Monday, August 4, 2008

A Law School-esque Question

In honor of the aspiring lawyers who took the Bar Exam last week (bless your hearts), I have the below interesting (if not very exciting) fact scenario that has come up for your analysis. Read the fact pattern and then select the correct answer.

The names and specifics have been changed to amuse me.

Lou runs a printing company. At the end of the week, he collects all the scrap paper and sells it to a recycler for a couple of hundred dollars. Bill and Curtis both work at Lou's company and neither are all of that great of employees. Bill ultimately gets fired, but Curtis does not. Bill needs some extra money, so he decides that he will begin stealing the recycle paper and selling it to a company for his own profit.

To help him do this, he enlists Curtis (who is still an employee) to leave him a key to the printing company so that he (Bill) can sneak in during the night and steal the paper for recycling. Curtis leaves Bill a key under the back step. Bill breaks in, and promptly gets arrested by an alert security guard as he is leaving the building.

Under this scenario:

Answer A: Bill and Curtis are both guilty of burglary of a building under the Law of Parties.
Answer B: Bill is guilty of burglary of a building, but since Curtis had a right to be there, he is only guilty of misdemeanor employee theft.
Answer C: Since Curtis is an employee and gave Bill the key, Bill had a right to be there, and therefore, they are both only guilty of misdemeanor theft.
Answer D: Since Curtis is an employee and he allowed Bill's entry and theft, Curtis is guilty of misdemeanor theft, and Bill is guilty of nothing.
Answer PJ: Since that bastard Lou was selling his paper to be recycled rather than doing his environmental duty to just recycle it on his own for free, Lou should be charged with capital murder.

Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves.


Ron in Houston said...

Do we get an eraser thrown at us if we get it wrong?

The Punisher said...

A. Charge them both with Burglary committing theft after entry. Just because one has the key with owner's consent doesn't mean he had consent to enter to steal. And just because the other one was given permission by the first crook doesn't relief him of anything. Then, lock them in the building with owner and see what happens.... let him recycle that.

An Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney said...

In Virginia both would be guilty of burglary. Principals in the second degree and accessories before the fact are convicted and punished the same as principals in the first degree.

Seer said...

A. Burglary with intent to commit theft. Current employee is a party.

Edintally said...

A. for the reasons stated above


Anonymous said...

E. None of the above unless there were two witnesses, one of them being Mark Bennett.