Criminal Law Christopher

profilefhmtynyaclemocs

 

According to the Model Penal Code Mary committed attempted battery assault when she threw the pendulum at Michael.  We know that battery involves unlawful touching and assault is the attempt.  Though she did not actually make any physical contact she still had the intent to cause harm.  According to the MPC, with attempted assault there is no harm requirement, only the attempt to make physical contact that is unwanted. Mary had the intent to cause harm to Michael but failed in her attempt.  

            To answer if Mary committed theft, embezzlement, larceny, or robbery is more difficult to answer with the facts presented.  Mary could have committed theft under false pretenses, but we do not know the final outcome of the watch.  If she kept the watch it would certainly be theft, however if she called the customer to come get the watch because she was unable to fix it, at best it could be false statement.  She deliberately deceived the customer to inspect the watch, but we don’t know if she intended to keep it permanently.  The MPC defines theft by false pretenses as the takingby trick or false pretenses. There would be a burden to prove she intended to deprive the owner of their property.  It would be difficult to convict her if she gave back the watch. 


respond to this discussion question in 150 words

    • 4 years ago
    • 3
    Answer(1)

    Purchase the answer to view it

    blurred-text
    NOT RATED
    • attachment
      order_53226_CriminalLawChristopher.docx