Legal Reasoning Fact Pattern Q: Carl\'s television stopped working just before t
ID: 393272 • Letter: L
Question
Legal Reasoning Fact Pattern Q: Carl's television stopped working just before the big game and he did not have enough money to purchase another television. He knew that a motel near his workplace had recently purchased very nice televisions for all of the rooms in the hotel. These television sets cost $1000.00 each, but the fair market value of the used television sets is only $200.00. Carl goes to the motel at 5 pm, opens the unlocked door of one of the rooms (which was rented out by a guest but was not currently occupied because the guest was at dinner with her Grandma who had Alzheimer's), and enters the room. He then picks up the television and starts to take it out of the room, but then hears people coming, drops the television, and runs away. Carl is subsequently arrested and arraigned for burglary. Assume that the crime of burglary requires that the following elements must be met: Breaking and entering of a dwelling in the nighttime with an intent to commit a felon therein. Additionally, assume that felony larceny applies if the value of the property exceeds $250.00. Also assume that there are no cases that have interpreted the statute and no statutory definitions that apply. Refer to Legal Reasoning Fact Pattern Q: Question Q1 Assume that the Commonwealth is unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Carl entered the motel room at 5 pm. There is conflicitng testimony that Carl was seen at the motel at 2 pm rather than 5 pm. What result? a Carl can be found guilty of burglary, because the Commonwealth only needs to rpove a majority of the elements of a crime. b. Carl can be found guilty of burglary, because the Commonwealth can show that he entered the motel room. 0 c. Cal cannot be found guilty of burglary, because the Commonwealth is unable to prove each of the elements of the crime d. Carl cannot be found guilty of burglary, because he did not leave the motel room with the television. QUESTION 29 1 points Saved Refer to Legal Reasoning Fact Pattern Q: Question Q2: The facts which are most relevant to the issue of whether or not the motel room should be considered a dwelling are: a The fact that Carl went into a room of a motel that was rented but not occupied. Ob. The fact that Carl went into a room of a motel, only. C.The fact that Carl went into the motel room of a guest who was having dinner with her Grandma who had Alzheimer's. d.The fact that Carl went into an unoccupied motel room, onlyExplanation / Answer
1) Referring to the Legal Reasoning Fact Pattern: for the first question, the most probable answer would be the answer selected in the options. Because, according to the information provided, Carl actually went into the room at 5 PM but, they have the results that he is in the room at 2 PM. In that case, Carl cannot be found guilty of burglary.
2) the most probable facts produced out of the given question is The fact that Carl went into the motel room of a guest who was having dinner with her Grandma who had Alzheimer’s. This is the exact statement given in the Legal Reasoning Fact Pattern as well.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.