Larceny Case Study

Words: 476
Pages: 2

1. In this case there was a crime committed. Sam made the statement that he was going to give the car to Carol once he got the car. Problem is he traded these products on the word that the car would be given to Carol. Sam is in the wrong because he took the computer on a false pretense.
2. Larceny and Assault. Bonnie lost her watch to Ann because she was in fear of her life. Ann pointed a gun at Bonnie for the watch, this is Assault with a deadly weapon. With that being said no robbery took place here, it would larceny because it is theft of personal property.
3. In this case they are not simply finders in that they know who the money belonged to and when they took it with the intent to keep it they committed the crime of larceny. The crime had not been completed, so the one driver who wanted to back out could return the money to the owner. It would still be an
…show more content…
The defense is not valid. If the rule advanced by Mary were adopted, it would not help Mary, for the evidence disclosed that, although the necessary ingredient was difficult to obtain, it was not impossible. Peter merely contributed the ingredient to a criminal enterprise already in progress. Peter did not commit any crime in infiltrating Mary's drug enterprise. The chemical, which the problem did not disclose, was harmless by itself and its possession was legal. The court reaffirmed earlier decisions that the principal element in the defense of entrapment was the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime. The court reasoned that it would not be desirable to grant immunity from prosecution to a person who planned to commit a crime, and then committed it, simply because a government undercover agent induced him by providing an opportunity or facility for commission of the offense. It is only when the government implants the criminal design in the mind of the defendant that the defense of entrapment may be asserted. Therefore, in this case the defense of entrapment is not avbile to