Robbery and Burglary (Due 4/12/06 at 7PM)
In chapter 11 we review information about crimes against property. Two of the most common crimes against property are robbery and burglary.
If your last name ends in A-L, answer questions 1-4 on page 412, from the case "Did He Burglarize an Occupied Apartment"?. Please number your answers.
If your last name ends in M-Z, answer questions 1-4 on page 401 from the case "Did He Take Property by Force"? Please number your answers.
posted by ProfessorQuinnCCP @ 11:08 AM
22 Comments:
Did He Take Property by Force?
Question #1: The act of taking her purse and running away with her holding the purse to her side and giving her a shove to knock her off balance.
Question #2: Majority rule is "robbery is committed when attached property is snatched of grabbed by sufficient force as to overcome the resistance of attachment."
Minority rule is "Any purse snatching not accomplished by stealth would be robbery."
Question #3: Majority Rule evidence in favor of this case is that the victim didn't resist the taking of her purse.Majority Rule evidence against is that in most cases it is going to be hard to prove that the victim tried to resist in the taking of his/her property.
Minority Rule evidence in favor is that Curley shoved the victim took the purse and ran. Minority Rule evidence against is that he was drunk and didn't remember.
Question #4: In my opinion I think that the minority rule is better. In the minority rule it is simply stated that if your property is snatched away from you the victim if caught is getting charged. The reason I don't like the Majority rule is that in some cases it is going to be hard to try and prove the amount of force that was used against you and how much resistance you used against the attacker.
1.Evidences:-victim had her purse on her left shoulder with her thumb through it.
-Curley "grabbed/pulled" the purse from the victim
-He had also "pushed/shoved" her while getting the purse.
-Curley was drunk, confessed that he did not know remember the incident at all.
2. The minority ruled that any purse snatching not accomplished by stealth would be robbery. The majority ruled, robbery is committed when attached property is snatched or grabbed by sufficient force so as to overcome the resistance of attachment.
3.In favor of: I agree with minority rule, when taking someone's belonging is considered stealing. The majority rule also make sense, when robbing someone, you will need to apply some type of force.
4. I agree with the minority rule. When you take someone's belonging in front or that person, though you did not apply much force, i would still call that robbing someone.
1.Evidences:-victim had her purse on her left shoulder with her thumb through it.
-Curley "grabbed/pulled" the purse from the victim
-He had also "pushed/shoved" her while getting the purse.
-Curley was drunk, confessed that he did not know remember the incident at all.
2. The minority ruled that any purse snatching not accomplished by stealth would be robbery. The majority ruled, robbery is committed when attached property is snatched or grabbed by sufficient force so as to overcome the resistance of attachment.
3.In favor of: I agree with minority rule, when taking someone's belonging is considered stealing. The majority rule also make sense, when robbing someone, you will need to apply some type of force.
4. I agree with the minority rule. When you take someone's belonging in front or that person, though you did not apply much force, i would still call that robbing someone.
1.Evidences:-victim had her purse on her left shoulder with her thumb through it.
-Curley "grabbed/pulled" the purse from the victim
-He had also "pushed/shoved" her while getting the purse.
-Curley was drunk, confessed that he did not know remember the incident at all.
2. The minority ruled that any purse snatching not accomplished by stealth would be robbery. The majority ruled, robbery is committed when attached property is snatched or grabbed by sufficient force so as to overcome the resistance of attachment.
3.In favor of: I agree with minority rule, when taking someone's belonging is considered stealing. The majority rule also make sense, when robbing someone, you will need to apply some type of force.
4. I agree with the minority rule. When you take someone's belonging in front or that person, though you did not apply much force, i would still call that robbing someone.
1.Evidences:-victim had her purse on her left shoulder with her thumb through it.
-Curley "grabbed/pulled" the purse from the victim
-He had also "pushed/shoved" her while getting the purse.
-Curley was drunk, confessed that he did not know remember the incident at all.
2. The minority ruled that any purse snatching not accomplished by stealth would be robbery. The majority ruled, robbery is committed when attached property is snatched or grabbed by sufficient force so as to overcome the resistance of attachment.
3.In favor of: I agree with minority rule, when taking someone's belonging is considered stealing. The majority rule also make sense, when robbing someone, you will need to apply some type of force.
4. I agree with the minority rule. When you take someone's belonging in front or that person, though you did not apply much force, i would still call that robbing someone.
Junu Lassiter
Did he burglarize an occupied apartment?
1) he went to an apartment complex under the pretense that he was looking to rent a unit. He had a gun. He allowed the manager to show him around the building knowing that he inteded to rob her and the entire building. He ordered her to the ground, fondled her, tied her up, and took her keys and proceeded to invade the rest of the building.
2) They define an occupied structure as any house, outbuilding, watercraft, aircraft,railroad car, truck, trailer, tent,or other structure, vehicle, or shelter, or any portion thereof, to which any of the following applies. t is maintained as a permenant or temporary dwelling, even though it is temporarily unoccupied and whether or not any person is actually present.
3)
4) I agree that Burns committed burglary of an occupied structure, because he knew that he wanted to rob the structure. He went into a building that was occupied by people even though they were in their own homes, the structure was still occupies, and he had the keys to all of the doors. This gave him total access to what he wanted.
1.) The actus reus of robbery consist of using force or threatening to use force to take another's property. In this case the defendant used just the force that was necessary to remove the purse from the victim, who was not clutching the purse tightly or by the strap. He surprised the victim who did not resist so the court ruled that it was not a robbery.
2>)The majority rule states robbery is committed when attached property is snatched or grabbed by suffifcient force so as to overcome the "resistance of attachment."
The minority rule states any purse snatching not accomplished by stealth would be robbery.
3.)In the minority rule any slightest use of force that involves taking property against peoples will constitutes robbery. The good part of this is it is tough against purse snatchers. The bad side is it is inconsistent with the law, if a person knows that he will be charged with robbery in any case, he may just as well do harm to the person regardless. In majority rule the court tries to differentiate between a crime against a person and a property crime. Robbery statutes protect people from assault. The majority rule rest in between robbery and larceny,there must be some idea of the viciousness of a robbery attack and just plain theft. The bad side is who can say in every incident what is adequate force. It leaves it up to the victim to prove how much force was used.
4.) It depends what side of the fence your on what is the better rule. Would you rather be charged with robbery or larceny? I think that the majority rule is the fairest. It allows for judges and juries to use reasonable decisions in deciding what is assault and what is larceny.
1. Mr. Burns entered a building with plans of burglary. In regards to it being a occupied structure, it is burglary whether its occupied or not. He asked to see a one-bedroom, as if he was going to rent. The manager showed him the community room and the laundry facility, before even going to a room that had been vacant for one month. He fondeled the manager,tied her up,threatened her with a gun,asked for money, and took her keys. Taken keys alone has elements of burglary on someone else.
2.any house,building,outbuilding,watercraft,aircraft,railroad car,truck,tent,or other structure,vehicle,or shelter,or any portion thereof,to which any of the following applies: It is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling, even though it is temporarily unoccupied and whether or not any person is actually present.
3. this definition promotes that it is aggravated burglary. Even though Mr.Burns disagree with aggravated burglary because the room was vacant. It does not matter according to the occupied structure definition.
4. Yes. in regards to Ohio definition of occupied structure. It was a building first, then the room he went in whether it was vacant or not, it was maintained as a permanant or temporay dwelling.
4
1. The evidence to determine whether the purse snatching was robbery. When curley grabbed her purse and ran away, when the victim was pushed or shoved, and when he grabbed and pulled to take the purse. also apparently there wasnt a struggle and the fact that curly was drunk is evidence because if he was drunk the push or shove ws incidental and changes it from robberie to larceny.
2.the majority rule is "robbery is commited when attached property is snatched or grabbed by sufficient force so as to overcome the resistane of attatchment"
The minority rule is "any purse snatching not accomplished by stealth would be robbery"
3.the minority rule evidence for it is that the pursed was snatched or taken and the evidence against it was that because he was drunk there was no force
the majority rule evidence for it is when he pulled the purse and pushed the victim evidence against it is there was no resistance by the victim
4. the minority rule because any purse snatching should be considered a robbery because your taking someone's personal belongings and even if there no resistance it doesn't mean that you wanted it to happen you could be in shock or scared.
1. I cannot tell whether robert burns broke into the 'occupied structure because he did not make a forceful or unauthorized entry, evn though his entry was deceitful,but the following elements are relevant to him entering.Burns visited the manager of the appartment complex with the intent of commiting a crime and the pretence of being a prospective tenant.He went into an empty appartment with the manager,ordered her to walk down the hallway into the bedroom and pushed her to the ground,tied her mouth and legs, took the bunch of keys from the manager and asked her for money and also fondled her.
2. The Ohio courts defined occupied structure as any house,building,outbuilding,watercraft,aircraft,railroad car,truck,trailer,tent,or other sructure,vehicle,or shelter,or any portion thereof,to which any of the following applies:
(1) it is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling,even though it is temporarily unoccupied and whether or not any person is actually present.
3.
4. Yes because the state said a person is guilty of aggravated burglary according to R.C. 2911.11
A. No person, by force,stealth,or deception,shall tresspass in an aan occupied structure,as defined in section 2909.01 of the revised code,or in a separately secured or separately occupied portion thereof with purpose to commit therein any offense,as defined in section 2913.01 of the revised code, or any felony,when any of the following apply:
1.The offender (in this case Burns)inflicts,or attempts or threatens to inflict physical harm on another;
2.The offender has a deadly weaponor dangerous ordinance, as defined in section2923.11 of the revised code,on or about his person under his control.
3. the occupied structure involved is the permanent or temporary habitation of any person, in which at that time any person is present or likey to be present.
1. Evidence relevant to saying this was a robbery would be, the shoving and snatching the purse, that would be the actus reus, the mens rea would be the fact that he ran away, which shows he had no intent on giving it back, and the circumstance is obviously taking the purse.
2.The majority rule says that during a purse snatch or any robbery, force must be used to overcome a struggle with that which is being taken. The minority rule says that "any purse snatching not accomplished by stealth would be robbery"
3.As for the minority rule, there is no evidence that would say stealth was or wasn't involved, but being as though the defendant was drunk, chances are, he probably didn't use stealth. In the majority rule, you could argue that because he pushed her, he used force to take her purse, but Curley said that was from his drunkness, but he isn't a reliable source for that reason alone. But the woman said that she didn't struggle to get her purse back.
4. I think that the majortiy rule is better because to me it just makes the most sense. The fact that you need force and have to be fighting in some sort of way to take what your trying to take, to me that constitutes a robbery
Did he burglarize an occupied apartment?
1) Defendant went to an apartment complex making it seem that he was looking to rent a unit. Assailant was armed. He was showed around the building by the manager with the intentios to rob her and the entire building. He ordered her to the ground, fondled her, tied her up, and took her keys and proceeded to invade the rest of the building.
2) The court defines an occupied structure as any house, outbuilding, watercraft, aircraft,railroad car, truck, trailer, tent,or other structure, vehicle, or shelter, or any portion thereof, to which any of the following applies: It is maintained as a permenent or temporary dwelling, even though it is temporarily unoccupied and whether or not any person is actually present.
4)In my opinion I agree that Burns committed burglary of an occupied structure, because he had the intentions to rob the structure. He went into a building that was occupied by people. The structure was still occupied, and with the keys in hand he had total access to robing the homes.
1) In this case, the purse snatchin would not be robbery, it would be larceny. During the alleged robbery, the defendant was partly drunk and and the force that he used to retrieve the purse was not sufficient to constitute robbery. "When property is attached to the person or clothing of a victim so as to cause resistance, any taking is a robbery, and not larceny, because the lever that causes the victim to part with the property is the force that is applied to break that resestance; however, when no more force is used than would be neccessary to remove property from a person who does not resist, then the offense is larceny, not robbery." The victim stated that the defendant grabbed the purse and continued to run, meaning she did not try to resist him.
2) The majority rule regarding the element of force in purse snatching is "robbery is committed when attached property is snatched or grabbed by sufficient force so as to overcome the resistance of atteachment." The minority rule regarding the element of force in purse snatching, used in Massachusetts is "any purse snatching not accomplished by stealth would be robery."
3) The evidence in this case would favor the minority rule because as long as there is some kind of force used, as little as it might be, would still be robbery. However, it would go against it because this is only in the state of Massachusetts. The evidence in this case would go against the majority rule because there was not enough force used to retrieve the purse. None of the evidence would be enough to favor the majority rule.
4) In my opinion, I think that the majority rule is better. Why should someone be charged with robbery, when all of the elements of robbery doesn't even exist. Such as using immediate force or the threat of immediate force. If the minority rule was always used, everyone in this situation would be guilty of robbery instead of the lesser crime of larceny.
Q1(A): She let him in without asking questions to him to a vacant appartment to show him one of the rooms as they whent in the defendent pulled out a gun and ordered her to walk down the hallway he then took off her pantyhose and boots he proseded to tie her up after that he started taking stuff from the one-bedroom apt.
Q2(a): 1. No person, by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an occupied structure.2. R.C. 2909.01 (c) defined "occupied Structure" as: Any house, building, out building, watercraft, aircraft, railroad car, truck, trailer, tent, or other structure, vehicle, or shelter, or any portion thereof, to which any of thte fallowing applies to weather the person is there. (1) It is maintained as a permenent or temporary dwelling, even thought it is temporarily unoccupied and whether or not any person is actually present.
Q3(A): A that the nomatter were youre at if its at youre home or an aircraft if you steal something from somebody you will be charged with burglary.
Q4(A): Yes, i agree that he committed burglary on a occupied structure cause if it wasn't because of the landlord opening the door and showing him one of the units, and how they are he would of not done anything but she showed him one and he pulled out a gun and committed the act.
1. There are no facts that support burns breaking and entering. He was let in by a master key the manager had. This does not constitute as breaking and entering under the law.
2. They defined it as " the permanant or temporary habitation of any person in which the time any person is present or likely to be present." It also states " If it is maintained as a permanant or temporary dwelling, even though it is temporarily unoccupied and whether or not any person is actually present"
3.the breaking and entering or burgulary of homes that arent occupied like the construction or renovation of property to make it habitable
4. Yes according to the law you only have to reasonably agree that at any time any person is presnt or likely to be present. The mere fact that she was showing the property to rent out would lead one to believe that it is likely to be occupied, and of course the malicious crimes that occured during the commision of the act speak for themselves.
1.) Personally, I do not believe that there are any facts or evidence that are relevant to determining that Mr. Robert Burns broke and entered an occupied structure.Breaking and entering consists of unlawful entry which can be described as picking locks, or even using a key that was somehow obtained. Breaking and entering can also occur in a more violent and aggressive manner, such as breaking windows or kicking down doors.
2.) The Ohio Court of Appeals defined occupied structure as "any
house, building, outbuilding, watercraft, aircraft, railroad car, truck, trailer, tent, or other structure, vehicle or shelter, or any portion thereof, to which any of the following applies: It is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling, even though it is temporarily unoccupied and whether or not any person is actually present.
3.)The policy which this definition promotes is the protection of one's property. Someone may simply think a house or other structure is unoccupied or vacant just because there isn't anyone there and hasn't been anyone there for a while. The court's definition of occupied structure states that the structure doesn't have to be occupied at that particular time to be considered an occupied structure.
4.) No I do not agree that Mr. Robert Burns committed burglary of an occupied structure. Yes he should be charged with aggravated burglary as well as the other charges he received, however the structure (an apartment) was unoccupied at that particular time.
PROFESSOR QUINN!!!! I, DAVID C. DENMARK, POSTED THE ANONYMOUS BLOG @ 3:52 P.M. SORRY ABOUT THE CONFUSION
1. In the Criminal Law book it states that an occupied structure is "any structure, vehicle, or place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, or for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present". Although Robert Burns was invited in to the apartment he misrepresented himself a person looking to rent an apartment. Robert then points a gun at the manager and ordered her to walk down the hallway into the bedroom. Robert the ties her up, takes the keys and asked for money. But judging from the facts Robert never broke into the apartment. If Robert broke and entered into other apartments within the same thirty eight-unit complex then that would be considered as relevant facts, but the facts to this case did not state that he broke and entered into other apartments.
2. The Ohio Court of Appeals found that the apartment was in fact an occupied structure. The Courts also defined occupied structure as "any house, building, outbuilding, watercraft, aircraft, railroad car, truck, trailer, tent, or other structure, vehicle, or shelter, or any portion thereof, to which any of the following applies: It is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling, even though it is temporarily unoccupied and whether or not any person is actually present." the court also stated that " The occupied structure involved is the permanent or temporary habitation of any person, in which at the time any person is present or likely to be present".
3. I believe that the definition of occupied structure promotes that anything can be considered as breaking an entering: if entered without permission of the owner whether the space is abundant or occupied.
4. Yes. Robert invaded the apartment, threatened the manager, used a deadly weapon to get control over the manager, and robbed her for her keys and requested money with in an occupied structure (courts defined as an occupied structure). Not to mention the intent and act of burglary.
Did he burgalarise an "occupied" Apartment?
1)Robert burns entered the appartment with the apartment manager to supposedly look for an apartment. As they were in the room he pointed a gun at the manager, forced her to eneter a room, there, he pused her down on the floor tied a scarf around her mouth, then placed her in hand cuffs. He removed her boots , slacks, and pantyhose, tied her ankles together with the pantyhose and the began to fondle her.
2)The Ohio court defined occupied structure as: any house, building, outbuilding, watercraft, aircraft, railroad, car, truck, trailer, tent, or other structure, vehicle or shelter, or any portion thereof, to which any of the following applies: it is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling, even though it is temporarily unoccupied and whether or not any person is actually present.
3. This definition promotes the "the dwelling of another" element of the common law of burgalary. By the definition given by the court, the "unoccupied" appartment was , in fact, occupied.
4.Yes. I agree that Robert Burns committed burglary of an occupied structure because he forcefully entered a appartment that was "temporarily unoccupied" which falls under the court definition of occupied structure, and then committed multiple felonies.
1. When Curly took the purse from the woman's shoulders he pushed her at the same time. She was not holding on tight to her straps of the pocketbook or the handles of the bag. Her thumb was resting on the top of the bag. The fact that Curly was drunk he did not remember what had transpired.
2." According to the majority rule, robbery is committed when attached property is snatched or grabbed by suffieient force so as to overcome the resistance of the attachement."
The minority rule," any purse snatching not accomplished by stealth would be robbery.
3. There is a necessary amount of force needed to accomplish snatching a pocket book. Who would not resist to one taking the bag. A reasonable person would attempt to fight back and not just give away thier belongings.
Only the court can decide what is robbery and larceny. If a person who was going to commit the crime knew anything about the law they would not take something that did not belong to them. Therefore, a reasonable person would not steal.
4. I think that miniority rule is a better rule because it would help to protect the public in a broader scheme. The law allows for all purse snatcher to be proscuted.
1.)Robert Burns went to the apartment complex stating that he wanted to rent an apartment. The manager took him around the building for a tour and then went into one of the apartments that was only occupied for about a month. Burns took the manager into the bedroom took off her slacks and pantyhose and tied her up and fondeled her and then asked her if there was any money.
2.)Ohio Court of Appeals defines occupied structure as any house, building, outbuilding,watercraft, aircraft, railroadcar truck, or other structure, wehicle, or shelter.
4.)yes, i believe so because there was someone in the building with him, and also someone lived there.
Did he burglarize an occupid apartment?
1.Mr Burns gained entry into the occupied structure through false pretenses. He intentionally portrayed himself as a potential renter looking for an apartmnet. This allowed him to gain obtain entry into the building and he was able to put his plan into action to burglarize the complex.
2. The Ohio Courts of Appeal ruled that any house, building, outbuilding, car, aircraft, etc. that is maintained as a permanent ot temporary dwelling, even though it is temporarily unoccupied and whether or not a person is actually present is an occuped structure. They later included an occupied structure should be include the following note; dedicated and intended for residential use and is not presently occupied as a person's habitation but hasn't been permanently abandoned or vacant for a prolonged period of time as part of the definition of occupied structure to clear any vagueness.
3. The policy interests promotes breaking an entering in regards to what one may think is an abandoned home and in reality it is temporarily unoccupied. Under the court's ruling if someone was to enter a home that doesn't have a tenant they'd be charged with breaking and entering an occupied structure if it has recently been occupied by a tenant. The one question that sticks out is what is considered to be recently occupied. When does it cross the line from temporarily vacant to vacant and unoccupied.
4. Yes I believe Mr Burns commited burglary of an occupied structure. He entered the building under false pretenses and he remained unlawfully. Prior to entering the builidng he had the specific intent to burglarize the complex upon gaining entry into the builidng.He used an deadly weapon to commit another felong, aggravated robbery against the apartment manager.
Post a Comment
<< Home