Analyzing Whether Ellen Committed A Crime In The Jewelry Sto
Analyzing whether Ellen committed a crime in the jewelry store scenario
In the scenario where Ellen attempts to steal a Rolex watch valued at ten thousand dollars from Macy’s, her actions could constitute theft, specifically larceny, which is defined as unlawfully taking someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it (Criminal Law, 2015). The fact that Ellen starts sliding the watch into her purse indicates her intent to steal the item without paying for it. According to criminal law principles, the act of moving the watch toward her purse demonstrates her unlawful purpose at that moment, satisfying the actus reus component of theft (Criminal Law, 2015). Moreover, her attempt was interrupted before completion, which could classify her actions as an attempt to commit larceny, provided she had the intent to permanently deprive the store of the watch. The intervention by the clerk, who physically stops Ellen and calls security, prevents the completion of the theft but does not negate her criminal intent or act (LaFave, 2018). Therefore, under the circumstances, Ellen has committed the crime of attempted larceny, even though she was apprehended before successfully taking the watch. This scenario exemplifies that intent coupled with an overt act towards theft fulfills the elements of attempted theft under criminal law.
Paper For Above instruction
In the scenario involving Ellen's attempt to steal a Rolex watch from Macy’s, her actions clearly suggest criminal intent coupled with an overt act, which constitutes the crime of attempted larceny under general principles of criminal law. Attempted crimes are recognized when an individual intends to commit a crime and performs substantial steps towards completing that crime, but does not succeed in fully executing it. Here, Ellen’s act of sliding the watch into her purse, after signaling to her manager and during the moment her hand was over the item, confirms her intent. The fact that her plan was thwarted by the clerk turning around and physically restraining her supports the classification of her conduct as an attempt rather than mere preparation (Criminal Law, 2015). This aligns with legal standards discussed in the University of Minnesota’s publication, which emphasizes that both intent and substantial step are essential for attempted crimes. Notably, her act of trying to remove the watch without paying demonstrates her overt act, satisfying the actus reus requirement. Consequently, Ellen’s conduct meets the criteria for attempted larceny, as she had both the intent and taken steps toward committing theft, but the crime was interrupted before completion (LaFave, 2018). The legal implications underscore the importance of intent and action in establishing criminal liability in theft-related offenses. Her criminal liability would depend on whether the prosecution can sufficiently prove her intent, her overt act, and that she took steps towards property theft, which appears clear in this case.
References
- Criminal Law. (2015). University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/
- LaFave, W. R. (2018). Substantive criminal law (8th ed.). West Academic Publishing.
- Dressler, J. (2019). Understanding criminal law (8th ed.). LexisNexis.
- Geske, T. G. (2017). Criminal law case studies. Routledge.
- Kleinig, J. (2017). The philosophy of criminal law. Cambridge University Press.
- Robinson, P. H. (2020). Criminal law: Cases, statue, and practice (10th ed.). Aspen Publishing.
- McAuley, J. (2021). Legal issues in crime prevention. Oxford University Press.
- Owen, D. G. (2022). Principles of criminal law. Routledge.
- Marsh, H. L. (2016). Criminal law and procedure. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Horder, J. (2018). Criminal law: Text, cases, and materials (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.