LSTD302

profileWill32

100 words agree or disagree to each question 


Q1.
In order for Mary to be charged with Theft or Larceny should would be required to take the watch would have to have been taken with the intent of permanently relieving the legal owner of the item. Nothing in the information we have suggest she intended on keeping the item for good. Robbery wouldn't apply because no threat or force was used to take the watch from the customer (Allison, 2012). Embezzlement on the other hand could possibly apply here. She obtained the watch under fraudulent means. The customer trusted her to fix the watch but she accepted the item knowing she'd be unable to fix it. It would be nearly impossible to prove this because there is no way to prove she knowingly accepted the watch and that she knew she'd be unable to fix it.

Mary could be charged with simple assault for attempting to cause bodily injury to Michael. He was no longer a threat to her or her property when he was retreating as she attempted to hit him with the pendulum weight. Battery would not apply because the pendulum weight she threw never made contact with Michael.

References:

Allison, J. (2012). Model Penal Code, No-Knock Search Warrants and Robbery. Retrieved from https://works.bepress.com/jennifer_allison/17/download/


Q2.

Per Cornell Law School, embezzlement is defined as the fraudulent taking of personal property by someone who it was entrusted.  That said it would seem like Mary did not commit embezzlement due to the fact that it seems like she has every intention on giving it back although her intentions of keeping are not reveled to the customer.  That same reason I do not think she would be found guilty of larceny or robbery due to the fact that she shows every intention of giving it back.  And she showed no use of force to take the watch in the first place (law.cornell.edu).  She had every right to posses the watch, its just her reasoning for inspecting it was different.  

Now as far as crimes committed against Michael I will first start with assault.  Assault can be defined as an attempt to injure someone else and in some circumstances can include threats or threatening behavior against others (criminal.findlaw.com).  That being said, although Mary did not make contact with the object she threw at Michael, it can still be considered assault due to the fact that she put him in harms way.  Now as far a battery goes, in order to receive a battery charge physical contact must have happened intentionally in a way that is harmful or offensive with no consent from the victim (criminal.findlaw.com).  That said it is safe to say throughout this whole altercation the only charges that can be filed against Mary is assault against Michael for reasons stated.

It is funny how the law works because in this situation we have two individuals in Mary and Michael who both act immorally and if Mary had not of thrown that pendulum there probably would not have been any charges made.  

-Jonah

Embezzlement. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/embezzlement 

Wex: searchResultsForm. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/searchResultsForm.html

Assault and Battery Overview. (2019, June 25). Retrieved from https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html

Q3.


Did Mary commit Embezzlement, Theft, Larceny or Robbery with respects to the watch? Discuss why. Remember to support your position.

In my opinion, Mary did commit embezzlement, which is a particular form of fraud that describes the property (watch) was entrusted to Mary by the property owner (customer) to keep or maintain it, but during the transaction, Mary deceitfully gained possession of the watch for her own benefit with the intent to temporarily deprive the customer of its use. The three elements I just highlighted above would give sufficient probable cause to charge Mary with Embezzlement. 

Did Mary commit an Assault, a Battery or an “Assault and Battery” against Michael? Discuss why. Remember to support your position.

Based off the circumstances detailed on the case, there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that Mary committed Battery against Michael due to the fact that Battery is defined as unlawful touching/striking of another which did not occur. Therefore, in my opinion, Mary committed Aggravated Assault by intentionally and unlawfully threatening Michael by the act of Mary picking up the heavy pendulum weight to do violence against him. At the time, Mary appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat. The act of Mary, created in the mind of Michael, a well-founded fear that violence was about to take place. The assault was made with a deadly weapon (heavy pendulum weight) and with a fully formed conscious intent to commit aggravated battery upon Michael. The above-mentioned elements are those that are required to establish probable cause for the charge of Aggravated Assault.

Florida Standard Jury Instructions. (n.d.). Criminal Jury Instructions Chapter 8. Retrieved from https://jury.flcourts.org/criminal-jury


    • Posted: 7 days ago
    • Due: 
    • Budget: $1
    Answers 1
    • Assignment Done
      Answer rating:5Stars out of1ratings

    Purchase the answer to view it

    blurred-text