the vehicle's movement; tools and drug paraphernalia were found inside.
- Procedure: Jury convicted D based on New York Penal Code that eases proving the taking of property.
- Holding: Conviction upheld for grand larceny of a vehicle and possession of burglary tools, emphasizing no requirement for movement to establish control.
Case Study: People v. Zombo
- Incident involved an attempted car theft where the suspect knew how to start the vehicle.
- The court ruled that movement was not a pivotal issue in assessing guilt.
Case Study: State v. Donaldsen
- Suspect was found inside a van at night, with no movement of the vehicle.
- Court held that sufficient control and dominion over the vehicle were established despite the lack of movement.
Case Study: People v. Olivo
- Facts: Individual attempted to shoplift but was apprehended before exiting the store, having removed security tags from a jacket.
- Legal Question: Possibility of larceny conviction for shoplifting while still in-store.
- Holding: Conviction can be valid if intention to steal is demonstrated before leaving the store, indicating exercised control over the goods.
Case Study: People v. Jennings
- Individual misappropriated funds through a scheme involving counting and using money from an account over ten days.
- Court concluded more evidence was required to classify this act as larceny, highlighting the complexity of intent in theft cases.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Description
Explore the differences between common law larceny and the Model Penal Code (MPC) definition of theft. This quiz tests your understanding of essential elements such as intent, property types, and the doctrine of continuing trespass. Dive deep into the legal concepts that define property offenses.
