Ease Into Prep with a BAR^® Question of the Day

The correct answer is: (D) No crime.

The mechanic's act does not satisfy the elements of any of the listed crimes. The mechanic did not intend to permanently deprive the driver of her vehicle, and, hence, he is not guilty of larceny by trick. Furthermore, the mechanic did not cause the driver to convey to him the title to the sports car, and, as such, the mechanic's act does not fall within the definition of the crime of false pretenses. And because the mechanic did not misappropriate or complete an unlawful conversion of the sports car, the mechanic has not committed embezzlement. Thus, the mechanic is not guilty of any crime with regard to the driver's vehicle.

(A) Incorrect. Larceny by trick.

At common law, larceny was defined as the trespassory taking ("caption") and carrying away ("asportation") of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof. Larceny by trick is a form of larceny whereby the defendant obtains possession of the personal property of another by means of a representation or promise that he knows is false at the time he takes possession. Here, while the mechanic did obtain possession of the sports car by fraudulently representing his ability to diagnose the car's problems, he never intended to permanently deprive the driver of the vehicle; as such, the mechanic is not guilty of larceny by trick.

(B) Incorrect. False pretenses.

The statutory crime of false pretenses consists of a false representation of a present or past material fact by the defendant that causes the victim to pass title to his property to the defendant who knows his representation to be false and intends thereby to defraud the victim. Here, while the mechanic did misrepresent his ability to repair the sports car, he did not cause the driver to pass title to the car to him; as such, the mechanic is not guilty of the crime of false pretenses.

(C) Incorrect. Embezzlement.

Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person in lawful possession of the property. Generally speaking, employees are considered to have custody (not possession) of their employer's property, and, as such, are usually subject to charges of larceny if they wrongly appropriate this property. However, where a third party gives property directly to an employee for the benefit of the employer, or where the employee holds a relatively high-level position (such as office manager, bank president, corporate official), an employee is said to have possession of the property, making him subject to embezzlement charges for wrongful appropriation of the property. The specific fraudulent intent required to find one guilty of embezzlement may be negated by a claim of right or by an intent to restore the exact property. Here, because the driver gave the sports car to the mechanic for purposes of repair (i.e., for the benefit of the mechanic's business), and because the mechanic was the owner of the garage, the mechanic is considered to have been in possession of the vehicle (and, hence, could be subject to embezzlement charges). However, because the mechanic intended to restore the car to the driver after his planned joy ride and because he never misappropriated or completed the conversion of the sports car, the mechanic has not committed the crime of embezzlement.