Crim 20 Exam 2

Crim 20 Exam 2 - Crim 20 Exam 2 1. What is Albert Arrested...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Crim 20 Exam 2 1. What is Albert Arrested for? Albert would be arrested for attempted larceny, for trying to steal Snooty’s collar. He would not be charged with attempted robbery because there was no fear, or force used against Fancy, Snooty’s owner. What is the applicable rule of law? This is an inchoate crime. According to Penal Code 664, every person who attempts to commit a crime but is prevented, is still punishable. Albert conceived the idea, made the decision to go forward with his idea, but was prevented from completing the crime. Larceny, the crime itself consists of taking ones property, therefore depriving the owner of what is rightfully his/hers. Since Albert did not complete the crime intended, he is punishable under attempted larceny. According to People v. Michaels (193 Cal. App 2d 194), “where a crime remains unfinished and the participant is charged with attempt, there must be a direct ineffectual act done toward the commission of the crime, and specific intent to commit that crime.” In Albert’s case, he had a specific intent to commit the crime, but was unsuccessful toward the completion of the crime. These are both elements of an attempted crime. Does Albert have any available defenses? A possible defense for Albert could be that he was acting out of necessity. Albert could argue that in he attempted to steal the collard to feed himself and his family, and that he was desperate. What if instead of Albert, it was his 6 year old son Timmy who tried to steal the collar?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
What will Timmy be charged with? Timmy could be charged with attempt to commit larceny, but is very unlikely due to the defense of infancy. What are Timmy’s defenses? Timmy’s defense would be infancy, which states that if a person is under the age of 7, they do not have the criminal capacity to commit the crime. Since Timmy is six, he would not be held criminally responsible. In State v. K.R.L., and 8 year old boy was convicted a residential burglary, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed because he was presumed incapable of committing the offence due to age. Timmy could use this same defense. Will Albert be charged for the acts of Timmy?
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

Crim 20 Exam 2 - Crim 20 Exam 2 1. What is Albert Arrested...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online