← back to the Substrate Record
qid 1396 · law
Question: A man was at a bar drinking beer when he started conversing with a woman who was seated at the next barstool. During the course of their conversation, the woman told the man that she was just laid off her job and desperately needed money to pay her rent. The man, a practical joker, pointed to a nearby coat rack and said, "Hey, see that fur coat there. Why don't you take it?" The man then told the woman that he would cause a disturbance to distract attention while she ran out of the bar with the coat. Believing that it was a good idea, the woman agreed to take part in the scheme. Thereupon, the man lit a matchbook and threw it on top of the bar. He then yelled, "The bar's on fire, help!" When everyone turned to look at the man, the woman ran to the back of the bar, took the fur coat and scurried outside unnoticed. Just as the woman left the bar and was running down the sidewalk, she was apprehended and arrested by a police officer. Later, the man confessed that the fur coat that the woman took really belonged to him. With respect to the man's and the woman's criminal liability, which of the following is most correct?
- The man and the woman are guilty of conspiracy.
- The woman is guilty of conspiracy and larceny.
- The man and the woman are guilty of larceny.
- Neither the man nor the woman are guilty of larceny, but they are guilty of conspiracy.
- The man is guilty of conspiracy and the woman is guilty of larceny.
- The man is guilty of conspiracy.
- The man and the woman are guilty of conspiracy and larceny.
- The man and the woman are not guilty of either conspiracy or larceny.
- The man is guilty of larceny.
- The woman is guilty of larceny.
Our answer: H. The man and the woman are not guilty of either conspiracy or larceny. Source quote machine-checked (at mint)
How it was answered
Stored formula / worked method, replayed by code
Current source
Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (4th Cir. 1965) -- bilateral conspiracy: "as it takes two to conspire, there can be no indictable conspiracy with a government informer who secretly intends to frustrate the conspiracy".
Source weak (edition_page)