Property & Person Crimes (statutory) — Criminal Law & Constitutional Protections

Blake grabs a phone off a cafe table and runs. So far, that is larceny. A barista chases him down the street, and Blake shoves her hard to get away. Now what is it? Robbery. And notice when the shove happened. After he already had the phone.

That is this whole topic in one move. One fact changes, and the crime jumps a level. But notice what decided it. Not a memorized rule. The robbery statute in front of us says force counts if it is used in immediate flight. This topic is unstarred, which means the exam usually hands you the statute and asks you to apply it. The skill is reading, not reciting. By the end of this episode you will know where every line in this area sits.

Here is the route. First the method for any statutory crime. Then theft, in its four flavors, and what makes it grand rather than petty. Then burglary, where the common law and the modern statute look almost nothing alike. Then robbery, which is theft plus violence. Then assault and battery. And finally the defenses, which is where the most tested trap in this whole area lives.

Start with the method, because it never changes. Read the provided statute twice. Break it into elements, the acts and circumstances, plus the mental state each one requires. Match every element to a specific fact. One to one. If any element, or any required mental state, has no matching fact, the crime is not proved, and you go looking for a lesser offense or an attempt.

Then check the aggravators, a weapon, a value, a serious injury, an occupied dwelling, to fix the degree. Then run the defenses. And do not fight the statute with your memorized common-law version. If the burglary statute you are handed drops the words at night, night does not matter.

Theft first. Taking property that is not yours. The common law split it into three crimes by how you got the property, and those differences still decide questions. Larceny, you wrongfully take possession. Embezzlement, you held it lawfully and then went bad. False pretenses, you tricked the owner into handing over ownership.

Larceny is the classic stealing. A trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another, with intent to permanently deprive, formed at the time of the taking. Two traps in that sentence. Carrying away means the slightest movement, so lifting a laptop an inch off a desk counts. And the intent has to exist at the moment you take it. Borrow a car meaning to return it, decide later to keep it, and that is not larceny at the taking.

Embezzlement is a breach of trust. The defendant already has lawful possession, a bank teller, a trustee, a repair shop holding your phone, and then fraudulently converts it. Dana is a store bookkeeper trusted to deposit the daily cash, and she pockets $500 from the bag. She held it lawfully first, so this is embezzlement. The difference is where the wrongdoing starts.

Now the hinge that decides more theft questions than any other. False pretenses versus larceny by trick. Both involve a lie. The difference is what the victim hands over. False pretenses, the defendant obtains title, actual ownership, by a knowing false statement of a past or present fact. Larceny by trick, the defendant obtains only possession, and the owner keeps title.

So ask one question. Did the owner mean to transfer ownership, or just to let the defendant hold the thing? Ownership passed, false pretenses. Possession only, larceny by trick. One traditional limit. A false promise about the future, I will pay you Tuesday, was not false pretenses at common law, which needed a lie about a past or existing fact. Modern statutes and the Model Penal Code extend deception to cover it.

Consolidated statutes also fold in receiving stolen property. Receiving control, knowing or believing it is stolen, with intent to permanently deprive. Most states now follow the Model Penal Code and combine everything into one crime of theft under § 223.1, graded above all by the value of the property.

Which brings us to grand theft, and a statute worth reading closely. The Franklin Criminal Code, § 611. Theft is grand theft if the value of the property exceeds $1,000, or the property is a firearm or a motor vehicle, regardless of value. Otherwise it is petty theft.

Test it. Reyes shoplifts a $300 jacket. Grand or petty? Petty. Under $1,000, and a jacket is not a listed item. Now change one thing. Reyes takes a $300 handgun instead. Same money, same store, same day.

Grand theft. The dollar figure did not decide it. The type of property did, because the statute counts a firearm regardless of value. That is the kind of hinge the exam builds a question around, and you only find it by reading.

Burglary next, where the common law and a modern statute look almost nothing alike. The common-law crime protected people asleep in their homes at night. Breaking and entering the dwelling of another, at night, with intent to commit a felony inside. Breaking meant minimal force to create an opening, so pushing open a closed door counts and walking through an open one does not. And the intent had to exist at entry.

Modern statutes strip almost all of that away. Four expansions to watch. Breaking becomes entering or remaining unlawfully. The dwelling becomes any building, structure, or even a vehicle. The nighttime requirement disappears. And the intended crime becomes any crime, not just a common-law felony. Because remaining unlawfully is now common, intent can form after a lawful entry, once the right to be there ends.

So try one. The Columbia Penal Law, § 140. A person is guilty of burglary who knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein. Tan walks through the propped-open back door of a hardware store during business hours, meaning to steal tools. No breaking, broad daylight, commercial building. Guilty?

Guilty. None of those objections survive, because the statute asks only for an unlawful entry into a building with intent to commit a crime. Put a knife in his pocket and it climbs to first degree. That statute reserves first degree for a defendant armed with a deadly weapon, or a dwelling with a person present. Do not apply limits the statute abandoned.

Robbery is larceny with two ingredients that make it violent. The property is taken from the victim's person or presence, and the taking is by force or by fear. Presence means the area within the victim's control, so forcing a clerk into the back room while you empty the front register still counts. And because robbery contains a larceny, it is a specific-intent crime.

How much force? More than simply grabbing the item. Quietly picking a pocket is larceny, because nothing overcomes resistance. But if the victim notices and hangs on, and the thief yanks it away against that resistance, the added force makes it robbery. Which is Blake and the barista, except that Blake's force came afterward.

That timing is a genuine split. At common law the force had to accompany or precede the taking. The modern majority counts force used to retain the property or to escape immediately after, so a shoplifter who shoves a guard while fleeing can be guilty of robbery. Apply the statute you are given. The Olympia Criminal Code, § 815, covers conduct in immediate flight.

Two neighbors get confused with robbery. Extortion is obtaining property by a threat of future harm. Pay me next week or I will expose you. That future quality separates extortion from robbery, and extortion need not be from the victim's presence. And assault is what is left when force was used but no property was taken.

Aggravated robbery adds a deadly weapon, serious injury, or accomplices. One wrinkle worth having. Many statutes count a robbery as armed even if the weapon is fake or unloaded, so long as the victim reasonably believes it is real. The crime targets the terror. If Blake had flashed a realistic toy gun, that Olympia phrase, displays what appears to be a deadly weapon, would make it aggravated.

Assault and battery. Battery is the unlawful application of force to another person, causing bodily injury or an offensive touching. No blood required, and the force can be indirect. Setting a dog on someone. Spiking a drink. The mental state is general intent, typically intentional, knowing, or reckless.

Assault is two crimes wearing one name. Attempted battery, where the defendant takes a substantial step toward a battery meaning to commit it but never lands the touch. A punch that misses. That takes specific intent. And apprehension assault, where the defendant intentionally causes the victim to reasonably fear an imminent battery.

The contrast matters. Apprehension requires the victim to actually perceive the threat, plus an apparent present ability to carry it out. So a swing from behind that the victim never sees is not apprehension assault. But it is still attempted-battery assault. Two theories, and the facts only have to satisfy one.

Try the statute. The Franklin Criminal Code, § 405. A person commits assault who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury, or by physical menace intentionally places another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury. It is aggravated if the person causes serious bodily injury or uses a deadly weapon. Nia points a knife at Ortega and says do not move, never touching him. Assault?

Yes, and aggravated. The first subsection is out, no bodily injury. The second fits exactly, physical menace plus reasonable fear of imminent serious harm. And the knife makes it aggravated. Notice this statute rolls both battery and assault into the single word assault. Many modern codes do. Read the definitions, not the label.

Now the defenses, where questions are won. Self-defense. You may use force against an imminent, unlawful use of force, but only force proportional to the threat. Non-deadly answers non-deadly. Deadly force only against a threat of death or serious bodily injury, and in many states a forcible felony like rape, robbery, or kidnapping. The belief must be honest and reasonable, and an honest but unreasonable one is imperfect self-defense, which at most mitigates.

Two rules decide most self-defense questions. Retreat. A minority, roughly a dozen states, require you to retreat before deadly force if you can do it in complete safety. But never inside your own home. That is the castle doctrine, and every state recognizes it. The majority, around 38 states, impose no duty to retreat anywhere you are lawfully present.

And the initial aggressor generally cannot claim self-defense, with two exits. Completely withdraw and communicate it. Or the other side suddenly escalates a scuffle into deadly force, reviving the right to defend. Defense of others runs on the same terms. Under the modern majority reasonable-appearance rule, a rescuer who reasonably but wrongly believed the third party was under attack is still protected.

Which brings us to the single most tested trap in this whole area. Defense of property. You may use reasonable non-deadly force to protect property from an imminent, unlawful taking or intrusion. You may never use deadly force to protect property alone. Never. And a mechanical device that applies deadly force, a spring gun rigged to a door, is barred for exactly the same reason.

Recapture of a chattel is non-deadly force only, and only in immediate, fresh pursuit. Once time has passed, you use the courts. Defense of habitation does let an occupant use deadly force against a violent, forcible entry into an occupied dwelling. But that is self-defense of the people inside, not defense of the property.

Three intent-negating defenses close it out. Claim of right. An honest belief that the property is yours defeats the intent to steal that larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, and robbery all require, even if the belief is unreasonable. Voluntary intoxication reaches specific-intent crimes only, so it can negate the intent to permanently deprive but does not excuse general-intent battery. And mistake of fact negates specific intent if honest, but must also be reasonable for a general-intent crime.

A word on authorities, because this episode named no cases, and that was deliberate. These are statutory crimes. The NextGen outline says elements of crimes and defenses are tested on the basis of provided statutes, so there is nothing here to cite and everything here to read. Your memorized rules are a backup for spotting the issue, not the answer.

If you keep only three things, keep these hinges, because the credited answer almost always sits on one of them. Possession versus title, which separates larceny by trick from false pretenses. Force versus stealth, and when the force happened, which separates robbery from larceny. And a present threat versus a future one, which separates robbery from extortion.

Now the traps. One. Larceny by trick versus false pretenses. Possession versus title. A whole question can turn on that alone. Two. Concurrence. The intent to steal must exist at the taking, and at common law the intent to commit a felony must exist at entry. An intent formed too late breaks the crime.

Three. Not every use of force is robbery. Silent pickpocketing is larceny, and a threat of future harm is extortion. Four. Deadly force can never be used to protect property alone. Five. Do not assume a duty to retreat. Most states are stand your ground, and the castle doctrine applies everywhere at home.

Six. Assault has two theories, so a punch that misses is still assault under the attempted-battery theory, even if the victim never saw it coming. And seven, the one that costs the most marks. Do not import common-law limits, breaking, dwelling, at night, into a modern statute that has dropped them. Apply the statute you are given.

Time for the quick check. This one comes straight from the BARGO question bank.

Tired of tools disappearing from his unoccupied storage shed, Osei rigs a shotgun to the door so that anyone opening it is shot. One night a thief pries the door open to steal tools and is struck and gravely wounded by the blast. Nobody lives or sleeps in the shed, and Osei was home in his house nearby. He is charged with aggravated battery and argues he was privileged to protect his property.

Is that defense-of-property argument likely to succeed? Option one. Yes, because the thief was committing a crime when he was injured. Option two. Yes, because Osei could lawfully have used deadly force in person had he been standing there. Option three. No, because deadly force may never protect property alone. Pause here if you want a moment.

The answer is option three. Reasonable non-deadly force protects property. Deadly force never protects property alone, and a spring gun counts as deadly force for exactly that reason. The shed was unoccupied and only tools were at stake, so no personal danger justified a lethal response.

Option one fails because the victim being a thief does not authorize a deadly answer to a property crime. Option two rests on a false premise. Osei could not have shot him in person either, and a device gets no greater privilege than the person would have had.

That never in option three really is a never. There are thirty-plus more questions on this topic alone.

Five things to take away. One. Read the provided statute, break it into elements, and match each one to a fact. If an element has no fact, the charge fails. Two. In theft, ask what the victim handed over. Title means false pretenses. Possession only means larceny by trick. And lawful possession that goes bad later is embezzlement.

Three. Robbery is larceny from the person or presence, by force or fear, and modern statutes count force used in immediate flight. Four. Battery is the touching, assault is either a missed attempt or a perceived threat, and either theory will do. Five. Deadly force never protects property alone.

Which brings us back to Blake. Nothing about the phone changed. What changed was a shove, delivered after the taking, and a statute that counts force in immediate flight. Find the hinge, then read the text. Next time, Possession, Trafficking and DUI Offenses.

Practice this topic with more than 2,900 exam-style questions, free to start, at nextgenbargo.com. This episode is for education and exam preparation only, not legal advice, and we are not affiliated with or endorsed by the NCBE or any bar examining authority.