Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Burglary And Robbery

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Burglary And RobberyQuestion 1 of 20

A statute defines burglary as "entering or remaining unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein." A woman entered a department store during business hours, which was legally permissible. She hid in a restroom until the store closed and all employees had left. She then emerged with the intent to steal clothing. Before she could take anything, she was apprehended by a silent alarm system.

Is the woman guilty of burglary? Select one.

Yes, because she remained unlawfully in the building with the intent to commit a crime.

No, because she was apprehended before she could commit the intended crime of theft.

No, because her initial entry into the store was lawful.

Yes, because her fraudulent intent at the time of entry made her initial entry unlawful.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Burglary And Robbery

Practice Burglary And Robbery in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Burglary And Robbery, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Is the woman guilty of burglary? Select one.

Yes, because she remained unlawfully in the building with the intent to commit a crime. (correct answer)
No, because she was apprehended before she could commit the intended crime of theft.
No, because her initial entry into the store was lawful.
Yes, because her fraudulent intent at the time of entry made her initial entry unlawful.

Explanation: 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.

Question 2

A jurisdiction defines robbery as "the taking of property from the person or immediate presence of another, accomplished by means of force or fear." A woman was sitting on a park bench with her purse on the ground next to her foot. A man ran by, grabbed the purse, and kept running. The woman was startled and yelled, but the man used no force other than the action of snatching the purse and did not threaten her.

Based on these facts, which of the following is the most accurate statement? Select one.

The man is guilty of robbery because the taking was from the victim's immediate presence.
The man is guilty of robbery because the suddenness of the act was sufficient to instill fear.
The man is not guilty of robbery because the purse was on the ground, not on the victim's person.
The man is not guilty of robbery because the force used was not sufficient to overcome resistance. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 3

A defendant threatened a store owner, stating, "If you don't give me $1,000 by tomorrow, I'll burn this store down next week." The store owner, genuinely frightened, went to the bank, withdrew $1,000, and gave it to the defendant. The governing robbery statute requires "a taking of property from another by a threat of imminent harm or injury."

Is the defendant guilty of robbery under the statute? Select one.

Yes, because the taking was accomplished through a threat that put the owner in fear.
Yes, because the threat involved arson, which is a serious felony.
No, because the threat was to property rather than to a person.
No, because the threatened harm was not imminent. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 4

Is the woman guilty of burglary? Select one.

Yes, because she remained unlawfully in the building with the intent to commit a crime. (correct answer)
No, because she was apprehended before she could commit the intended crime of theft.
No, because her initial entry into the store was lawful.
Yes, because her fraudulent intent at the time of entry made her initial entry unlawful.

Question 5

Based on these facts, which of the following is the most accurate statement? Select one.

The man is guilty of robbery because the taking was from the victim's immediate presence.
The man is guilty of robbery because the suddenness of the act was sufficient to instill fear.
The man is not guilty of robbery because the purse was on the ground, not on the victim's person.
The man is not guilty of robbery because the force used was not sufficient to overcome resistance. (correct answer)

Question 6

Is the defendant guilty of robbery under the statute? Select one.

Yes, because the taking was accomplished through a threat that put the owner in fear.
Yes, because the threat involved arson, which is a serious felony.
No, because the threat was to property rather than to a person.
No, because the threatened harm was not imminent. (correct answer)

Question 7

A pickpocket skillfully removed 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 relevant statute states that "robbery is the taking of property from the person of another, against his will, by means of force or violence or by putting him in fear."

Is the pickpocket guilty of robbery under the statute? Select one.

No, because the taking was accomplished by stealth rather than by force or by putting the victim in fear. (correct answer)
Yes, because any non-consensual physical contact during a theft constitutes sufficient force.
Yes, because the property was taken directly from the victim's person.
No, because the victim was not aware of the taking at the moment it occurred.

Explanation: 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.

Question 8

A state law defines burglary as "breaking and entering a building with the intent to commit a felony inside." An activist, intending to commit the felony of criminal damage by destroying computer servers, gained access to a corporate office building by telling the security guard he was a pizza delivery person. The guard let him in. The activist was caught before he reached the server room.

Did the activist commit burglary? Select one.

No, because he did not physically break anything to gain entry.
No, because he was caught before he could commit the underlying felony.
Yes, because gaining entry by fraud or trickery constitutes a constructive breaking. (correct answer)
Yes, because he had the specific intent to commit a felony inside the building.

Explanation: 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.

Question 9

A man entered a small grocery store, pointed a realistic-looking toy gun at the cashier, and demanded all the money from the register. The cashier, believing the gun was real, was terrified and handed over $500. The man took the money and fled. The relevant statute defines robbery as "the taking of property from another's person or presence by instilling fear of imminent bodily harm."

Under the statute, is the man guilty of robbery? Select one.

No, because he used a toy gun, so there was no actual ability to cause bodily harm.
No, unless the cashier's fear was objectively reasonable for a person in his position.
Yes, because the cashier genuinely believed the gun was real and was placed in fear. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the man could also be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.

Explanation: 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.

Question 10

A state's penal code defines aggravated robbery as "robbery committed while armed with a deadly weapon." A defendant committed a robbery using a large, heavy, but unloaded handgun to threaten the victim. The defendant knew the gun was unloaded. The victim, who believed the gun was loaded, complied with the defendant's demands. A separate statute defines a "deadly weapon" as "any firearm, or other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury."

Is the defendant guilty of aggravated robbery? Select one.

No, because the gun was unloaded and therefore not capable of causing death in the manner it was used.
No, because the defendant did not intend to use the gun as a deadly weapon.
Yes, because the victim reasonably believed the gun was a deadly weapon.
Yes, because a firearm is defined as a deadly weapon per se, regardless of whether it is loaded. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 11

A defendant entered a jewelry store and asked to see a diamond ring. When the jeweler placed the ring on the counter, the defendant grabbed it and ran for the door. The jeweler, a frail elderly man, did not try to stop the defendant, saying later, "I was afraid he might have a weapon or push me down, so I just let him go." The defendant made no verbal threats and displayed no weapon. The jurisdiction's robbery statute requires a taking by "force or by putting the victim in fear of immediate injury."

Is the defendant likely guilty of robbery? Select one.

No, because the jeweler's fear was purely subjective and not caused by any threatening action. (correct answer)
No, because the defendant used no force beyond that necessary to take the ring.
Yes, because the taking was accomplished by creating a situation that put a reasonable person in fear.
Yes, because taking property in the jeweler's presence and running away implies a threat of force.

Explanation: 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.

Question 12

A jurisdiction's penal code defines burglary as "entering a dwelling of another without authority and with the intent to commit a crime inside." A college student shared an off-campus apartment with a roommate. After a falling out, the roommate moved out and told the student, "I'm gone for good, don't ever expect to see me again." The roommate, however, was still named on the lease. A week later, the roommate used his old key to enter the apartment with the intent to steal the student's expensive textbook.

Has the roommate committed burglary? Select one.

No, because as a named lessee, he had authority to enter the apartment.
No, because he used his own key and therefore did not make an unauthorized entry.
Yes, because he had abandoned his possessory interest and entered with criminal intent. (correct answer)
Yes, because his intent to steal vitiated his authority to enter the premises.

Explanation: 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.

Question 13

A defendant entered a home through an unlocked back door, intending to steal a television. As he was unplugging the television, the homeowner confronted him. The defendant, surprised, pushed the homeowner aside and fled the house without the television. The state has a statute defining robbery as "the use of force or intimidation in the course of committing a theft." The statute defines "in the course of committing a theft" as conduct occurring in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in the immediate flight after the attempt or commission.

Is the defendant guilty of robbery? Select one.

No, because he did not successfully complete the theft of the television.
No, because the force was not used to obtain the property, but only to escape.
Yes, because he used force in the immediate flight after attempting to commit a theft. (correct answer)
Yes, because his initial unlawful entry constituted a breach of the peace that elevated the crime.

Explanation: 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.

Question 14

Is the defendant guilty of aggravated robbery? Select one.

No, because the gun was unloaded and therefore not capable of causing death in the manner it was used.
No, because the defendant did not intend to use the gun as a deadly weapon.
Yes, because the victim reasonably believed the gun was a deadly weapon.
Yes, because a firearm is defined as a deadly weapon per se, regardless of whether it is loaded. (correct answer)

Question 15

A state penal code defines burglary as "entering any vehicle when the doors are locked, with intent to commit any felony or theft." At night in a parking lot, a man saw a laptop on the passenger seat of a car. He tried the car door, found it was unlocked, and opened it. He then reached in, took the laptop, and left. The car's owner had forgotten to lock the doors.

Under the statute, is the man guilty of burglary? Select one.

Yes, because he entered a vehicle with the intent to commit a theft.
Yes, because entering an unlocked car at night constitutes a constructive breaking.
No, because the statute specifically requires that the vehicle's doors be locked. (correct answer)
No, because he did not enter the vehicle with his whole body.

Explanation: 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.

Question 16

A jurisdiction's penal code defines burglary as "unlawfully entering a structure with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein." A man, seeking shelter from a blizzard, found an unlocked door to a commercial warehouse and went inside. His sole intention upon entering was to stay warm until the storm passed. Several hours later, while exploring the warehouse, he discovered a pallet of expensive electronics. He then formed the intent to steal a computer, which he concealed under his coat before leaving.

Is the man guilty of burglary under the jurisdiction's penal code? Select one.

No, because he did not possess the intent to commit a theft at the moment he entered the warehouse. (correct answer)
Yes, because his unauthorized entry constituted a trespass, satisfying the unlawful entry element.
Yes, because he unlawfully entered a structure and subsequently committed a theft.
No, because a commercial warehouse does not qualify as a "structure" for the purposes of the burglary statute.

Explanation: 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.

Question 17

A woman shoplifted a designer handbag from a department store by hiding it in her coat. As she passed the last point of sale and headed for the exit, a store security guard stepped in front of her. To get away, the woman shoved the guard to the ground and ran out of the store with the handbag. The jurisdiction defines robbery as "the taking of property from the person or presence of another by use of force or fear, where the force is used to effectuate the taking or to retain the property immediately after the taking."

Is the woman guilty of robbery? Select one.

No, because the force was used to facilitate her escape, not to take the property.
No, because the security guard was not the owner of the handbag.
Yes, because she used force to retain possession of the property immediately after the taking. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the security guard suffered a physical injury from being shoved.

Explanation: 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.

Question 18

A jurisdiction has the following statutes: "Burglary is entering a dwelling at night with intent to commit a felony therein." and "Aggravated burglary is burglary of a dwelling occupied by a non-participant." A defendant broke into a home at 1:00 AM, believing the residents were on vacation. He intended to steal jewelry. Unbeknownst to the defendant, the homeowner's teenage daughter was asleep in her bedroom. The defendant stole several items from the living room and left without ever becoming aware of the daughter's presence.

Of which crime is the defendant most likely guilty? Select one.

Burglary, but not aggravated burglary, because he did not know the dwelling was occupied.
Aggravated burglary, because the dwelling was, in fact, occupied at the time of the entry. (correct answer)
Attempted burglary, because he did not complete his crime in the presence of the occupant.
Larceny only, because he took steps to ensure the dwelling was unoccupied.

Explanation: 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.

Question 19

You are representing a client charged with burglary. The client went to a former friend's house to retrieve a video game console that he claimed was his. Finding the door locked, he used a credit card to slip the lock and entered the house. He took only the video game console and left. The jurisdiction defines burglary as "breaking and entering the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a felony or any larceny therein." The client sincerely believed he had a right to the console.

What is the client's strongest defense to the burglary charge? Select one.

That his entry was not a "breaking" because he did not damage the lock.
That he lacked the intent to commit larceny because he honestly believed the property was his. (correct answer)
That the dwelling belonged to a former friend, not "another" in the adversarial sense.
That he did not intend to commit a felony, and the value of the console was below the felony larceny threshold.

Explanation: 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.

Question 20

A man snatched a woman's purse from her grasp as she was walking down the street. The woman held on tightly, and a brief struggle ensued before the man overpowered her and ran off with the purse. A local ordinance defines robbery as "a taking from the person of another accomplished by force sufficient to overcome the victim's resistance." The woman was not injured.

Is the man guilty of robbery under the ordinance? Select one.

No, because the woman was not injured during the struggle.
No, because the force used was minimal and did not involve a weapon.
Yes, but only if the value of the purse and its contents exceeds the threshold for felony theft.
Yes, because he used physical force to overpower the victim's active resistance to the taking. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.