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.
2. The defendant is guilty of
Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as «entering a building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.»
A defendant entered the county museum at a time when it was open to the public, intending to steal a Picasso etching. Once inside, he took what he thought was the etching from an unlocked display case and concealed it under his coat. However, the etching was a photocopy of an original that had been loaned to another museum. A sign over the display case containing the photocopy said that similar photocopies were available free at the entrance. The defendant did not see the sign.
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
Burglary, as defined by the statute provided in this question, is defined as «entering a building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.»
C is correct. The defendant, in this case, entered the museum, with the intent to steal, and took the photocopy of the etching from its display case and concealed it. Because all of the elements of larceny are met, the defendant is guilty of larceny. The fact that the defendant did not know the etching was a copy does not negate his guilt for the crime of larceny. The defendant committed larceny and because factual impossibility does not negate the defendant's intent to commit the crime.
A is incorrect. In the question's jurisdiction, the charge of burglary requires that the defendant entered the building unlawfully and with the intent to commit a crime. The facts in the question state that the defendant entered the building at a time it was open to the public. Because the defendant's entry was lawful, he did not commit a burglary.
B is incorrect. As discussed above, the defendant did not commit burglary because his entrance into the museum was lawful. Further, the defendant successfully committed larceny as soon as he left with the painting. This goes beyond a mere substantial step towards actually committing the crime itself. Under the doctrine of merger, the attempt merged into the completed crime, which means the defendant is not guilty of attempted larceny. Further, as noted above, factual impossibility does not negate the defendant's intent to commit the crime.
D is incorrect. The attempted larceny charge merged into the larceny charge when the defendant actually left with the painting. Despite the fact that the painting was a photocopy, the defendant would not be guilty of attempted larceny because the crimes merged. As such, the defendant would be guilty of larceny.