- An accountant at a small company was responsible for managing payroll. The accountant created a fictional employee in the company's payroll system. For six months, the accountant authorized direct deposits for the fictional employee into a bank account that the accountant secretly controlled. In total, the accountant diverted $30,000 of the company's funds.
Answer: Theft, because the accountant exercised control over the company's money with the purpose to deprive it thereof.
Under a consolidated theft statute, the correct answer is simply theft. The purpose of such statutes is to eliminate the need for prosecutors to prove the specific elements of the common law property crimes. The accountant's conduct clearly falls within the broad definition: he exercised control over the company's property (money) with the purpose to deprive the company of it. (B), (C), and (D) are incorrect because they refer to the specific common law crimes that the consolidated statute was designed to replace. While his actions contain elements of both embezzlement (position of trust) and false pretenses (fictional employee), the proper charge under the given statute is the unified crime of theft.
- A disgruntled mailroom clerk decided to steal packages from his employer's office. On Monday, he stole a package containing a tablet valued at $600. On Wednesday, he stole a second package containing a watch valued at $500. On Friday, he stole a third package containing books valued at $50. He was caught before he could take any more. The clerk later admitted that his plan all along was to steal valuable packages until he was caught or fired.
Answer: One count of aggravated theft, because the total value of the stolen items exceeds $1,000.
The correct charge is one count of aggravated theft. The statute allows for aggregation of amounts from thefts committed as part of a single scheme or course of conduct. The clerk's admission that he planned to continue stealing establishes a single scheme. The total value of the stolen items is $600 + $500 + $50 = $1,150, which exceeds the $1,000 threshold for aggravated theft. (B) and (C) are incorrect because they fail to apply the aggregation provision of the statute. (D) is incorrect because it ignores both the aggregation provision and the fact that the total value meets the felony threshold.
- An art enthusiast told a collector that he was a certified appraiser who could determine the value of a rare painting the collector owned. In reality, the enthusiast had no such qualifications. The collector, relying on this misrepresentation, gave the enthusiast the painting to take to his "lab" for a one-day appraisal. The enthusiast immediately sold the painting and fled the jurisdiction. You are a prosecutor reviewing the case.
Answer: The enthusiast has committed theft by deception, because he obtained possession of the painting through a false impression.
The enthusiast is guilty of theft by deception. This crime is the modern equivalent of the common law crimes of larceny by trick and false pretenses. Here, the enthusiast knowingly created the false impression that he was a certified appraiser to induce the collector to hand over the painting. The collector transferred only possession, not title, based on this deception. The enthusiast's subsequent actions clearly show his purpose to deprive the collector of the property. (A) is less accurate; while he did exercise unlawful control, the critical element of the crime was the fraudulent inducement, making theft by deception the most precise charge. (C) is incorrect because consent obtained by fraud is not legally valid. (D) is incorrect because the crime was completed when the enthusiast obtained the painting with the requisite fraudulent intent.
- A con artist, posing as a charity worker, asked a homeowner for a cash donation to a fake children's hospital. The homeowner, moved by the story, handed the con artist a $100 bill. The con artist thanked the homeowner and left with the money. The hospital did not exist.
Answer: Theft by false pretense, because the homeowner was induced by fraud to transfer title to the money.
The correct answer is theft by false pretense. The key distinction between false pretense and larceny by trick is what the victim intends to pass to the defendant. In false pretense, the victim intends to pass title (ownership) to the property. Here, the homeowner intended to make a donation, which means she intended to give the con artist full ownership of the $100 bill so he could pass it to the charity. Because title was intended to pass, the crime is false pretense. (B) is incorrect because larceny by trick applies when the victim is tricked into passing only possession of the property (e.g., for a temporary purpose like a repair). (C) is incorrect because the con artist never had lawful possession; possession was obtained through fraud from the outset. (D) is incorrect because consent induced by fraud is not a valid defense to theft.
- A defendant entered a convenience store, pointed a realistic-looking toy gun at the clerk, and demanded all the money from the register. The clerk, believing the gun was real, was terrified and handed over $300. The defendant then fled.
Answer: Robbery, because the clerk's subjective fear was reasonable under the circumstances.
The defendant has committed robbery. The element of "fear" in a robbery statute refers to the victim's state of mind. As long as the victim's fear is reasonable based on the defendant's actions, the element is satisfied. A realistic toy gun is sufficient to create reasonable fear of imminent harm. The fact that the gun was fake is irrelevant to whether the clerk was put in fear. (A) is incorrect because the use of the toy gun to instill fear elevates the crime from theft to robbery. (C) is a potential additional charge, but many jurisdictions require entry into a building not open to the public for a standard burglary charge. Even if it were applicable, robbery is the most direct crime describing the interaction with the clerk. Robbery is the best answer describing the core criminal conduct. (D) is incorrect because the crime was completed; instilling fear is a substitute for actual force, not a lesser version of it.
- A teenager found a car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. He decided to take it for a "joyride" and drove it to a neighboring city 50 miles away. He planned to abandon the car there and take a bus home. Police stopped him for speeding before he reached the city.
Answer: Theft, because he intended to abandon the car where the owner was unlikely to recover it.
The teenager is guilty of felony theft. While he did not intend to keep the car forever, the intent to permanently deprive can be established by showing that the defendant intended to deal with the property in a way that creates a substantial risk of permanent loss to the owner. Intending to abandon the car 50 miles away, making its recovery by the owner uncertain and difficult, satisfies this element. (B) is incorrect because the distance driven is evidence of intent, but not itself the dispositive element. (C) is incorrect because his actions went beyond mere temporary use; the intent to abandon it far from its original location elevates the crime from unauthorized use to theft. (D) is incorrect because the crime of theft was completed when he took the car with the requisite intent; abandoning it was not required to complete the crime.
- A shopper in a department store saw a designer handbag on a display rack. She took the handbag, concealed it inside her own larger bag, and walked past all points of sale toward the exit. A store security guard stopped her just before she stepped outside the store's front doors. The shopper had not yet left the physical premises of the store.
Answer: Theft, because she exercised control over the handbag with the intent to deprive the store of it.
The shopper is guilty of the completed crime of theft. The element of "exercising control" (or asportation in common law larceny) is satisfied by any movement of the property, however slight, inconsistent with the owner's rights. When the shopper concealed the handbag in her own bag and walked past the cash registers, she exercised sufficient control with the requisite intent to deprive the owner. The crime was complete at that moment. It is not necessary for the defendant to actually leave the store premises. (B) and (C) are incorrect because the crime was already complete; leaving the store is not an element. (D) is incorrect because her actions of concealment and bypassing points of sale are strong circumstantial evidence of her intent to steal, making the crime complete.
- A man took his expensive watch to a jeweler for cleaning. The jeweler, intending to steal the watch, told the man, "This watch needs a special part that I must order. If you sign this 'Service Authorization,' I can get started." The document was actually a bill of sale transferring ownership of the watch to the jeweler for $1. The man, without reading the fine print, signed the document and left the watch. The jeweler immediately sold the watch.
Answer: Larceny by trick, because the man only intended to give the jeweler temporary possession for a cleaning.
The crime is larceny by trick. The determination between false pretenses and larceny by trick hinges on the victim's intent as induced by the fraud. Here, the man was deceived about the nature of the document he was signing. He intended only to authorize a service and transfer temporary possession for that purpose. He never intended to transfer title. Because the fraud procured only possession, the crime is larceny by trick. (A) is incorrect because although a document transferring title was signed, the victim's lack of intent to transfer title is controlling. The fraud was in the inducement to sign the document itself, not just a lie about an external fact. (C) is incorrect because the jeweler obtained possession fraudulently from the outset, so it was never lawful possession. (D) is incorrect because a contract signed as a result of fraud in the factum is void and cannot be the basis for a valid transfer of ownership.
- A landlord and tenant had a dispute over unpaid rent. The lease agreement was silent on the matter of a security deposit lien. Believing he was entitled to hold the tenant's property as security for the back rent, the landlord entered the apartment after the tenant moved out and took a television worth approximately the amount of rent owed. The landlord honestly, but unreasonably, believed he had a legal right to do this.
Answer: The landlord is not guilty of theft, because he acted under an honest claim of right.
The landlord is not guilty of theft because he has a valid claim of right defense. This defense negates the mens rea for theft. The statute requires an "honest claim of right," which is a subjective standard. The landlord's belief does not need to be reasonable, only honest. The facts state he honestly believed he had a right to the property. (A) is incorrect because it applies an incorrect 'reasonableness' standard to the claim of right defense. (B), while a correct statement of civil landlord-tenant law, is not dispositive of the criminal charge, which hinges on the landlord's mental state. His mistaken understanding of civil law supports his honest-but-wrong belief. (D) is incorrect as there is no evidence the tenant intended to abandon the television.
- A man's car was intentionally vandalized, and he correctly identified the vandal. The man confronted the vandal and said, "You caused $2,000 worth of damage to my car. If you don't give me $2,000 by tomorrow, I will report you to the police for vandalism." The vandal, fearing prosecution, gave the man the $2,000.
Answer: The man is not guilty of theft, because his claim to the money was honest and for restitution.
The man is not guilty due to the affirmative defense provided in the statute. The statute criminalizes obtaining property by threat but provides a defense if the property was honestly claimed as restitution for the harm related to the threat. Here, the man honestly believed he was owed $2,000 for the damage the vandal caused, and he sought that exact amount as restitution. Threatening to report a crime is a valid threat under many extortion statutes, but the affirmative defense for claim of right as restitution applies directly to these facts. (A) and (B) are incorrect because they ignore the applicability of the statutory affirmative defense. (D) is plausible but incorrect because the core issue is not the nature of the threat itself, but the specific statutory defense that excuses the conduct when the claim is for honest restitution.
- A man purchased a high-end laptop from a seller in a parking lot for $100. The laptop was new and still in its sealed box; similar models typically retail for $1,500. The man suspected the laptop was stolen but was not certain. The next day, feeling guilty, he looked up the serial number online and confirmed it had been reported stolen from a recent burglary. He then took the laptop to the police station and turned it in.
Answer: The man is guilty of receiving stolen property because he believed it was probably stolen at the time of purchase.
The man is guilty of receiving stolen property. The statute's mens rea element is satisfied if the person knows the property is stolen OR believes it has probably been stolen. The facts—a new $1,500 laptop being sold for $100 in a parking lot—are sufficient to establish that he believed it was probably stolen at the moment of the transaction. The crime was complete at that point. (A) is incorrect because his guilt was established at the time of purchase, not when he later confirmed his suspicion. (C) is incorrect because his subsequent decision to turn it in does not negate the completed crime. The statutory exception applies only if the purpose at the time of receipt was to restore it to the owner, which was not his purpose. (D) is incorrect because the statute explicitly includes 'believing that it has probably been stolen,' which is a lower standard than actual knowledge.
- A woman found a valuable purebred dog wandering in her neighborhood. The dog had a collar with its owner's name and phone number. The woman took the dog to her home and called the owner. She told the owner, "I have your dog, and it looks like a very expensive one. I'll return it to you for a $500 reward." The owner refused to pay and called the police.
Answer: The woman has committed theft, because she intended to keep the dog unless she was paid a reward.
The woman has committed theft. The requisite intent to permanently deprive is met here. She did not have the intent to return the dog unconditionally. Instead, she conditioned its return on the payment of a reward. Under the provided judicial interpretation (and the common law), intending to hold property for a reward is equivalent to an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. (B) is incorrect because her conditional intent to return the property is legally sufficient for the 'intent to permanently deprive' element. (C) is incorrect because while finders of lost property may sometimes be entitled to a reward, demanding one as a condition of return constitutes theft. (D) is incorrect because the crime was complete when she formed the intent to hold the dog for a reward, which is a form of exercising unlawful control with the intent to permanently deprive.
- A pickpocket skillfully lifted a wallet from a man's back pocket in a crowded subway car. The man did not notice the wallet was missing until several minutes later, after the pickpocket had already exited the train. The pickpocket was later identified and arrested. The wallet contained $200.
Answer: Theft, because there was no use of force or instillation of fear to accomplish the taking.
The pickpocket is guilty of theft, not robbery. Robbery requires that the taking be accomplished by force or fear. In this case, the taking was accomplished by stealth and skill, not by overcoming the victim's resistance or threatening him. The victim was unaware the crime was even happening. Therefore, the essential elements of force or fear are missing. (A) and (B) are incorrect because while the taking was from the victim's person and presence, the absence of force or fear means the crime cannot be robbery. (D) is incorrect because the facts do not support an attempt to commit robbery; the pickpocket's method was inherently non-forceful and non-threatening, meaning he never intended to commit robbery.
- A corporate treasurer was given a blank, signed company check by the CEO with instructions to fill it out for $5,000 payable to a vendor. The treasurer, who was in debt, instead made the check payable to himself for $15,000, cashed it, and used the money to pay his gambling debts. The vendor was never paid.
Answer: Embezzlement, because the treasurer was in lawful possession of the check before misappropriating the funds.
The treasurer has committed embezzlement. The key distinction between embezzlement and larceny is the defendant's possession of the property at the time of the taking. For embezzlement, the defendant must have lawful possession of the property which they then fraudulently convert. Here, the treasurer was entrusted with and had lawful possession of the signed check. He abused that trust by fraudulently converting the company's funds (by making the check out for an unauthorized amount to himself) for his own use. (A) is incorrect. This is not larceny because the treasurer's initial possession of the check was lawful, not trespassory. The crime was the conversion, not the initial taking. (C) is incorrect because exceeding the scope of his authority for a fraudulent purpose negates any defense based on apparent authority. (D) is incorrect because the crimes are typically mutually exclusive; the taking cannot be both trespassory (larceny) and from a position of trust (embezzlement).
- A mechanic repaired a client's car, and the bill was $1,000. The client paid only $500, disputing the quality of the work. That night, the mechanic went to the client's home, saw a set of expensive golf clubs on the porch, and took them. The mechanic left a note saying, "I'll return these when you pay the $500 you owe me." The golf clubs were worth about $500.
Answer: Theft, because the claim of right defense only applies if the mechanic believed he owned those specific clubs.
The mechanic is guilty of theft. The claim of right defense is very narrow. It applies only when a defendant takes property under the honest belief that they have a right to that specific piece of property. It does not allow a person to take someone else's property as collateral for a disputed debt. The mechanic had no ownership claim to the golf clubs themselves. (A) is correct in its outcome but its reasoning is less precise than (B). (C) is incorrect because it misapplies the claim of right defense; the mechanic's belief must relate to the specific property taken, not just a general debt. (D) is incorrect because holding property hostage until a debt is paid is a form of intent to permanently deprive, as it conditions return on an act the owner is not obligated to perform.
- A man saw a woman leave her front door unlocked. He entered the house, intending to steal her television. As he was unplugging it, the woman returned and confronted him. The man pushed the woman to the ground, ran out of the house with the television, and escaped. The woman suffered minor scrapes.
Answer: Both burglary and robbery.
The man has committed both burglary and robbery. The burglary was complete the moment he entered the dwelling with the intent to commit a theft. The subsequent events do not negate the completed burglary. The robbery occurred when he used force (pushing the woman) to complete the theft of the television from her presence. The force was used to retain the property immediately after the taking, which is sufficient for robbery. Because the elements for both distinct crimes were met, he can be convicted of both. (A) and (B) are incorrect because they are incomplete; he committed both crimes. (D) is incorrect because the use of force to accomplish the theft elevates the crime from simple theft to robbery, and his entry with felonious intent constitutes burglary.
- A man broke into a residence at night, intending to steal electronics. Once inside, he was confronted by the homeowner and fled empty-handed. The police apprehended him a few blocks away. The prosecutor is deciding what charges to file.
Answer: Burglary only, because he did not actually take any property from the residence.
The man is guilty of burglary. Burglary is complete upon unlawful entry with intent to commit a crime inside, regardless of whether the underlying crime is completed. Here, the man unlawfully entered with intent to steal, satisfying all elements of burglary. (B) is incorrect because burglary is the completed, more serious offense that encompasses his criminal conduct. (C) is incorrect because while both charges might technically apply, burglary is the primary offense and attempted theft would typically be subsumed or charged as a lesser-included offense. (D) is incorrect because completion of the underlying crime is not required for burglary.
- A defendant snatched a woman's purse from her shoulder as she was walking down the street. The woman was surprised but not injured, and the force used by the defendant was only that necessary to detach the purse from her shoulder. The defendant was apprehended a block away with the purse, which contained $500.
Answer: Theft, because the force used was not more than necessary to effectuate the taking.
The correct answer is theft. Most jurisdictions hold that the force required for robbery must be more than the minimal force necessary to take property from a victim's person. Purse snatching without additional violence typically constitutes theft, not robbery. The statute requires force or threat, but mere snatching does not meet the legal standard for sufficient 'force.' (A) is incorrect because taking from the person is necessary but not sufficient for robbery. (B) is incorrect because it misstates the majority rule regarding the level of force required. (D) is incorrect because while accurate about the lack of threat, it fails to address the primary issue of whether sufficient force was used.
- A woman entered a full-service restaurant and ordered a large meal. After she finished eating, she walked to the restroom. Instead of returning to her table, she exited the restaurant through a back door without paying her bill. When caught, she admitted she never had any money and had no intention of paying for the meal.
Answer: Theft of services, because her actions were intended to avoid payment for the restaurant service.
The woman has committed theft of services. While she consumed food (property), the essence of the crime in a restaurant context is avoiding payment for the service of preparing and serving the meal. The statute for theft of services directly applies: she knew the service required compensation, and she secured it by an implicit deception (pretending to be a paying customer) with the intent to avoid payment. (A) is less accurate. While food is property, the specific statute for theft of services is designed for this type of scenario, making it the more appropriate charge. (C) is incorrect; there is no implicit extension of credit when a customer has a preconceived intent not to pay. (D) is incorrect because the crime was completed. Her admission of her intent from the beginning solidifies that she secured the services fraudulently, not merely that she decided not to pay at the end.
- A man entered a high-end electronics store and picked up a laptop with a price tag of $1,200. He walked around the store for several minutes before approaching a cashier. He then told the cashier that he had purchased the laptop last week and wanted to return it, presenting a forged receipt. The cashier became suspicious and called a manager, at which point the man dropped the laptop on the counter and fled the store.
Answer: Theft by deception, by attempting to obtain money through a fraudulent return.
The most accurate charge is attempted theft by deception (or false pretenses). The man's actions were not aimed at simply taking the laptop without paying (shoplifting). His plan was to use the laptop (which he did not own) to fraudulently obtain money from the store by pretending to make a return. The essence of his crime was the deception intended to cause the store to give him money. Since he was stopped before the store gave him any money, the crime is an attempt. (A) is incorrect because his intent was not merely to convert the laptop, but to use it as a prop in a scheme to get cash. (B) is also less accurate for the same reason. (D) is incorrect because abandonment is not a defense after a defendant has taken a substantial step toward committing a crime, which he clearly did by presenting the item and a forged receipt.
