Walmart Case Study

Chapter 8, Question 3:

Baker and others entered a Wal-Mart store shortly after 3:00 am by cutting through the metal door with an acetylene torch. They had moved some of the merchandise in the store to the rear door, but the police arrived before the merchandise could be taken from the store. Baker was prosecuted for larceny. He raised the defense that he was not guilty of larceny because no merchandise had ever left the store. Is there enough intent and action for a crime?

Baker and others were prosecuted for larceny after breaking and entering a Wal-Mart store by cutting through the metal door with an acetylene torch, moving merchandise to the rear door but were caught by the police. As a defense, Baker pleads not guilty of larceny since none of the merchandise left the store. Larceny is the wrongful or fraudulent crime of taking another person’s personal property (Twomey 151). With the intent of unlawfully taking property from the Wal-Mart store and even moving the merchandise towards the rear door, there is enough intent and action for larceny. If the police had not caught them, the defendants would have permanently taken the merchandise out of the store.

Chapter 8, Question 4:

Gail drove her automobile after having had dinner and several drinks. She fell asleep at the wheel and ran over and killed a pedestrian. Prosecuted for manslaughter, she raised the defense that she did not intend to hurt anyone and because of the drinks did not know what she was doing. Was this a valid defense?

Gail is being prosecuted for manslaughter after having to have dinner and several drinks; fell asleep at the wheel and killed a pedestrian. Gail claims that she did not intend to hurt anyone due to the alcohol. The basis of criminal liability consists of Mental State and Act or Omission. Mental state and/or intent do not require the awareness of guilt combined with the act or omission of the statutes constitutes as a crime (Twomey 138). Even though Gail did not intend to hurt and kill someone, her mental state (or lack thereof) and the act of killing someone with her vehicle does not create as a valid defense.

Chapter 8, Question 9:

Jennings operated a courier service to collect and deliver money. The contract with his customers allowed him a day or so to deliver the money that had been collected. Instead of holding collections until delivered, Jennings made short-term investments with the money. He always made deliveries to the customers on time, but because he kept the profit from the investments for himself, Jennings was prosecuted for embezzlement. Was he guilty?

Jennings was prosecuted for embezzlement by keeping the profits of the invested money he used from his courier service that collects and delivers money. Embezzlment is the fraudulently converting