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.
19. What is the most serious crime the customer committed?
The following list of crimes is in descending order of seriousness.
A customer asked to see an expensive watch in a jewelry store. In conversation with the store clerk, the customer falsely claimed to be the son of the mayor. When handed the watch, the customer asked if he could put it on, walk around a bit so he could see how it felt on his wrist, and then briefly step outside to observe it in natural light. The clerk agreed, saying, «I know I can trust someone like you with the merchandise.» The customer walked out of the store wearing the watch and did not return. A week later, the clerk was at a gathering when she spotted the customer wearing the watch. She told him that he must either pay for the watch or give it back. He hissed, «You'll be sorry if you mess with me.» Intimidated, the clerk backed off.
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 by trick is an extension of larceny and is defined by obtaining possession of another's personal property using false statements of past or existing fact. Larceny by trick is distinguished from false pretenses in that larceny by trick is where a defendant acquires possession of the property of another, whereas, for false pretenses, the defendant acquires the title of another's property through fraud.
Robbery requires: (i) the wrongful taking of; (ii) another's property from his person or presence; (iii) through force or threat of injury; and (iv) with the intent to permanently deprive the person of his property. Robbery is an assault or battery PLUS larceny and requires force or threat to obtain the victim's property (whereas larceny does not require force or threats).
Theft by false pretenses requires: (i) the obtaining title to another's property (this requires obtaining ownership, not mere possession); (ii) by the use of false statements of past or existing fact; with (iii) the intent to defraud (victim must be deceived by the false statement and pass title to the defendant).
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 lawful possession.
B is correct. The most serious crime the customer committed is larceny. All of the elements of larceny are met here: the customer committed a trespassory taking and carrying away of another's property with the intent to steal it. He obtained possession of, but not title to, the watch by lying about a present fact, also known as «larceny by trick.»
A is incorrect. There was no robbery because the customer did not take the watch by force or threat of force. Instead, the customer committed larceny — a trespassory taking and carrying away of another's property with the intent to steal it. He obtained possession of, but not title to, the watch by lying about a present fact.
C is incorrect. The customer did NOT obtain TITLE to the property of another by an intentional (or knowing) false statement of past or existing fact with the intent to defraud the other. Here, the crime larceny was committed, not false pretenses, because the customer obtained possession of, but not title to, the watch.
D is incorrect. The customer never had lawful possession of the watch. Accordingly, the customer committed the crime of larceny, not embezzlement, because there was a trespassory taking because the customer never was in lawful possession of the watch.