Case Study: State V. Arthur

1002 Words5 Pages
State v. Arthur Subject___ Larceny Charges Statement "Arthur and Carl board the yacht and steal several thousand dollars worth of diamonds." Derived Subject___Are Arthur, Ben, and Carl guilty of Larceny? RULE LARCENY is the TRESPASSORY TAKING and CARRYING AWAY of the PERSONAL PROPERTY of ANOTHER with the SPECIFIC INTENT to PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE the OWNER THEREOF. APPLICATION ELEMENT 1. TRESPASSORY TAKING ; The "TRESPASSORY TAKING" requires that Arthur, Ben and Carl are taking property that is not theirs without permission. Here, the facts explicitly indicate that Arthur wants Ben and Carl to help him to explicitly "steal" property from the Yacht. Stealing is always trespassory taking. Thus Arthur and Carl are trespassory taking. As such, element one is in place. ELEMENT 2. CARRYING AWAY Carrying away is moving…show more content…
Arthur 's Battery crime will merge with murder if murder is found. END OF ARTHUR AGGRAVATED BATTERY CHARGES IRAC STATE v. ARTHUR Subject Matter ___Murder Charges Pinkerton Liability Rule Guiltiness of a coconspirator exists for all the crimes committed by their coconspirators that were a natural and foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy and done in furtherance of the conspiracy. Conspiracy Exists Supra ___see___ State v. Arthur Conspiracy A conspiracy exists which Arthur is part of. As such, this element is met. Crime Committed by a Coconspirator Infra ___see___ State v. Carl Murder A Murder crime was committed by the coconspirator Carl. As such, this element was met. In Furtherance of Conspiracy The Murder crime was in furtherance of the conspiracy as killing the Watchman furthered the Conspiracy by preventing the Watchman from stopping the Burglary. As such, this element was met. Was Reasonably Foreseeable Ben and Arthur knew that the conspiracy was about Burglary. Burglary is an inherently dangerous felony. Hence, a Murder crime was foreseeable by

More about Case Study: State V. Arthur

Open Document