Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
11. The employee has committed
On the weekend before the employee's birthday, the employee and supervisor attended a company picnic. The supervisor took his watch off and left it on a blanket when he went off to join in a touch football game. The employee strolled by, saw the watch on the blanket, and decided to steal it. He bent over and picked up the watch. Before he could pocket it, however, his supervisor returned. When he saw the employee holding the watch, he said, «I know how much you like that watch. I was planning to give it to you for your birthday. Go ahead and take it now.» The employee kept the watch.
An employee admired his supervisor's wristwatch and frequently talked about how much he wished he had one like it. The supervisor decided to give the employee the watch for his birthday the following week.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is correct. All of the elements of larceny are present here. The employee took possession of the watch without the owner's consent. Although he only picked the watch up, that was enough asportation to meet the «taking and carrying away» element of larceny. Further, the employee took the watch with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. As such, the employee is guilty of larceny. The fact that the supervisor later gave the employee permission to take the watch does not change the fact that the employee, at the time he took the watch, did not have the supervisor's permission to take it and had the intent to steal it.
B is incorrect. Attempt is an act done with the intent to commit a crime, that constitutes an overt or substantial step towards the commission of that crime, but falls short of completing it. Attempt is a specific intent crime and required the defendant to specifically intend to commit the underlying crime. Here, the employee did not merely attempt to take the watch; he did take it with the intent to steal it. The doctrine of merger applies when an attempted crime is completed. The attempted larceny merged into the larceny charge when the employee committed the larceny.
C is incorrect. Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of another's personal property by one in lawful possession of that property at the time of conversion. Fraudulent conversion means that the defendant uses another's property beyond the scope of the defendant's rights. Embezzlement and larceny both involve obtaining property through misappropriation but with embezzlement, the conversion of the other's property occurs when the defendant is in rightful possession whereas larceny requires the taking of property not in the defendant's possession. Here, at the time the employee took the watch, he did not have the supervisor's permission to it. Thus, he was not in rightful possession of the watch when the supervisor gave him the watch. As such, the employee committed larceny, not embezzlement.
D is incorrect. The employee committed the crime of larceny. Although he later had the owner's permission to take the property, at the time the employee took the watch, he did not have the owner's consent and he intended to deprive the owner of the watch. Therefore, the employee is guilty of larceny.