Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Theft Crimes

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Theft CrimesQuestion 1 of 20

Under a jurisdiction's law, a person commits the crime of false pretenses when they (1) obtain title to the property of another, (2) by an intentional false statement of past or existing fact, (3) with intent to defraud the other. A person commits larceny by trick when they obtain possession, but not title, through similar fraudulent means.

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.

False pretenses, because the man signed a document transferring title to the jeweler.

Larceny by trick, because the man only intended to give the jeweler temporary possession for a cleaning.

Embezzlement, because the jeweler was lawfully entrusted with the watch for the purpose of cleaning it.

No crime, because the signed bill of sale is legally binding and transferred ownership of the watch.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Theft Crimes

Practice Theft Crimes 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 Theft Crimes, 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

False pretenses, because the man signed a document transferring title to the jeweler.
Larceny by trick, because the man only intended to give the jeweler temporary possession for a cleaning. (correct answer)
Embezzlement, because the jeweler was lawfully entrusted with the watch for the purpose of cleaning it.
No crime, because the signed bill of sale is legally binding and transferred ownership of the watch.

Explanation: 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.

Question 2

A state's penal code provides: "A person commits theft by deception if he purposely obtains property of another by deception. A person deceives if he knowingly creates or reinforces a false impression." The code also provides: "A person commits theft by unlawful taking if he unlawfully takes movable property of another with purpose to permanently deprive him thereof."

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.

The enthusiast has committed theft by unlawful taking, because he exercised unlawful control over the painting.
The enthusiast has committed theft by deception, because he obtained possession of the painting through a false impression. (correct answer)
The enthusiast has not committed theft, because the collector voluntarily consented to give him the painting.
The enthusiast has committed only attempted theft, because the final sale was a separate act from the initial taking.

Explanation: 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.

Question 3

A jurisdiction's theft statute provides: "A person commits theft if they obtain property of another by threatening to inflict bodily injury on anyone or commit any other criminal offense. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the property obtained was honestly claimed as restitution or indemnification for harm done in the circumstances to which the threat relates."

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.

The man is guilty of theft, because he obtained property by threatening to commit a criminal offense.
The man is guilty of theft, because a threat to report a crime to the police is sufficient for extortion.
The man is not guilty of theft, because his claim to the money was honest and for restitution. (correct answer)
The man is not guilty of theft, because reporting a crime to the police is a civic duty, not a criminal offense.

Explanation: 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.

Question 4

A state's criminal code includes the following provisions. Aggravated Theft: "A person commits aggravated theft, a felony, if they commit theft of property with a value of $1,000 or more." Theft: "A person commits theft, a misdemeanor, if they knowingly exercise control over property of another without consent and with intent to deprive the owner thereof." The code also states: "Amounts involved in thefts committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense."

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.

One count of aggravated theft, because the total value of the stolen items exceeds $1,000. (correct answer)
Two counts of misdemeanor theft, because the first two thefts were of items valued under $1,000.
Three separate counts of misdemeanor theft, because each taking was a distinct act.
One count of misdemeanor theft, because no single item was valued at over $1,000.

Explanation: 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.

Question 5

A jurisdiction's statute on receiving stolen property states: "A person is guilty of receiving stolen property if he receives, retains, or disposes of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed of with purpose to restore it to the owner."

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.

The man is guilty of receiving stolen property because he retained it after confirming it was stolen.
The man is guilty of receiving stolen property because he believed it was probably stolen at the time of purchase. (correct answer)
The man is not guilty, because he ultimately turned the property in to the police.
The man is not guilty, because he only suspected the property was stolen and did not have actual knowledge.

Explanation: 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.

Question 6

A jurisdiction's criminal code defines theft of services as: "A person commits theft of services if, with intent to avoid payment for service that he knows is provided only for compensation, he knowingly secures the performance of the service by deception or other means to avoid payment." The code separately defines theft of property.

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.

Theft of property, because she consumed food which is tangible property.
Theft of services, because her actions were intended to avoid payment for the restaurant service. (correct answer)
Neither crime, because the restaurant implicitly extended her credit until the bill was presented.
Attempted theft of services, because she could have changed her mind and returned to pay.

Explanation: 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.

Question 7

A state's criminal code provides: "A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully exercises control over movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof. It is not a defense that the theft was from the person of another, or from a building."

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.

Theft, because she exercised control over the handbag with the intent to deprive the store of it. (correct answer)
Attempted theft, because she was stopped before she could leave the store with the handbag.
Attempted theft, because she had not yet passed the store's property line.
No crime, because she never left the store and could have decided to pay for the item.

Explanation: 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.

Question 8

The enthusiast has committed theft by unlawful taking, because he exercised unlawful control over the painting.
The enthusiast has committed theft by deception, because he obtained possession of the painting through a false impression. (correct answer)
The enthusiast has not committed theft, because the collector voluntarily consented to give him the painting.
The enthusiast has committed only attempted theft, because the final sale was a separate act from the initial taking.

Question 9

A state statute defines embezzlement as follows: "A person is guilty of embezzlement if, having been entrusted with the property of another, he fraudulently converts such property to his own use." The same state defines larceny as "the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof."

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.

Larceny, because the treasurer took more money than he was authorized to receive.
Embezzlement, because the treasurer was in lawful possession of the check before misappropriating the funds. (correct answer)
Neither larceny nor embezzlement, because the CEO's signature gave the treasurer apparent authority to cash the check.
Both larceny and embezzlement, because the elements of both offenses were met by his single course of conduct.

Explanation: 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).

Question 10

Theft of property, because she consumed food which is tangible property.
Theft of services, because her actions were intended to avoid payment for the restaurant service. (correct answer)
Neither crime, because the restaurant implicitly extended her credit until the bill was presented.
Attempted theft of services, because she could have changed her mind and returned to pay.

Question 11

A jurisdiction defines burglary as "entering a dwelling of another without consent and with the intent to commit a felony or any theft therein." Separately, it defines robbery as "theft from a person by use of force."

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.

Burglary, because he entered the dwelling with the intent to commit a theft.
Robbery, because he used force to take the television from the woman's presence.
Both burglary and robbery. (correct answer)
Theft and battery, but not robbery or burglary.

Explanation: 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.

Question 12

You are a prosecutor in a jurisdiction where theft is defined as "knowingly obtaining or exercising unauthorized control over the property of another, with a purpose to deprive the owner thereof." An affirmative defense is provided for a defendant who "acted under an honest claim of right to the property involved."

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.

The landlord is guilty of theft, because his belief in his right to the property was unreasonable.
The landlord is guilty of theft, because a landlord cannot use self-help to recover unpaid rent.
The landlord is not guilty of theft, because he acted under an honest claim of right. (correct answer)
The landlord is not guilty of theft, because the tenant had abandoned the property by moving out.

Explanation: 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.

Question 13

Larceny, because the treasurer took more money than he was authorized to receive.
Embezzlement, because the treasurer was in lawful possession of the check before misappropriating the funds. (correct answer)
Neither larceny nor embezzlement, because the CEO's signature gave the treasurer apparent authority to cash the check.
Both larceny and embezzlement, because the elements of both offenses were met by his single course of conduct.

Question 14

Theft, because she exercised control over the handbag with the intent to deprive the store of it. (correct answer)
Attempted theft, because she was stopped before she could leave the store with the handbag.
Attempted theft, because she had not yet passed the store's property line.
No crime, because she never left the store and could have decided to pay for the item.

Question 15

A state statute defines shoplifting as "willfully taking possession of any merchandise offered for sale in a retail establishment with the intention of converting the same to one's own use without paying the purchase price thereof." The statute is graded as a felony if the value of the merchandise exceeds $500.

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.

Shoplifting, because he willfully took possession of merchandise with intent to convert it.
Attempted shoplifting, because he was thwarted before he could complete the fraudulent return.
Theft by deception, by attempting to obtain money through a fraudulent return. (correct answer)
No crime, because he never left the store with the merchandise and abandoned his plan.

Explanation: 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.

Question 16

A state penal code defines unauthorized use of a vehicle as "intentionally taking or operating another's vehicle without the owner's consent." This is a misdemeanor. The same code defines theft as "unlawfully taking another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property." Theft of a vehicle is a felony.

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.

Theft, because he intended to abandon the car where the owner was unlikely to recover it. (correct answer)
Theft, because driving the car 50 miles away constitutes exercising permanent control over it.
Unauthorized use of a vehicle, because he did not intend to permanently keep the car.
Attempted theft, because he was stopped before he could complete his plan to abandon the car.

Explanation: 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.

Question 17

A jurisdiction's criminal code defines theft as follows: "A person is guilty of theft if they unlawfully take, or exercise unlawful control over, movable property of another with purpose to deprive them thereof." The code further defines robbery as "theft from the person of another by force or by threatening another with imminent serious bodily injury."

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.

Robbery, because the property was taken directly from the victim's person.
Robbery, because any force used to overcome the victim's control over property is sufficient.
Theft, because the force used was not more than necessary to effectuate the taking. (correct answer)
Theft, because the defendant did not threaten the victim with serious bodily injury.

Explanation: 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.

Question 18

A state's criminal code defines theft as "exercising control over property of another with intent to deprive." It also has a "claim of right" defense, stating: "It is an affirmative defense that the actor honestly believed he was entitled to the specific property he took."

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.

Theft, because taking the golf clubs to secure a debt constitutes an intent to deprive.
Theft, because the claim of right defense only applies if the mechanic believed he owned those specific clubs. (correct answer)
Not theft, because the mechanic honestly believed he was entitled to property worth $500 from the client.
Not theft, because the mechanic did not intend to permanently keep the golf clubs.

Explanation: 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.

Question 19

The man is guilty of theft, because he obtained property by threatening to commit a criminal offense.
The man is guilty of theft, because a threat to report a crime to the police is sufficient for extortion.
The man is not guilty of theft, because his claim to the money was honest and for restitution. (correct answer)
The man is not guilty of theft, because reporting a crime to the police is a civic duty, not a criminal offense.

Question 20

A jurisdiction has a consolidated theft statute that provides: "A person is guilty of theft if he obtains or exercises control over property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof." The statute eliminates the traditional distinctions between larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses.

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.

Theft, because the accountant exercised control over the company's money with the purpose to deprive it thereof. (correct answer)
Embezzlement, because the accountant was entrusted with control over the company's payroll funds.
False pretenses, because the accountant made a false representation that a fictional person was a real employee.
Larceny, because the company never authorized payment to a fictional employee.

Explanation: 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.