5. The man has committed

Larceny is a specific intent crime and is defined as the: (i) taking (obtaining control or possession) and carrying away (the slightest movement is sufficient); (ii) without consent (against the victim's free will, which includes duress because duress negates consent); and (iii) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property (the specific intent to dispossess must exist during the taking).

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. On the other hand, theft by false pretenses is defined as: (i) 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). Larceny by trick is distinguished from false pretenses in that larceny by trick is where the defendant acquires possession of the property of another, whereas, for false pretenses, the defendant acquires title of another's property through fraud.

D is correct. Here, there is no evidence that the man intended to permanently deprive his friend of the money, or that he made misrepresentations to the friend to induce the friend to give him the money. Here the man merely promised to pay a debt, and even though he ended up not paying the debt, this is insufficient evidence that the man intended to permanently deprive the friend of his money. Furthermore, a promise to pay back a debt is insufficient to be considered a false or misleading statement. Accordingly, the man did not commit larceny by trick or false pretenses.

A is incorrect. As discussed above, there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, and no evidence that the man did not intend to pay his friend back. Both larceny by trick and false pretenses require proof of intent to permanently deprive and the making of false or fraudulent statements. A promise to pay, even if never met, is insufficient for a finding of intent to permanently deprive or a finding of fraudulent statements.

B is incorrect. The man did not commit larceny by trick because he did not obtain possession of the money through false statements of past or existing fact, with the intent to defraud. As discussed above, there is no evidence of an intent to permanently deprive the friend of the money nor that he made fraudulent statements to induce the friend to give possession of the money to him.

C is incorrect. The man did not obtain money by false pretenses because he did not obtain title of the money through false statements of past or existing fact, with the intent to defraud. Here, there is no evidence that the man intended to permanently deprive the friend of the money nor that he made fraudulent statements to induce the friend to give title of the money to him.