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.
15. The babysitter is
A babysitter, while baby-sitting one night, noticed that the next-door neighbor had left his house but that the door did not close completely behind him. The babysitter said to the 11-year-old boy she was baby-sitting, «Let's play a game. You go next door and see if you can find my portable television set, which I lent to the neighbor, and bring it over here.» The babysitter knew that the next-door neighbor had a portable television set and the babysitter planned to keep the set for herself. The boy thought the set belonged to the babysitter, went next door, found the television set, and carried it out the front door. At that moment, the neighbor returned home and discovered the boy in his front yard with the television set. The boy explained the «game» he and the babysitter were playing. The neighbor took back his television set and called the police.
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
Larceny requires the taking of the property of another without the owner's consent, and with the intent to deprive the owner of the property. Only the slightest movement is necessary to constitute «carrying away.»
D is correct. The boy did not know that the portable television set really belonged to the neighbor, so although he completed the acts or taking and carrying away the personal property of another, he did not do so with the intent to steal. The babysitter, however, orchestrated the crime by directing the boy, all while knowing that the television set really belonged to the neighbor. While the babysitter did not actually take and carry away the neighbor's television set, she used the boy to do so, and she is liable as the principal. Therefore, she is guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent.
A is incorrect. It is true that the boy did not commit any crime because the boy did not take and carry away the personal property of another with the intent to steal; he thought he was just legally retrieving the babysitter's property, and therefore, he did not possess the requisite mens rea. The babysitter is guilty of larceny, however, because she used the boy as an innocent agent to accomplish the theft. She directed him to take and carry away the neighbor's television set, and she did have the required intent to steal. The person who uses an innocent agent to accomplish a crime is liable as the principal, even if she does not complete the actus reus, and therefore, the babysitter is guilty of larceny. Because the boy took and carried away the television set, he completed the actus reus. Only a slight movement is necessary to constitute «carrying away.» And because the babysitter had the necessary intent at the time, the larceny was complete and attempted larceny would not be at issue.
B is incorrect. The babysitter used the boy to accomplish the actus reus of larceny. And because the babysitter had the necessary intent at the time that the boy, as her agent, completed the actus reus, the larceny was complete. It is not necessary that the babysitter acquired possession of the television set.
C is incorrect. The person who uses an innocent agent to accomplish a crime is liable as the principal actor in that crime, even if she does not complete the actus reus. She is not liable as an accessory to her innocent agent, but as the principal.