Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Theft

11 questions · exam conditions

0:00

TheftQuestion 1 of 11

Section 617.4 of the state criminal code provides:

A person commits receiving stolen property if he receives, retains, or disposes of property of another knowing or believing that the property has been stolen, and with intent to deprive the owner of the property. Property is 'stolen' if it was obtained by theft, robbery, burglary, or extortion. Property ceases to be 'stolen' when the owner or a law enforcement officer acting on the owner's behalf recovers the property and regains dominion over it.

B burglarizes V's home and steals V's laptop. B sells the laptop to F, a dealer in stolen goods. Police arrest F, recover the laptop on V's behalf, and take it into custody at the police station. An undercover officer, posing as F, later sells the laptop to D for $300, telling D it was stolen. D knows the laptop was stolen and buys it. D is charged with receiving stolen property under Section 617.4.

Should D be convicted of receiving stolen property?

No, because D paid $300 for the laptop and therefore lacked the intent to deprive the owner of it.

Yes, because D knew the laptop had been stolen and purchased it with intent to deprive the owner of it.

No, because the laptop ceased to be 'stolen' when the police recovered it and regained dominion over it, before D received it.

Yes, because the laptop was stolen when B took it from V's home, and that status was not affected by the later police recovery.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Theft

Practice Theft in Bar Exam (Next Generation) 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, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

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

Section 617.4 of the state criminal code provides:

Should D be convicted of receiving stolen property?

No, because D paid $300 for the laptop and therefore lacked the intent to deprive the owner of it.
Yes, because D knew the laptop had been stolen and purchased it with intent to deprive the owner of it.
No, because the laptop ceased to be 'stolen' when the police recovered it and regained dominion over it, before D received it. (correct answer)
Yes, because the laptop was stolen when B took it from V's home, and that status was not affected by the later police recovery.

Explanation: A conviction under Section 617.4 requires two things to exist at the moment D receives the property: D must know it was stolen, and the property must actually still be "stolen" under the statutory definition. Whenever a statute defines when property ceases to be stolen, trace the property's status through every transfer before the defendant's receipt. Here, the laptop was stolen when B burglarized V's home. But the statute says property ceases to be "stolen" when law enforcement, acting on the owner's behalf, recovers it and regains dominion. The police recovered the laptop, took custody, and later had the undercover officer sell it. Therefore, before D ever bought it, the laptop was no longer "stolen" in the legal sense. D cannot be convicted, despite knowing it had originally been stolen. The choice "No, because D paid $300 and therefore lacked the intent to deprive the owner" is wrong: paying for stolen goods does not negate intent to deprive, and the real defect is the property's status, not D's intent. The choice "Yes, because D knew the laptop was stolen and purchased it with intent to deprive" is wrong because it ignores the statutory cessation; knowledge and intent alone cannot satisfy a definition that requires the property to be "stolen" at receipt. Finally, "Yes, because the laptop was stolen when B took it and that status was not affected by later police recovery" directly contradicts the statute's explicit rule that police recovery ends stolen status. Strategy: when a statute defines terms or ending points, always apply those definitions to the exact time of the defendant's act — here, receipt.

Question 2

Section 721.3 of the state criminal code provides:

A person commits extortion if he obtains property from another with the other's consent, when the consent is induced by a wrongful use of fear, including fear of physical injury, fear of damage to property, fear of accusation of a crime, or fear of exposure of a secret. A use of fear is wrongful if the actor has no honest claim of right to the property obtained. It is not a defense that the accusation or exposure threatened was true or that the actor was lawfully entitled to make it.

V, a cashier, has been stealing cash from her employer, a grocery store. D, a coworker, discovers V's thefts. D tells V, 'Give me $2,000 or I will report you to the store manager and the police.' V, afraid of being fired and prosecuted, pays D $2,000. D is charged with extortion under Section 721.3.

Is D guilty of extortion?

Yes, because V's consent was induced by fear of accusation of a crime, and the statute provides that the truth of the accusation is not a defense. (correct answer)
No, because D threatened only to report V's actual crime, and threatening to report a crime the victim committed is a lawful means of obtaining redress.
No, because V consented to pay the $2,000, and voluntary consent negates extortion unless it is induced by force or a threat of force.
No, because D did not threaten physical harm, and extortion requires a threat of immediate physical harm to the victim or her property.

Explanation: Whenever you see an extortion question, your first move should be to check the statutory definition: Did the defendant obtain property with consent that was induced by a wrongful use of fear? Here, D used V's fear of being reported for theft to obtain $2,000. The statute expressly lists “fear of accusation of a crime” as a covered fear, and it says the truth of the accusation is not a defense. D also had no honest claim of right to V’s money—he was not owed $2,000—so the threat was wrongful. Therefore, D is guilty. The answer claiming D is not guilty because he only threatened to report an actual crime, and that is a lawful means of redress, misses the statute's explicit rule: truth is not a defense when the fear is used to obtain property to which the actor has no honest claim. The answer saying V consented and voluntary consent negates extortion unless force is threatened is also wrong: consent induced by wrongful fear is exactly what the statute forbids, and it does not require force or threat of force. Finally, the answer saying extortion requires a threat of immediate physical harm misreads the statute—it covers fear of accusation and exposure of secrets, not just physical harm. For the exam, remember this pattern: extortion turns on the wrongfulness of the fear and lack of honest claim, not on whether the threatened disclosure is true or whether physical harm was threatened.

Question 3

In State v. Lindgren, the state supreme court held:

Embezzlement requires a fraudulent conversion of entrusted property. A conversion is not fraudulent if, at the time of the initial taking, the actor intends to restore the identical property to the owner and has a reasonable prospect of doing so. But if the actor later uses the property in a manner substantially inconsistent with the owner's rights, he commits a fraudulent conversion at the time of that later use, and his earlier intent to restore does not negate liability. The owner is entitled to the return of the identical property;the actor's intention to substitute funds of his own does not satisfy that right.

D, an accounts-receivable clerk, is entrusted with depositing his employer's daily cash receipts. On Friday, D takes $4,000 of the receipts, intending to replace the identical bills with $4,000 from his own savings on Monday morning. On Saturday night, D gambles away the $4,000 and cannot replace it. D is charged with embezzlement.

Is D guilty of embezzlement?

No, because D intended to restore the identical property at the time of the initial taking and had the money in savings to do so.
Yes, because D converted the receipts when he first took them, and a temporary taking of entrusted funds is always a fraudulent conversion.
No, because D's taking was only a temporary borrowing with an intent to repay,and the employer suffered no permanent loss because D could have restored the funds.
Yes, because D's later gambling of the money was a use substantially inconsistent with the owner's rights,andthe earlier intent to restore does not negate the fraudulent conversion at that later time. (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see an embezzlement question, the key is timing: the defendant's intent at the initial taking is not the whole story. Under State v. Lindgren, a taking is not fraudulent if the actor intends to restore the identical property and has a reasonable prospect of doing so. Here, D initially took the $4,000 intending to replace the identical bills from savings, so that first taking was not yet fraudulent. But the rule does not stop there. If the actor later uses the property in a manner substantially inconsistent with the owner's rights, he commits a fraudulent conversion at that later time, and his earlier intent to restore does not protect him. By gambling away the money on Saturday, D used the employer's property in exactly such a way. The owner is entitled to the identical property, not substitute funds, and after the gambling loss D cannot return those bills. So D is guilty — not because every temporary taking is always fraudulent, but because his later gambling created a fraudulent conversion. Choice A ignores the later gambling and treats only the initial intent as dispositive. Choice B overstates the rule: a temporary taking with intent to restore identical property and reasonable prospect is not always fraudulent. Choice C wrongly assumes no permanent loss; D could have restored only before he gambled, and substitution with his own funds would not satisfy the owner's right to identical property. Study tip: watch for the "later conversion" trap — an initially innocent taking can become embezzlement when the defendant later does something inconsistent with the owner's rights.

Question 4

Dana works as a cashier at a convenience store. Her only duty is to operate the cash register: she accepts customer payments, makes change, and keeps the cash in the register drawer. Store policy requires each cashier to hand the entire drawer, with a printed sales tally, to the store manager at the end of each shift; cashiers are not authorized to open the safe or make bank deposits. One evening, after the store closes, Dana removes $200 in cash from her register drawer, puts it in her jacket pocket, and then hands the drawer to the manager as usual. A security camera records her.

Which offense is the prosecutor most likely able to charge against Dana?

Embezzlement
Larceny (correct answer)
False pretenses
Robbery

Explanation: Whenever you see a property crime question, map who had what kind of control over the property. That distinction—custody versus possession versus title—decides the offense. Dana had only custody of the register drawer: her job was to operate it and hand it over intact. She was not authorized to open the safe or deposit money, so the store never entrusted her with possession in the legal sense. By removing the $200 from the drawer, she committed a trespassory taking and carried it away with intent to keep it—that is larceny. Even though she later handed the drawer to the manager, the cash was already taken. Embezzlement is the trap here. It applies when a person is lawfully entrusted with possession of property and later converts it. A cashier with mere custody does not have possession, so taking from the drawer is larceny, not embezzlement. False pretenses would require Dana to obtain title to the money through a false representation to the owner; she simply took cash, no deception induced the transfer. Robbery requires taking from a person's presence by force or intimidation; no victim was confronted or threatened. So the prosecutor can most likely charge larceny. Study tip: ask "How did the defendant get control?" If lawful possession then conversion = embezzlement; if mere custody then taking = larceny; if force = robbery; if fraud causing title transfer = false pretenses.

Question 5

In a parking garage, Andre approaches Carla and says, "Hand over your wallet right now, or tomorrow I will find you and break your arm." Carla, believing Andre will carry out the threat, gives him her wallet. Andre takes the cash and throws the wallet into a trash can.

Which offense is the prosecutor most likely able to charge against Andre?

Robbery
Larceny
Extortion (correct answer)
False pretenses

Explanation: Whenever a defendant obtains property through a threat, ask one threshold timing question: was the threatened harm immediate or future? That distinction separates robbery from extortion. Here Andre says he will break Carla's arm "tomorrow," not "right now." Carla hands over the wallet because she believes that future threat, and Andre takes the cash. Because the harm was postponed, this is extortion: obtaining property by means of a wrongful threat of future harm. Robbery also involves intimidation, but the force or threat must put the victim in fear of immediate bodily injury; a future threat is not enough. Larceny is a trespassory taking, and although consent obtained by threat is not truly voluntary, larceny is the general theft offense while extortion is the more specific crime when property is obtained through threats. False pretenses is not right because Andre made no false representation of past or present fact—he threatened to inflict harm rather than tricking Carla into transferring title. Study tip: on bar-exam theft questions, first identify the method—force, trick, threat, or fraud. If it is a threat, check whether the harm is immediate (robbery) or future (extortion).

Question 6

While jogging in a public park, Tom sees a wallet on a park bench. He opens it and finds a driver's license, credit cards, and $400 in cash. The license shows the owner's name and an address several miles away. Tom removes the $400, drops the wallet back onto the bench, and continues jogging. A witness reports Tom to the police, and the wallet is recovered.

Which offense is the prosecutor most likely able to charge against Tom?

No crime, because the wallet was lost property and not abandoned
Embezzlement, because Tom converted the cash after finding the wallet
False pretenses, because Tom took the cash without the owner's consent
Larceny, because Tom knew the owner could be identified from the license (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see a property crime involving found property, ask whether the defendant knew or had any way to identify the owner. That single question separates a theft from an innocent taking. Tom's conduct is larceny. Larceny requires a trespassory taking — a wrongful deprivation of another's possession — with intent to permanently deprive. When property is merely lost, the owner does not give up ownership. But if a finder can reasonably identify the owner, keeping the property becomes wrongful. Here, the wallet contained a driver's license with the owner's name and address. Tom removed the cash and abandoned the wallet, knowing the owner could be found. That is the trespassory taking with intent to keep the cash, so larceny is the right charge. The "no crime, because the wallet was lost and not abandoned" choice misunderstands lost property. Lost does not mean ownerless; only abandoned property has no owner. Since the license gave Tom a means to identify the owner, he had a duty to return the wallet. "Embezzlement" is wrong because embezzlement requires lawful possession first, usually through a trust or employment relationship, followed by fraudulent conversion. Tom obtained possession wrongfully from the start — he never had lawful possession. "False pretenses" is wrong because that offense requires obtaining title through a false representation of fact. Tom made no misrepresentation; he simply took the cash. For the exam, remember the found-property rule: if the owner can be identified from the object itself, the finder's taking is larceny; if not, it is likely no crime.

Question 7

Isabel originally bought a gold bracelet. She later gave it to her sister Julia. After a quarrel, Isabel tells a friend, "I only lent that bracelet to Julia, and I'm taking it back for good." Using a spare key Julia had given her, Isabel enters Julia's apartment while Julia is at work and takes the bracelet from Julia's jewelry box. Isabel is charged with larceny.

Which fact, if true, would most likely provide Isabel with a defense to larceny?

Isabel honestly believed that she, not Julia, owned the bracelet (correct answer)
Isabel did not use or threaten any force against Julia
Julia had told Isabel she could visit whenever she wanted
The bracelet was worth less than $500 at the time of the taking

Explanation: Larceny requires a trespassory taking of someone else's property with intent to permanently deprive. Whenever you see a larceny question, check the mental state: did this person believe they had a right to the property? An honest claim of right is a defense because it negates the "intent to steal" element. matter how mistaken the belief is, the crime is not larceny. Here, Isabel's honest belief that she, not Julia, owned the bracelet is decisive: even if she was wrong about title, she lacked the required larcenous intent when she retrieved it. That is why this factprovides a defense. The other factsmiss the point. Isabel's lack of force isirrelevant because larceny, unlike robbery, does not require force or fear—it is a stealth or trespassorytaking crime, so its absence does not negate any element. Julia's standing invitation to visit merely meant Isabel could enter the apartment; it did not authorizetaking the braceletwithout Julia's consent, and larceny'strespassory-takingrequirement concerns the property, not just the premises. Finally,the bracelet'svalue under $500 might reduce the degreeof theft (petty vs grand larceny) but it does not eliminate the crime itself; value is a grading factor, not a substantive defense. For any larceny question, ask first: did the defendant honestly believe they alreadyowned the property or had the right to take it? That belief is the strongest defense—it attacks the very core of the crime's intent requirement.

Question 8

Section 301.2 of the state criminal code provides:

'Property of another' includes property in which any person other than the actor has an interest, including a joint or common interest. A person may be convicted of theft of property in which he himself has an interest if he exercises control over the property without the consent of every other person having an interest and knows that such consent has not been given.

D and V are equal co-owners of a classic car. Without telling V, D sells the car to a buyer and keeps all $30,000 of the proceeds, telling V that the car was stolen. D is charged with theft of the car.

Is D guilty of theft of the car?

No, because a person cannot steal property in which he has an ownership interest,and D was a co-owner of the car.
Yes, because the statute defines 'property of another' to include jointly owned property,and D knew the sale was unauthorized by V. (correct answer)
No, because the sale transferred title to the buyer, leaving V only a claim to the proceeds,and theft requires a taking of the victim's property from the victim.
Yes, because D's false statement that the car was stolen constitutes theft by deception, since the lie caused V to delay seeking recovery of the car.

Explanation: Whenever you see a theft question involving co-ownership, do not assume that owning an interest immunizes you. The statute is the starting point: it expressly says "property of another" includes joint or common interests, and a co-owner can be guilty of theft if he controls the property without every other owner's consent and knows that consent was not given. Here, D and V each own the car, so the car is property of another under the statute. D sold it without telling V, knowing V had not consented. That unauthorized control over the car is enough to convict D of theft of the car — the fact that he kept the proceeds or lied afterward only confirms his intent. The first wrong answer claims a person cannot steal property in which he has an ownership interest. That reflects the old common-law rule, not this statute, which specifically overrides it for joint owners. The answer claiming the sale transferred title to the buyer, leaving V only a claim to proceeds, misses the timing: the theft occurred when D exercised control over the car without V's consent, before any title question matters. The answer focusing on D's false statement as theft by deception confuses the theory of the offense; he is charged with theft of the car by unauthorized sale, not with defrauding V, and the lie is evidence of knowledge, not the act of taking. Study tip: when a statute defines a term broadly, read it literally — co-owner theft is a classic exam trap that catches students relying on intuition instead of the statutory definition.

Question 9

At a coin show, a collector named Helen displays a rare coin. A man named Frank approaches her and says he is a dealer with a buyer who wants to purchase the coin. Frank tells Helen, "Let me take the coin to my table to confirm the sale, and I'll bring you the $4,000 asking price this afternoon." Helen, believing Frank, hands him the coin. Frank leaves the show and sells the coin to someone else. In fact, Frank had no buyer.

Which offense is the prosecutor most likely able to charge against Frank?

False pretenses
Larceny by trick (correct answer)
Embezzlement
Robbery

Explanation: Whenever you see a property crime based on deception, ask two questions: Did the victim give up possession or title? And did the taking involve force? That distinction drives this question. Helen handed Frank the coin only so he could confirm the sale and return with the money. She did not sell the coin or transfer ownership to him. Frank gained possession of the coin through a false promise—he had no buyer—and he intended to keep the coin from the start. That is the classic definition of larceny by trick: fraud induces the victim to part with possession, and the defendant immediately carries the property away with intent to steal. False pretenses is the tempting distractor, but it requires the victim to pass title, not merely possession. Helen had no intent to transfer ownership, so this is not false pretenses. Embezzlement also fails because Frank never had lawful possession of the coin; his possession was obtained by fraud. Robbery is wrong because there was no force, intimidation, or taking from Helen's person—she voluntarily handed him the coin. Your study tip: on the bar exam, when possession is obtained by deception, larceny by trick and false pretenses are separated by title—portable title means false pretenses; mere possession means larceny by trick. And remember that embezzlement always begins with lawful possession, which Frank never had.

Question 10

Section 531.1 of the state criminal code provides:

A person commits robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force against another person for the purpose of preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking, carrying away, or retention of the property. 'Theft' means the unlawful taking of property of another from the person or presence of another. 'In the course of committing a theft' includes an attempt to commit the theft or immediate flight after the taking or attempted taking.

D secretly removes V's wallet from V's back pocket. V feels the movement, grabs D's wrist, and shouts at D to return the wallet. D shoves V to the ground, breaking free, and runs off with the wallet. D is charged with robbery under Section 531.1.

Is D guilty of robbery?

No, because D had already completed the taking of the wallet before he shoved V, and force used only to escape cannot support a robbery conviction.
Yes, because D used force during immediate flight from the theft to overcome V's resistance to the retention of the wallet, and the statute includes such flight within 'in the course of committing a theft.' (correct answer)
No, because robbery requires that force be used to obtain possession of the property, and D's removal of the wallet involved no force.
Yes, because any use of force during a theft or its immediate flight, regardless of the actor's purpose, satisfies the force element of robbery.

Explanation: Whenever you see a robbery question, focus on the exact statutory language defining force and when force must occur. Here, the statute defines "in the course of committing a theft" to include immediate flight after the taking, and it lists "retention of the property" as a stage at which force can satisfy robbery. D is guilty because the shove happened during immediate flight from the theft, and its purpose was to overcome V's resistance to D's retention of the wallet. The fact that the wallet was already taken does not matter; the statute expressly extends robbery liability to force used while retaining stolen property during immediate flight. The first wrong answer—that D had completed the taking and force used only to escape cannot support robbery—misreads the statute: "retention" and "immediate flight" are explicitly included. The third wrong answer, that robbery requires force to obtain possession and D's removal involved no force, ignores that force after the taking still counts under this statute. The final wrong answer, that any force during theft or flight regardless of purpose satisfies robbery, overstates the law: the statute requires force for the purpose of preventing or overcoming resistance, not simply force incidental to escape. D's shove was precisely to overcome resistance, so it fits. On similar questions, read the definition of "in the course of" carefully—many jurisdictions broaden robbery beyond the initial taking, so don't assume completion of the taking defeats the charge.

Question 11

In People v. Harmon, the state supreme court held:

To sustain a conviction for theft by false pretenses, the prosecution must prove thatthe defendant made a false representation of a material past or present fact,knowing it was false and intending to defraud; thatthe victim actually believed and relied on the representation;and that this reliance caused the victim to transfer title to the property to the defendant. A conviction cannot stand if the victim did not in fact believe the representation, even if a reasonable person would have been deceived. The victim's failure to investigate does not defeat reliance if the representation was in fact believed.

D offers to sell V a painting,falsely telling V it is an original work by a famous artist. V,a professional art dealer,examines the painting and immediately recognizes it as a forgery. V buys the painting anyway,believing he can resell it profitably to a collector who seeks good forgeries,and pays D $10,000. D is charged with theft by false pretenses.

Should D be convicted of theft by false pretenses?

No, because V did not actually believe D's representation,ande the offense requires thatthe victim's reliance on the false representation caused the transfer. (correct answer)
Yes, because D knowingly made a false representation of a material fact with intent to defraud,and V paid $10,000 as a result.
Yes, because a reasonable person would have been deceived by D's representation,and V's plan to resell the painting does not negate reliance.
No, because V, as a professional art dealer,negligently failed to verify the painting's authenticity,and negligent reliance cannot support a conviction.

Explanation: False pretenses is a property crime built on fraud, but the fraud must actually work on the victim's mind. The key is subjective reliance: did this victim believe the false representation and transfer title because of it? In the passage, V is a professional art dealer who immediately recognizes the painting as a forgery. So even though D lied and intended to defraud, V did not believe the lie. V bought the painting for a different reason—to resell it profitably to a collector who wants good forgeries. That means D's misrepresentation did not cause V to part with the $10,000, so the conviction cannot stand. The answer choice saying D should be convicted because D knowingly made a false representation of a material fact with intent to defraud and V paid fails because it ignores the victim's actual reliance. A guilty state of mind on D's part is not enough. The choice saying a reasonable person would have been deceived misses the rule squarely: the prosecution must prove the actual victim believed the representation, not that an objective reasonable person would have. V's plan to resell does not matter because V was never deceived. Finally, the choice blaming V for negligently failing to verify authenticity is wrong on both facts and law. V did verify—by recognizing the forgery—and the failure to investigate is not a defense when the victim genuinely believes. Here, there was no genuine belief. Remember: for false pretenses, always ask, "What did the victim actually think?" If the victim was undeceived, there is no reliance, no matter how dishonest the defendant.