Exam Preparation Complete Study Guide with Solution 2025/ 2026 CJ 631 Law Mod 10 quiz Exam Preparation Complete Study Guide with Solution 2025/ 2026
1. Dan and Victoria were planning their wedding which was scheduled for the following month. Dan became
upset when he found a picture of Victoria’s old boyfriend in a very expensive locket in the back of one of her
dresser drawers. He decided on the spot that he would take the locket, put a picture of himself over the picture
of the boyfriend, and replace the locket in the same drawer after the dresser was moved to their new home.
While on their honeymoon, Victoria mentioned that she had missed the locket while packing and wondered if
Dan had seen it. He lied and told her he had no idea what she was referring to, eventually persuading her that it
must be lost. When they got home from their honeymoon, Dan forgot all about the locket and now cannot
remember where he hid it. Which of the following crimes, if any, has Dan committed?
a) Larceny.
b) Larceny by trick.
c) False pretenses.
*d) Dan is guilty of none of the above crimes.
Hide question 1 feedback
Feedback
The correct answer is “d.” Dan is not guilty of any of the theft crimes listed. Larceny is the wrongful taking and
carrying away the personal property of another with the intent to deprive the other of it permanently, or with the
intent to create a substantial risk of permanent loss. Here, Dan may have fulfilled the actus reus element, but not
the mens rea element. That is, he wrongfully (without permission) took the personal property of another (Victoria’s
locket) and carried away that property (by taking it to his home). However, he did not do so with the intent to
deprive Victoria of it permanently. At the time he took it, he planned to give it back to her, with the old boyfriend’s
picture still in it, albeit not visible. The fact that he later lost it and now cannot find it is irrelevant. The mens
rea element for larceny is satisfied only when, at the time the property is taken, the actor has the intent to
permanently deprive the other of its possession, or to make it substantially certain the other will never achieve
possession or control. Larceny by trick is a larceny in which the owner/possessor of the personal property at issue
consents to give up possession of the item to the thief, but where that consent is procured with deception. Suppose,
for example, Dan, knowing he was going to throw the locket in the river, asked Victoria if she would allow him to
take it to the jewelers and have it cleaned. If she gave him the locket on that basis, she would have consented to the
loss of possession, but the consent would have been procured by deceit. Here, however, as Victoria never consented
to allow Dan to take her locket, by definition there could not have been larceny by trick. False pretense occurs when
a party obtains title to the personal property of another by means of an intentional false statement of material past or
existing fact with the intent to defraud. Here, Dan made a false statement of a past fact to Victoria when he said he
did not know anything about her locket. However, that statement was not made to obtain title to the locket, nor did
Dan ever obtain title to the locket. As such, he did not commit the crime of false pretenses.
2. Dee wanted to go to the theater to watch a matinee, but she had no transportation. Dee went outside and
noticed that her neighbor had forgotten to lock up her bicycle. Dee took the bicycle, intending to call her
neighbor when Dee arrived at the theater and tell her neighbor to come pick up the bicycle. When Dee was
riding the bicycle, she was struck by a car and the bicycle was destroyed. If charged with larceny of the bicycle,
Dee will most likely be found:
a) guilty, because she took the bicycle without permission and had no intent to return it to the place where she found it.
b) guilty, because her actions led to the permanent deprivation of the bicycle.
This study source was downloaded by 1827175 from cliffsnotes.com on 01-08-2026 17:55:29 GMT -06:00
CJ 631 Law Mod 10 quiz.pdf Page 1 of 7 Exam Preparation Complete Study Guide with Solution 2025/ 2026
https://www.cliffsnotes.com//study-notes/23026204
, Exam Preparation Complete Study Guide with Solution 2025/ 2026 CJ 631 Law Mod 10 quiz Exam Preparation Complete Study Guide with Solution 2025/ 2026
c) not guilty, because she did not ride the bicycle far enough away from where she took it.
*d) not guilty, if her plan to call the owner upon reaching the theater did not create a substantial risk of permanent loss.
Hide question 2 feedback
Feedback
The correct answer is “d.” The crime of larceny requires that the trespassory taking and carrying away of the
tangible property of another be committed with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Here,
Dee did not intend to permanently deprive her neighbor of the bicycle. It is true that the “permanent deprivation”
element can be established if the property is subjected to a substantial risk of permanent loss, but if Dee’s plan did
not involve such a substantial risk of loss (since she intended to alert the owner to retrieve the bicycle upon reaching
the theater), there would be no “intent to permanently deprive” as required by the definition of larceny.
3. Dick was shopping in the grocery store when he suddenly realized he had left his wallet at home and had no
money. Dick was very hungry and, deciding that it would take too much time to drive home and return, Dick
picked up a frozen steak package and put it inside his coat pocket, intending to take the steak home and eat it for
dinner. A grocery store manager saw Dick put the steak in his coat pocket and confronted Dick as Dick was
about to walk out the front door of the market. The manager told Dick, “I saw you take that steak — go ahead
this time, but don’t let me see you ever try that again!” Dick is guilty of:
*a) larceny.
b) attempted larceny.
c) false pretenses.
d) no crime.
Hide question 3 feedback
Feedback
The correct answer is “a.” The crime of larceny is complete upon the trespassory taking and carrying away of the
personal property of another coupled with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful possessor of the property.
Here, it might appear that there was no larceny because the manager consented to Dick’s leaving the store with the
steak without paying for it. However, the larceny was complete when Dick picked up the steak with the intent to
steal it. The manager’s consent is too late to negate the larceny. Also, it would not be larceny if Dick intended to
pay for the steak, but there are no facts to indicate an intent to do so. Since the larceny was completed, answer b is
wrong. Answer C is wrong because Dick initially took possession of the steak from the store, not title.
4. Zak is a troubled teen. His father is a wealthy industrialist who travels frequently with his mother, and Zak is
often left alone to fend for himself. His father has made it clear that his antique Porsche is off limits and that if
Zak in any way uses it he will be sent off to reform school. On Monday, while his parents are out of town, Zak
decided to take the Porsche for a spin. While doing so he got into a fender bender that resulted in a dent in the
back quarter panel. Zak immediately called Joe’s Service Station and spoke with Joe. Knowing that his parents
were scheduled to return on Saturday, Zak stated that he needed the Porsche repaired and ready to be picked up
by Friday morning. Joe replied that it would cost him $2,000 for the rush job. Zak knew he could not pay for the
repair but told Joe he would drop off the car within the hour. Joe left a message on Zak’s answering machine on
Thursday afternoon stating that the Porsche was ready for pick up. Thursday evening Zak asked his friend,
Arthur, to go pick up the car. He marked his copy of the invoice “paid: ck. # 235,” and sent Arthur to pick up
This study source was downloaded by 1827175 from cliffsnotes.com on 01-08-2026 17:55:29 GMT -06:00
CJ 631 Law Mod 10 quiz.pdf Page 2 of 7 Exam Preparation Complete Study Guide with Solution 2025/ 2026
https://www.cliffsnotes.com//study-notes/23026204
1. Dan and Victoria were planning their wedding which was scheduled for the following month. Dan became
upset when he found a picture of Victoria’s old boyfriend in a very expensive locket in the back of one of her
dresser drawers. He decided on the spot that he would take the locket, put a picture of himself over the picture
of the boyfriend, and replace the locket in the same drawer after the dresser was moved to their new home.
While on their honeymoon, Victoria mentioned that she had missed the locket while packing and wondered if
Dan had seen it. He lied and told her he had no idea what she was referring to, eventually persuading her that it
must be lost. When they got home from their honeymoon, Dan forgot all about the locket and now cannot
remember where he hid it. Which of the following crimes, if any, has Dan committed?
a) Larceny.
b) Larceny by trick.
c) False pretenses.
*d) Dan is guilty of none of the above crimes.
Hide question 1 feedback
Feedback
The correct answer is “d.” Dan is not guilty of any of the theft crimes listed. Larceny is the wrongful taking and
carrying away the personal property of another with the intent to deprive the other of it permanently, or with the
intent to create a substantial risk of permanent loss. Here, Dan may have fulfilled the actus reus element, but not
the mens rea element. That is, he wrongfully (without permission) took the personal property of another (Victoria’s
locket) and carried away that property (by taking it to his home). However, he did not do so with the intent to
deprive Victoria of it permanently. At the time he took it, he planned to give it back to her, with the old boyfriend’s
picture still in it, albeit not visible. The fact that he later lost it and now cannot find it is irrelevant. The mens
rea element for larceny is satisfied only when, at the time the property is taken, the actor has the intent to
permanently deprive the other of its possession, or to make it substantially certain the other will never achieve
possession or control. Larceny by trick is a larceny in which the owner/possessor of the personal property at issue
consents to give up possession of the item to the thief, but where that consent is procured with deception. Suppose,
for example, Dan, knowing he was going to throw the locket in the river, asked Victoria if she would allow him to
take it to the jewelers and have it cleaned. If she gave him the locket on that basis, she would have consented to the
loss of possession, but the consent would have been procured by deceit. Here, however, as Victoria never consented
to allow Dan to take her locket, by definition there could not have been larceny by trick. False pretense occurs when
a party obtains title to the personal property of another by means of an intentional false statement of material past or
existing fact with the intent to defraud. Here, Dan made a false statement of a past fact to Victoria when he said he
did not know anything about her locket. However, that statement was not made to obtain title to the locket, nor did
Dan ever obtain title to the locket. As such, he did not commit the crime of false pretenses.
2. Dee wanted to go to the theater to watch a matinee, but she had no transportation. Dee went outside and
noticed that her neighbor had forgotten to lock up her bicycle. Dee took the bicycle, intending to call her
neighbor when Dee arrived at the theater and tell her neighbor to come pick up the bicycle. When Dee was
riding the bicycle, she was struck by a car and the bicycle was destroyed. If charged with larceny of the bicycle,
Dee will most likely be found:
a) guilty, because she took the bicycle without permission and had no intent to return it to the place where she found it.
b) guilty, because her actions led to the permanent deprivation of the bicycle.
This study source was downloaded by 1827175 from cliffsnotes.com on 01-08-2026 17:55:29 GMT -06:00
CJ 631 Law Mod 10 quiz.pdf Page 1 of 7 Exam Preparation Complete Study Guide with Solution 2025/ 2026
https://www.cliffsnotes.com//study-notes/23026204
, Exam Preparation Complete Study Guide with Solution 2025/ 2026 CJ 631 Law Mod 10 quiz Exam Preparation Complete Study Guide with Solution 2025/ 2026
c) not guilty, because she did not ride the bicycle far enough away from where she took it.
*d) not guilty, if her plan to call the owner upon reaching the theater did not create a substantial risk of permanent loss.
Hide question 2 feedback
Feedback
The correct answer is “d.” The crime of larceny requires that the trespassory taking and carrying away of the
tangible property of another be committed with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Here,
Dee did not intend to permanently deprive her neighbor of the bicycle. It is true that the “permanent deprivation”
element can be established if the property is subjected to a substantial risk of permanent loss, but if Dee’s plan did
not involve such a substantial risk of loss (since she intended to alert the owner to retrieve the bicycle upon reaching
the theater), there would be no “intent to permanently deprive” as required by the definition of larceny.
3. Dick was shopping in the grocery store when he suddenly realized he had left his wallet at home and had no
money. Dick was very hungry and, deciding that it would take too much time to drive home and return, Dick
picked up a frozen steak package and put it inside his coat pocket, intending to take the steak home and eat it for
dinner. A grocery store manager saw Dick put the steak in his coat pocket and confronted Dick as Dick was
about to walk out the front door of the market. The manager told Dick, “I saw you take that steak — go ahead
this time, but don’t let me see you ever try that again!” Dick is guilty of:
*a) larceny.
b) attempted larceny.
c) false pretenses.
d) no crime.
Hide question 3 feedback
Feedback
The correct answer is “a.” The crime of larceny is complete upon the trespassory taking and carrying away of the
personal property of another coupled with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful possessor of the property.
Here, it might appear that there was no larceny because the manager consented to Dick’s leaving the store with the
steak without paying for it. However, the larceny was complete when Dick picked up the steak with the intent to
steal it. The manager’s consent is too late to negate the larceny. Also, it would not be larceny if Dick intended to
pay for the steak, but there are no facts to indicate an intent to do so. Since the larceny was completed, answer b is
wrong. Answer C is wrong because Dick initially took possession of the steak from the store, not title.
4. Zak is a troubled teen. His father is a wealthy industrialist who travels frequently with his mother, and Zak is
often left alone to fend for himself. His father has made it clear that his antique Porsche is off limits and that if
Zak in any way uses it he will be sent off to reform school. On Monday, while his parents are out of town, Zak
decided to take the Porsche for a spin. While doing so he got into a fender bender that resulted in a dent in the
back quarter panel. Zak immediately called Joe’s Service Station and spoke with Joe. Knowing that his parents
were scheduled to return on Saturday, Zak stated that he needed the Porsche repaired and ready to be picked up
by Friday morning. Joe replied that it would cost him $2,000 for the rush job. Zak knew he could not pay for the
repair but told Joe he would drop off the car within the hour. Joe left a message on Zak’s answering machine on
Thursday afternoon stating that the Porsche was ready for pick up. Thursday evening Zak asked his friend,
Arthur, to go pick up the car. He marked his copy of the invoice “paid: ck. # 235,” and sent Arthur to pick up
This study source was downloaded by 1827175 from cliffsnotes.com on 01-08-2026 17:55:29 GMT -06:00
CJ 631 Law Mod 10 quiz.pdf Page 2 of 7 Exam Preparation Complete Study Guide with Solution 2025/ 2026
https://www.cliffsnotes.com//study-notes/23026204
