- Has the lookout committed burglary? Select one.
Answer: Yes, under a theory of accomplice liability.
The correct answer is C. The lookout is guilty of burglary under the principles of accomplice liability. He intentionally assisted in the commission of the crime by acting as a lookout, thereby aiding and abetting the principal (the friend who entered). An accomplice is liable for the crime itself, not just a lesser offense.
(A) is incorrect because an accomplice does not need to personally commit every element of the crime. By aiding the principal, the lookout is treated as if he had committed the burglary.
(B) is incorrect for the same reason; assisting is the basis for accomplice liability.
(D) is incorrect because while the lookout is also guilty of conspiracy, the question asks if he has committed the substantive crime of burglary. Accomplice liability makes him guilty of the burglary itself, which is a completed crime distinct from the conspiracy to commit it.
- Of which crime is the defendant most likely guilty? Select one.
Answer: Aggravated burglary, because the dwelling was, in fact, occupied at the time of the entry.
The correct answer is B. For most statutory aggravating factors, such as the occupancy of a dwelling, the prosecution does not need to prove the defendant had knowledge of the circumstance. It is a strict liability element. Because the dwelling was in fact occupied by a non-participant (the daughter), the crime is elevated to aggravated burglary, regardless of the defendant's belief.
(A) is incorrect because it wrongly assumes a mens rea requirement (knowledge) applies to the aggravating circumstance of occupancy.
(C) is incorrect because the defendant completed the crime of burglary by entering with the requisite intent; encountering an occupant is not required.
(D) is incorrect because the defendant clearly met all the elements of burglary (entry of a dwelling at night with felonious intent), so his liability is not limited to larceny.
- Has the roommate committed burglary? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he had abandoned his possessory interest and entered with criminal intent.
The correct answer is C. Even if a person has a legal right to a property (like being on the lease), they can relinquish their possessory interest. By moving out permanently and stating his intention not to return, the roommate likely abandoned his right of possession. His subsequent entry, especially with felonious intent, would therefore be "without authority." Thus, he has likely committed burglary.
(A) is incorrect because his status as a lessee is not dispositive if he has surrendered his right to current possession.
(B) is incorrect because the key issue is the authority to enter, not the method of entry. If he lacked authority, using a key does not make the entry lawful.
(D) is incorrect because while it leads to the right result, the reasoning is circular. The better legal reason is that his authority to enter ceased when he abandoned his possessory interest, making his subsequent entry unauthorized.
- Is the defendant guilty of aggravated robbery? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because a firearm is defined as a deadly weapon per se, regardless of whether it is loaded.
Criminal law questions involving weapon definitions require careful attention to statutory language and how courts interpret key terms. When you encounter aggravated robbery or enhanced charges based on weapon use, focus on the exact statutory definition rather than common-sense interpretations.
The correct answer is D because the statute explicitly defines "deadly weapon" to include "any firearm" as the first category, before listing "other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance." This structure creates a per se rule for firearms - they qualify as deadly weapons regardless of their condition or how they're used. The phrase "in the manner it is used or intended to be used" modifies only the "other weapon" categories that follow, not firearms themselves.
Answer A is wrong because it misapplies the "manner of use" language to firearms when that qualifier only applies to non-firearm weapons. The unloaded status is irrelevant under the statutory framework.
Answer B fails because the defendant's subjective intent about using the gun as a deadly weapon doesn't matter. The statute creates an objective test based on the weapon's classification, not the defendant's mental state regarding its deadly potential.
Answer C incorrectly focuses on the victim's perception. While the victim's reasonable belief might be relevant for other elements of robbery, the deadly weapon determination depends on the statutory definition, not the victim's subjective understanding.
Remember: In statutory interpretation questions, parse the language carefully. Commas, conjunctions, and sentence structure often determine which qualifying phrases apply to which categories of prohibited items or conduct.
- Is the defendant likely guilty of robbery? Select one.
Answer: No, because the jeweler's fear was purely subjective and not caused by any threatening action.
The correct answer is A. For the "fear" element of robbery, the defendant must have engaged in some conduct or made a threat that caused the victim's fear. The fear cannot arise merely from the victim's own mind or general apprehension about crime. Here, the defendant simply grabbed the ring and ran. He made no threats and took no action other than the taking itself. The jeweler's fear was not created by the defendant's conduct. Therefore, the crime is larceny, not robbery.
(B) is a correct statement but A is the better answer as it addresses the 'fear' element directly, which is what the jeweler cited.
(C) is incorrect because the defendant's actions (a simple grab-and-run) would not put a reasonable person in fear of immediate injury.
(D) is incorrect because a grab-and-run, without more, does not imply a threat of force sufficient for robbery.
- Has the landlord committed burglary? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he entered the tenant's dwelling without permission with the intent to commit larceny.
The correct answer is C. For burglary purposes, the key is the right to possession, not ownership. A tenant has the exclusive right to possess the dwelling. The landlord's entry without permission or legal authority was therefore "unlawful." Larceny, the crime he intended to commit, generally includes the intent to permanently or for an unreasonable period of time deprive the owner of possession. Taking property to secure a debt is typically considered to have the requisite intent for larceny. Therefore, all elements of burglary are met.
(A) is incorrect because the tenant's possessory interest makes the landlord's unauthorized entry unlawful.
(B) is incorrect because the intent to hold the property until a condition is met (payment of rent) is generally sufficient for the intent element of larceny.
(D) is incorrect because while the entry was unlawful, the concept of "constructive breaking" is not necessary here; the statute only requires an "unlawful entry," which occurred when he exceeded his authority.
- Did the activist commit burglary? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because gaining entry by fraud or trickery constitutes a constructive breaking.
The correct answer is C. Even in jurisdictions that retain the "breaking" element for burglary, the requirement can be met by a "constructive" breaking. Gaining entry through fraud, trick, or threat constitutes a constructive breaking because the consent given for the entry is not valid. Here, the activist's lie to the security guard nullified the consent, and his entry satisfied the breaking element. Since he also entered with the intent to commit a felony, all elements of burglary are met.
(A) is incorrect because it fails to consider the doctrine of constructive breaking.
(B) is incorrect because the crime of burglary is complete upon the entry with intent; the underlying felony does not need to be completed.
(D) is incorrect because while intent is a necessary element, it is not sufficient without also satisfying the "breaking and entering" element, which is the key issue here.
- Under the statute, is the man guilty of burglary? Select one.
Answer: No, because the statute specifically requires that the vehicle's doors be locked.
The correct answer is C. The question requires a careful reading of the provided statute. The statute's definition of burglary of a vehicle is not merely entering with intent to steal; it explicitly requires the element that the vehicle's doors were locked. Because the man entered an unlocked car, a key element of the crime is missing, and he cannot be convicted of burglary under this specific statute. He is, however, guilty of theft.
(A) is incorrect because it ignores the "when the doors are locked" element of the statute.
(B) is incorrect because the concept of constructive breaking is irrelevant when the statute's plain language provides a clear, different requirement.
(D) is incorrect because reaching into the vehicle constitutes a sufficient entry.
- Has the man committed robbery? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he used force and fear to compel the homeowner to transfer property of value.
The correct answer is C. Modern interpretations of robbery statutes often hold that intangible property like electronic funds can be the subject of a robbery. The critical elements are the use of force or fear to compel the victim to part with something of value. The man used force (a gun) to cause the homeowner, against his will, to transfer the funds. This act of compelling the transfer is a sufficient "taking" from the victim's presence and control to constitute robbery.
(A) is incorrect as most modern courts would consider electronic funds to be a form of personal property.
(B) is incorrect because it applies an overly literal and outdated interpretation of "taking." Forcing a transfer is a form of taking control over the property.
(D) is incorrect because the crime of robbery was completed when the transfer was made under duress; tracing the funds is a matter of proof, not an element of the crime.
- Under the statute, is the man guilty of robbery? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because the cashier genuinely believed the gun was real and was placed in fear.
The correct answer is C. The 'fear' element of robbery focuses on the victim's subjective state of mind. As long as the victim was genuinely placed in fear of imminent bodily harm and the defendant's actions were calculated to produce that fear, the element is satisfied. The fact that the gun was a toy is irrelevant if the victim believed it was real.
(A) is incorrect because the defendant's actual ability to inflict harm is not the test; the victim's fear is what matters.
(B) is incorrect because while the fear must be genuine, the actions (pointing what appears to be a gun) are so clearly threatening that the objective reasonableness of the fear is met, making the cashier's subjective fear the dispositive factor.
(D) is incorrect because a robbery conviction is not contingent on conviction for another crime; the elements of robbery stand on their own.
- Is the man guilty of robbery under the ordinance? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he used physical force to overpower the victim's active resistance to the taking.
When analyzing robbery charges, focus carefully on the specific elements defined in the applicable statute or ordinance. Different jurisdictions may define robbery differently, so you must work with the exact language provided rather than relying on general legal knowledge.
The ordinance here defines robbery as "a taking from the person of another accomplished by force sufficient to overcome the victim's resistance." Let's break this down: there was clearly a taking from the woman's person (her purse), and the man used physical force that was sufficient to overcome her resistance—she held on tightly and struggled, but he overpowered her. This satisfies all elements of the ordinance's definition.
Answer A is incorrect because the ordinance contains no requirement that the victim be injured. The definition focuses on force sufficient to overcome resistance, not on resulting harm. Answer B misses the mark because the ordinance doesn't specify the type or degree of force required—it only requires force "sufficient to overcome the victim's resistance," which occurred here regardless of whether a weapon was involved. Answer C incorrectly imports elements from theft statutes. This ordinance defines robbery without any value threshold requirement.
Answer D correctly identifies that the man used physical force to overpower the victim's active resistance, which directly matches the ordinance's definition.
Study tip: On bar exam criminal law questions, always parse the exact statutory language provided rather than applying general common law definitions. Jurisdictions can define crimes differently, and the question will test your ability to apply the specific definition given, not your general knowledge of the crime.
- Based on these facts, which of the following is the most accurate statement? Select one.
Answer: The man is not guilty of robbery because the force used was not sufficient to overcome resistance.
When analyzing robbery charges, you must carefully examine whether all required elements are met: taking property from someone's person or immediate presence through force or fear. The key distinction here is between sufficient force for robbery versus mere force incidental to taking property.
The correct answer is D because robbery requires force sufficient to overcome resistance or prevent resistance from being offered. Simply grabbing an unguarded item uses only the minimal force necessary to complete the taking itself. The man used no force against the woman's person and no additional force beyond what was needed to snatch the unattended purse. This falls short of the "force or fear" element required for robbery, making this a theft or larceny instead.
Answer A incorrectly focuses solely on the "immediate presence" element. While the purse was arguably in the woman's immediate presence, satisfying this element alone doesn't establish robbery—you still need adequate force or fear.
Answer B misapplies the fear requirement. Although the woman was startled, the man's actions weren't designed to threaten or intimidate her. The fear element requires intentional threatening conduct or circumstances that would reasonably cause fear of harm, not mere surprise from an unexpected taking.
Answer C is wrong because "immediate presence" doesn't require the item to be physically on the victim's person. Property within the victim's control or close proximity typically satisfies this element.
Remember: for robbery questions, always check that both location (person or immediate presence) AND force/fear elements are adequately satisfied. Minimal force incident to the taking itself isn't enough—robbery requires force against resistance or threatening conduct.
- Is the man guilty of burglary under the jurisdiction's penal code? Select one.
Answer: No, because he did not possess the intent to commit a theft at the moment he entered the warehouse.
Burglary questions test your understanding of the temporal relationship between entry and intent. The key issue here is when the defendant must form the requisite intent - it must exist at the moment of entry, not after.
Under this jurisdiction's statute, burglary requires "unlawfully entering a structure with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein." The critical element is that the intent to commit theft must be present at the time of entry. Here, the man entered solely to escape the blizzard - he had no criminal intent whatsoever when he crossed the threshold. His intent to steal only formed hours later while already inside the warehouse.
Answer A correctly identifies this fatal flaw in the prosecution's case. Since the man lacked the requisite intent at the moment he entered, he cannot be guilty of burglary regardless of what happened afterward.
Answer B misses the point entirely. While his entry was indeed unauthorized and constituted trespass, burglary requires more than just unlawful entry - it requires the specific intent element at the time of entry.
Answer C makes the classic mistake of confusing burglary with other crimes. The fact that he eventually committed theft doesn't cure the missing intent element at entry. This would make him guilty of theft, but not burglary.
Answer D is incorrect because commercial warehouses clearly qualify as "structures" under typical burglary statutes, which generally cover any building or enclosed space.
Remember: For burglary, intent and entry must be simultaneous. If someone enters lawfully or without criminal intent, forming criminal intent later doesn't transform the entry into burglary.
- Is the woman guilty of robbery? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because she used force to retain possession of the property immediately after the taking.
The correct answer is C. The statute explicitly incorporates the "continuous transaction" doctrine, defining robbery to include the use of force to retain property immediately after the taking. The woman used force (shoving the guard) to keep the handbag she had just stolen, fitting the statutory definition.
(A) is incorrect because it relies on a narrower, common-law definition of robbery that the provided statute has explicitly broadened.
(B) is incorrect because the force does not need to be directed at the property's owner; it can be directed at any person with custody or control, such as a security guard.
(D) is incorrect because the use of force is the relevant element for simple robbery; causing physical injury is not required and would typically be relevant only for an aggravated form of the crime.
- Has the man committed burglary under the statute? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he made an unlawful entry into an occupied structure with the requisite intent.
The correct answer is C. All the elements of the statute are met. The structure was occupied, and the man's entry was unlawful as he lacked permission. The intent element was satisfied, as he entered with the expressed intent to commit an assault. The entry element of burglary is satisfied by any part of the defendant's body crossing the plane of the dwelling. Stepping one foot inside the threshold is a sufficient entry.
(A) is incorrect because the crime of burglary is complete upon entry with intent; the underlying crime (assault) does not need to be completed.
(B) is incorrect because any intrusion of the body, no matter how slight, is sufficient for entry.
(D) is incorrect because the statute requires an "unlawful entry," not a "breaking." Opening an unlocked door is sufficient for an unlawful entry.
- Is the defendant guilty of robbery? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because he used force in the immediate flight after attempting to commit a theft.
The correct answer is C. The statute provides a broad definition of when the force can be used, explicitly including the period of "immediate flight after the attempt or commission" of a theft. The defendant attempted to commit a theft and used force (pushing the homeowner) during his immediate flight. Therefore, his conduct falls squarely within the statutory definition of robbery.
(A) is incorrect because the statute covers force used during an attempted theft as well as a completed one.
(B) is incorrect because the statute explicitly broadens the definition beyond force used only to obtain property.
(D) is incorrect because while the unlawful entry constitutes burglary, it is the use of force during the flight from the attempted theft that elevates the conduct to robbery under this specific statute.
- Is the pickpocket guilty of robbery under the statute? Select one.
Answer: No, because the taking was accomplished by stealth rather than by force or by putting the victim in fear.
When you encounter criminal law questions about theft-related offenses, pay close attention to the specific statutory elements—each word matters for distinguishing between crimes like robbery, larceny, and burglary.
Robbery requires three key elements under this statute: (1) taking property from another person, (2) against their will, and (3) by force/violence OR by putting them in fear. The critical issue here is whether pickpocketing satisfies the force/fear requirement.
Answer A correctly identifies that pickpocketing involves stealth, not force or intimidation. The pickpocket deliberately acted without the victim's knowledge to avoid detection. Since the victim never experienced force or fear, the third element of robbery is missing, making this larceny (theft) rather than robbery.
Answer B misunderstands the force requirement. Not every physical contact during theft constitutes robbery-level force. The touching must be sufficient to overcome resistance or put the victim in fear—mere contact incident to stealthy taking doesn't qualify.
Answer C focuses on the wrong element. While taking "from the person" is required for robbery (distinguishing it from other theft), this alone isn't sufficient. You still need force or fear, which is absent here.
Answer D incorrectly suggests the victim's awareness timing matters for robbery. The statute doesn't require the victim to be aware during the taking—it requires force or fear, regardless of when the victim discovers the theft.
Study tip: For robbery questions, always check if the defendant used or threatened force, or if the victim experienced fear during the taking. Stealth defeats robbery charges even when other elements are present.
- Is the defendant guilty of robbery under the statute? Select one.
Answer: No, because the threatened harm was not imminent.
When analyzing robbery charges, you must carefully examine each element of the statutory definition. This question tests your understanding of the "imminence" requirement that appears in most robbery statutes.
The key issue here is timing. The defendant threatened to burn down the store "next week" if payment wasn't received "by tomorrow." This creates a significant time gap between the demanded payment and the threatened consequence. Robbery requires that the threat create fear of imminent harm - meaning immediate or very near-future danger that compels the victim to comply on the spot.
Answer D correctly identifies that the threatened harm was not imminent. The week-long delay between the payment deadline and the threatened arson means the harm wasn't immediate enough to satisfy the robbery statute's requirements. This would more likely constitute extortion or blackmail, which don't require imminence.
Answer A is wrong because while the taking did occur through a threat that frightened the owner, it ignores the crucial "imminent" element of the statute. Fear alone isn't sufficient - the fear must be of immediate harm.
Answer B incorrectly focuses on the severity of the threatened crime. While arson is indeed serious, the nature of the threatened felony doesn't cure the lack of imminence required for robbery.
Answer C misunderstands the threat analysis. Although the defendant threatened to destroy property, the ultimate harm would endanger the store owner personally, so this isn't the fatal flaw.
Remember: In robbery questions, always check whether the threatened harm is immediate enough to create the "comply or face immediate consequences" scenario that distinguishes robbery from other theft-related crimes.
- What is the client's strongest defense to the burglary charge? Select one.
Answer: That he lacked the intent to commit larceny because he honestly believed the property was his.
The correct answer is B. Larceny, a required element of intent for this burglary charge, is the taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. A valid defense to larceny is a claim of right—a good faith, even if mistaken, belief that the property belongs to the defendant. If the client genuinely believed he was retrieving his own property, he lacked the specific intent to commit larceny, and therefore could not have committed burglary.
(A) is incorrect because even the slightest application of force to gain entry, including manipulating a lock with a credit card, constitutes a "breaking" at common law and under most statutes.
(C) is incorrect as "of another" simply means a dwelling in which someone else has a possessory right, which the friend clearly did.
(D) is incorrect because the statute covers intent to commit any larceny, not just felony larceny. Therefore, the value of the console is irrelevant.
- Is the woman guilty of burglary? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because she remained unlawfully in the building with the intent to commit a crime.
When you encounter burglary questions, focus carefully on the statute's exact elements and how each is satisfied. This statute requires two components: (1) entering OR remaining unlawfully in a building, and (2) intent to commit a crime therein.
The woman satisfies both elements. While her initial entry was lawful during business hours, she remained in the building after closing time without permission by hiding in the restroom. This "remaining unlawfully" satisfies the first element. She then formed the intent to steal clothing while unlawfully present, satisfying the second element. The burglary was complete the moment she remained unlawfully with criminal intent.
Looking at the wrong answers: Choice B incorrectly suggests that burglary requires completion of the underlying crime. Burglary is complete upon unlawful entry or remaining with the requisite intent—no theft need actually occur. Choice C makes the common mistake of focusing only on the initial entry. The statute covers "entering OR remaining unlawfully," so even a lawful entry can become burglary if the person later remains unlawfully with criminal intent. Choice D is wrong because the woman didn't have fraudulent intent when she initially entered—her criminal intent formed later while hiding.
Remember that burglary statutes often use "entering OR remaining unlawfully." Don't get trapped by focusing solely on the initial entry. If someone lawfully enters but then stays beyond their permission with criminal intent, that satisfies the "remaining unlawfully" prong. Always analyze both possibilities when reviewing burglary fact patterns.
