. Forum

[locusdelicti]

Question: in the world of theft crimes, if you obtain possession of cash, how is it possible that you have not also obtained title to the money? I feel like money is its own thing. I also feel like I've seen answer explanations tell me both that possession = title in cash and also that possession does not = title in cash. Just not sure which way is right.

It's confusing, but it is distinguishable. I assume you're talking about false pretenses vs. larceny by trick.

Examples:

Perp: Hey, Joe, my mom died and I can't afford to fly home to see her. Can I have $500? (not true)
Joe: OMG, sure. Here you go.
= False pretenses - getting title to money. Give me $500 to have for my very own.

On the contrary:

Joe: OMG, I really want that watch, but I don't have time to buy it right now.
Perp: I'm going to that store after work today. Iif you give me the $500, I'll buy the watch for you. (not true)
Joe: Deal!
= Larceny by trick

[releasethehounds]

Question: in the world of theft crimes, if you obtain possession of cash, how is it possible that you have not also obtained title to the money? I feel like money is its own thing. I also feel like I've seen answer explanations tell me both that possession = title in cash and also that possession does not = title in cash. Just not sure which way is right.

It's confusing, but it is distinguishable. I assume you're talking about false pretenses vs. larceny by trick.

Examples:

Perp: Hey, Joe, my mom died and I can't afford to fly home to see her. Can I have $500? (not true)
Joe: OMG, sure. Here you go.
= False pretenses - getting title to money. Give me $500 to have for my very own.

On the contrary:

Joe: OMG, I really want that watch, but I don't have time to buy it right now.
Perp: I'm going to that store after work today. Iif you give me the $500, I'll buy the watch for you. (not true)
Joe: Deal!
= Larceny by trick

Aha! Thank you!

[Talar]

I don't know this for sure, but I really don't think you guys should be stressing about getting over 75% on each thing. If you've followed the course in good faith and did the assignments you thought were valuable and in furtherance of your efforts to pass, there is no way in hell Themis is going to fuck you over based on the 75% requirement. I think for a company like Themis, which is still growing and is a small competitor in comparison to Barbri, their reputation is everything, as they primarily get people based on word of mouth recommendations. If they start screwing people over based on a few %, it's gonna get out pretty fast.

[kalvano]

So wait, failure to knock and announce doesn't exclude evidence, but it does invalidate an arrest? Seriously?

[Bikeflip]

I just want each number to say at least 75, then I can rest.

I wish my essays said 60%. Oh well, I'll be at 60% today.

[Kretzy]

Question: in the world of theft crimes, if you obtain possession of cash, how is it possible that you have not also obtained title to the money? I feel like money is its own thing. I also feel like I've seen answer explanations tell me both that possession = title in cash and also that possession does not = title in cash. Just not sure which way is right.

It's confusing, but it is distinguishable. I assume you're talking about false pretenses vs. larceny by trick.

Examples:

Perp: Hey, Joe, my mom died and I can't afford to fly home to see her. Can I have $500? (not true)
Joe: OMG, sure. Here you go.
= False pretenses - getting title to money. Give me $500 to have for my very own.

On the contrary:

Joe: OMG, I really want that watch, but I don't have time to buy it right now.
Perp: I'm going to that store after work today. Iif you give me the $500, I'll buy the watch for you. (not true)
Joe: Deal!
= Larceny by trick

Larceny by Trick vs. False Pretenses are almost 1/3 of my Crim Law missed questions. I for the life of me can't keep it straight. Thank you for this!!!

[locusdelicti]

Question: in the world of theft crimes, if you obtain possession of cash, how is it possible that you have not also obtained title to the money? I feel like money is its own thing. I also feel like I've seen answer explanations tell me both that possession = title in cash and also that possession does not = title in cash. Just not sure which way is right.

It's confusing, but it is distinguishable. I assume you're talking about false pretenses vs. larceny by trick.

Examples:

Perp: Hey, Joe, my mom died and I can't afford to fly home to see her. Can I have $500? (not true)
Joe: OMG, sure. Here you go.
= False pretenses - getting title to money. Give me $500 to have for my very own.

On the contrary:

Joe: OMG, I really want that watch, but I don't have time to buy it right now.
Perp: I'm going to that store after work today. Iif you give me the $500, I'll buy the watch for you. (not true)
Joe: Deal!
= Larceny by trick

Larceny by Trick vs. False Pretenses are almost 1/3 of my Crim Law missed questions. I for the life of me can't keep it straight. Thank you for this!!!

I can never remember which one is taking title and which one is taking possession - I mix them up a lot. I meant this example to illustrate how you can get possession of cash without title... but I had to look up which one was title vs which one was possession.

[Bikeflip]

Question: in the world of theft crimes, if you obtain possession of cash, how is it possible that you have not also obtained title to the money? I feel like money is its own thing. I also feel like I've seen answer explanations tell me both that possession = title in cash and also that possession does not = title in cash. Just not sure which way is right.

It's confusing, but it is distinguishable. I assume you're talking about false pretenses vs. larceny by trick.

Examples:

Perp: Hey, Joe, my mom died and I can't afford to fly home to see her. Can I have $500? (not true)
Joe: OMG, sure. Here you go.
= False pretenses - getting title to money. Give me $500 to have for my very own.

On the contrary:

Joe: OMG, I really want that watch, but I don't have time to buy it right now.
Perp: I'm going to that store after work today. Iif you give me the $500, I'll buy the watch for you. (not true)
Joe: Deal!
= Larceny by trick

Larceny by Trick vs. False Pretenses are almost 1/3 of my Crim Law missed questions. I for the life of me can't keep it straight. Thank you for this!!!

It seems like a fair amount of the time, Themis is cutting us a break by saying "transferring title" somewhere in the question. Or least they have in my case.

[Agoraphobia]

So wait, failure to knock and announce doesn't exclude evidence, but it does invalidate an arrest? Seriously?

IKR? Just when I thought I had learned knock and announce!

I really hope these questions on the later MBE mixed aren't representative of what we'll see because, let's just say if they are, I will have to be a superstar at essays.

[Charles Barkley]

Just getting started for the day. Ugh.

[GertrudePerkins]

FROM: Office of the Dean
TO: All Students
RE: Accepting Faculty Offers

Dear Students,

We politely ask that you please stop leaving your acceptance notices on the counter in the Dean's Office. This is a sure-fire way for the letter to wind up languishing in your file, never read by the Dean or any other member of the faculty. This effort, moreover, never serves to strengthen or weaken your arguments about the inability of our notoriously fickle faculty to revoke their various prize offerings.

Although our primary concern is to decrease the volume of paperwork left strewn about our office, we would be remiss if we did not encourage all students to simply stop giving any credence to these faculty notices. To be frank, given that the faculty appear to have voluntarily honored such prize offers not once in the history of this illustrious institution, any detrimental reliance thereupon by students no longer seems reasonable.

We thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Staff of the Office of the Dean

[yeff]

A homeowner owns his home in a town. On the lawn in front of his home and within five feet of the public sidewalk there was a large tree. The roots of the tree caused the sidewalk to buckle severely and become dangerous. An ordinance of the town requires adjacent landowners to keep sidewalks in safe condition. The homeowner engaged a contractor to repair the sidewalk, leaving it to the contractor to decide how the repair should be made. The contractor dug up the sidewalk, cut back the roots of the tree, and laid a new sidewalk. Two days after the homeowner had paid the contractor the agreed price of the repair, the tree fell over onto the street and…

[forza]

Crim law spoiler

The defendant was upset because he was going to have to close his liquor store due to competition from a discount store in a new shopping mall nearby. In desperation, he decided to set fire to his store to collect the insurance. While looking through the basement for flammable material, he lit a match to read the label on a can. The match burned his finger and, in a reflex action, he dropped the match. It fell into a barrel and ignited some paper. The defendant made no effort to put out the fire but instead left the building. The fire spread and the store was destroyed by fire. The defendant was eventually arrested and indicted for arson. The defendant is:

A. guilty, if he could have put out the fire before it spread and did not do so because he wanted the building destroyed.
B. guilty, if he was negligent in starting the fire.
C. not guilty, because even if he wanted to burn the building there was no concurrence between his mens rea and the act of starting the fire.
D. not guilty, because his starting the fire was the result of a reflex action and not a voluntary act.

Answer choice A is correct. Common law arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. Most states have expanded that definition to include the burning of non-dwellings and even buildings owned by the defendant. Even though the defendant wanted to eventually burn down the building, he lacked the malicious intent at the time of the fire. But, if he could have stopped the fire and intentionally did not, that intent would suffice as malicious and he would be guilty of arson. Answer choice B is incorrect because to be found guilty of arson the defendant would have had to possess the requisite intent, not merely be negligent. Answer choice C correctly states that he did not have the requisite mens rea when he started the fire, but his failure to stop the fire created the requisite and concurrent intent. Answer choice D is incorrect because, as with answer choice C, mens rea arises from the defendant's willful failure to try to extinguish the fire. The voluntariness of defendant's action at the time that the fire started is irrelevant.

Um, did any of y'all get this one right?

[locusdelicti]

A homeowner owns his home in a town. On the lawn in front of his home and within five feet of the public sidewalk there was a large tree. The roots of the tree caused the sidewalk to buckle severely and become dangerous. An ordinance of the town requires adjacent landowners to keep sidewalks in safe condition. The homeowner engaged a contractor to repair the sidewalk, leaving it to the contractor to decide how the repair should be made. The contractor dug up the sidewalk, cut back the roots of the tree, and laid a new sidewalk. Two days after the homeowner had paid the contractor the agreed price of the repair, the tree fell over onto the street and…

Foreseeable, but executive privilege.

P.S. This made me laugh.

[Charles Barkley]

I missed that question as well. Still disagree with the answer.

[Charles Barkley]

Crim law spoiler


Um, did any of y'all get this one right?

For the record, I thought the answer was D.

[Kretzy]

A homeowner owns his home in a town. On the lawn in front of his home and within five feet of the public sidewalk there was a large tree. The roots of the tree caused the sidewalk to buckle severely and become dangerous. An ordinance of the town requires adjacent landowners to keep sidewalks in safe condition. The homeowner engaged a contractor to repair the sidewalk, leaving it to the contractor to decide how the repair should be made. The contractor dug up the sidewalk, cut back the roots of the tree, and laid a new sidewalk. Two days after the homeowner had paid the contractor the agreed price of the repair, the tree fell over onto the street and…

Foreseeable, but executive privilege.

P.S. This made me laugh.

I loved this

[GertrudePerkins]

You know Themis is getting technical as shit when you start getting problems like this:

30. (Question ID#3258)
The President created an office to encourage the improvement of local communities through faith-based organizations. The office was funded from monies appropriated by Congress for the general discretionary use of the President. The office provided support only to religious organizations. A taxpayer brought suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of this office. The federal government has moved to dismiss this suit.

Should the court allow the taxpayer’s suit to proceed?
A. Yes, because the funding of the office violates the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause.
B. Yes, because the source of the funds for the office is a congressional appropriation.
C. No, because the plaintiff as a taxpayer lacks standing.
D. No, because the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause does not apply to the executive branch.

Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. A taxpayer generally does not have standing to file a federal lawsuit simply because the taxpayer believes the government has allocated funds in an improper way. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although there is an exception to the rule that a taxpayer lacks standing to challenge a governmental expenditure when the expenditure violates the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause, this exception is very narrow. The exception does not apply to the expenditure of general discretionary funds by the executive branch. Answer choice B is incorrect because the narrow exception requires that Congress authorize the funds for a specific use that violates the Establishment Clause. Here, Congress merely authorized the funds for the President’s discretionary use, and not to fund the challenged office. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the Establishment Clause reads “Congress shall make no law,” this clause has been interpreted to include actions taken by the federal government in general.

Jeffries mentioned that taxpayers don't have standing several times.

Except to challenge violations of the Establishment Clause. This question angered me. It seems like the TP would have standing e/i the suit probably won't succeed as an actual violation of the EC.

I'm a little late to this party, but this is another one of those bizarrely precise Con Law questions that is knowable only because it's based on a specific real case: Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation. Scalia's concurrence echoes your frustration with nitpickiness of this area of law.

[BarbellDreams]

Crim law spoiler

The defendant was upset because he was going to have to close his liquor store due to competition from a discount store in a new shopping mall nearby. In desperation, he decided to set fire to his store to collect the insurance. While looking through the basement for flammable material, he lit a match to read the label on a can. The match burned his finger and, in a reflex action, he dropped the match. It fell into a barrel and ignited some paper. The defendant made no effort to put out the fire but instead left the building. The fire spread and the store was destroyed by fire. The defendant was eventually arrested and indicted for arson. The defendant is:

A. guilty, if he could have put out the fire before it spread and did not do so because he wanted the building destroyed.
B. guilty, if he was negligent in starting the fire.
C. not guilty, because even if he wanted to burn the building there was no concurrence between his mens rea and the act of starting the fire.
D. not guilty, because his starting the fire was the result of a reflex action and not a voluntary act.

Answer choice A is correct. Common law arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. Most states have expanded that definition to include the burning of non-dwellings and even buildings owned by the defendant. Even though the defendant wanted to eventually burn down the building, he lacked the malicious intent at the time of the fire. But, if he could have stopped the fire and intentionally did not, that intent would suffice as malicious and he would be guilty of arson. Answer choice B is incorrect because to be found guilty of arson the defendant would have had to possess the requisite intent, not merely be negligent. Answer choice C correctly states that he did not have the requisite mens rea when he started the fire, but his failure to stop the fire created the requisite and concurrent intent. Answer choice D is incorrect because, as with answer choice C, mens rea arises from the defendant's willful failure to try to extinguish the fire. The voluntariness of defendant's action at the time that the fire started is irrelevant.

Um, did any of y'all get this one right?

I got this one right, but likely for completely the wrong reasons. My thinking was: Ok, he wanted to burn it down, but accidentally started a fire, but then this is an omission offense cause he started the fire and thus has a duty to put it out. If you created peril you have to cure it or omission makes you liable."

Notice how the word "omission" is nowhere in the Themis explanation haha.

[TheBeard]

At about this time next week, I'll be an hour away from freedom. What's life like without having to worry about bar exam prep?

[locusdelicti]

At about this time next week, I'll be an hour away from freedom. What's life like without having to worry about bar exam prep?

You have a little PTSD for a week or so, but then it shifts into anxiety about getting results when October hits.

[Talar]

@BarbellDreams I got the question right on the exact same reasoning, but the Themis explanation makes me question it...haha. jeez

[missinglink]

I think I'll stop with MBE prep. 80% on the last 100 set. My essays need work.

I'd be in much better shape if I had been putting in the kind of work I'm putting in now earlier on. Amazing what a 14 hour day at the library can do.

[dsclaw]

So I have gone through almost every MBE subject again read it over and I seem to have confused myself about ACCORD and Satisfactions. Can someone explain to me what makes it different than a modification? OR is it a specific type of modification?

I think I see the difference one is a conditional contract...

[Charles Barkley]

So I have gone through almost every MBE subject again read it over and I seem to have confused myself about ACCORD and Satisfactions. Can someone explain to me what makes it different than a modification? OR is it a specific type of modification?

I think I see the difference one is a conditional contract...

(I am not a contracts expert, in fact, it is one of my worst subjects in terms of %.)

Under CL, a modification generally not enforceable without consideration unless the parties rip up the contract or there is some sort of unforeseen difficulty. Accord (changing up the agreement) & satisfaction (actual payment according to the changed agreement) is enforceable if the pre-existing debt is 1) not yet due and 2) disputed. I think the accord & satisfaction is enforceable without consideration because the pre-existing duty is disputed.

Someone else correct me if I'm wrong. I could be talking out my ass.