Critical Thinking Drill 3teddy Washburns Gunassignmentsnardrum Benne ✓ Solved

Critical Thinking Drill 3 Teddy Washburn's Gun Assignment Snar Drum Bennett was charged with robbing Washburn's gun. Bennett has approached this office for representation. Below you will find the facts of the case, applicable statutes regarding robbery, and previous cases providing context about the meaning of several of the elements of robbery. Make sure to use the cases in your response to help explain the meaning of the element of intent and to help illustrate your argument. Please Draft a response on whether you feel Bennett would be found guilty of robbery.

Facts In his prime, Gorilla Morrell was often on the bill at Friday Night Wrestling. Now he is reduced to hanging around Washburn's Weights Room & Gym, which is next door to Washburn's Bar & Grill. Gorilla is good for Teddy Washburn's business because customers in the Weights Room try to take Gorilla on. When this happens, customers from the Bar wander into the Weights Room to watch. There they order more drinks, which Washburn passes through a hole he has cut through the wall.

Afterward, Gorilla, his adversary, and the spectators tend to adjourn back to the Bar, where the spirit of conviviality usually leads to games of billiards accompanied by further orders of food and drink. Washburn has let Gorilla build up a bill of 3.62, dating back over several weeks. Last night, they had words over the matter. Gorilla took a swing at Washburn, who came out from behind the bar and chased Gorilla out into the street. There Gorilla took another swing at Washburn, and Washburn, demanding his money, pulled out a gun (which he bought and for which he has a license).

Gorilla grabbed for the gun, but it fell out of Washburn's hand, sliding five or six feet along the sidewalk and coming to rest at the feet of Snare Drum Bennett, a mechanic who was returning from work. Bennett happened onto this scene only in time to hear Washburn demand money and to see him pull out the gun and have it knocked from his hand. Bennett, Washburn, and Gorilla looked at the gun, then at each other, and then at the gun again. Finally, Bennett crouched down, picked up the gun, checked to make sure the safety was on, and put it in her coat pocket. “Washburn,†she said, “you haven't paid me yet for the front end work I did on your car.†“I will,†said Washburn.

“It's 5,†said Bennett, “and it's been three weeks. I think you should go back inside. You ought to pay your own debts before you accuse other people of welshing out on you.†“How can I pay you,†exclaimed Washburn, “if he won't pay me?†“That's your problem,†said Bennett, “I'm holding onto the gun. You can't seem to handle it right now, and I want my money.†At that point, Gorilla clobbered Washburn in the face and sent him staggering. Bennett turned around, walked a half-dozen steps, and began to turn into a dark alley.

Washburn started to get up, called out “Hey, you!†and took a step in Bennett's direction. Bennett took the gun from her coat, pointed it at Washburn, smiled, and said, “Back off, bucko.†Washburn froze, and Bennett walked into the alley. As soon as she was out of sight, she dropped the gun into an open but full trash dumpster. The dumpster belongs to a grocery store and is about five feet inside the alley, which in turn is about twenty feet from the front door of Washburn's bar. An hour or so later, the police came to Bennett's home and arrested her for robbing Washburn of his gun.

Bennett told them where she had dropped it. The police went straight to the dumpster but found nothing inside, not even the trash that had muffled the gun's fall. Statutes Criminal Code § 10 : No person shall be convicted of a crime except on evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal Code § 302 : A person commits robbery by taking, with the intent to steal, the property of another, from the other's person or in the other's presence, and through violence or intimidation. A person does not commit robbery if the intent to steal was formed after the taking.

Cases BUTTS v. STATE The defendant had worked for the Royal Guano company for two and a half days when he was fired. He demanded his wages but was told that he would have to wait until Saturday, which was payday. He was ordered off the premises and left. After a few hours, he returned with a gun, found the shift foreman, and demanded his wages again.

The foreman told him to come back on Saturday. (The company agrees that it owed the defendant wages, but insists that he wait until payday to receive them.) When the foreman refused, the defendant showed the gun and demanded again. The foreman then paid the amount the defendant requested. An intent to steal is an intent to deprive the owner permanently of his property. There is no intent to steal if the defendant in good faith believes that the property taken is the defendant's own property and not the property of somebody else. The defendant could reasonably have supposed that he was entitled to his pay when his connection with the company was severed.

He was wrong because the money was the property of the company until the company paid it to him. But he acted in good faith and therefore did not have the intent to steal (although he may be guilty of crimes other than robbery). STATE v. SMITH & JORDAN The defendants overpowered and disarmed the complainant of his knife. He had surprised them after they broke into his gas station.

With the complainant's knife (but not the complainant), they got into their car and drove off. Later, the police found the defendants standing by their wrecked car. The complainant's knife was on the ground nearby. The defendants were convicted of robbery. To convict for robbery, the defendant must have intended permanently to deprive the complainant of the taken property.

If a defendant takes another's property for the taker's immediate and temporary use with no intent permanently to deprive the owner of his property, he is not guilty of robbery. It would be unreasonable to assume that the defendants, fleeing from arrest for the crime of breaking into the gas station, had any expectation of returning the knife. They would have been captured if they had tried. For the purpose of decision here, we assume that defendant took the knife “for temporary use†and that after it had served the purpose of escape, they intended to abandon it at the first opportunity lest it lead to their detection. That, however, would leave the complainant's recovery of his knife to mere chance and thus constitute a reckless exposure to loss that is consistent with an intent permanently to deprive the owner of his property.

In abandoning it, the defendants put it beyond their power to return the knife. When, in order to serve a temporary purpose of one's own, one takes property (1) with the specific intent wholly and permanently to deprive the owner of it, or (2) under circumstances which render it unlikely that the owner will ever recover his property and which disclose the taker's total indifference to his rights, one takes with the intent to steal. Last Name 2 Question Presented Whether Bennett has formed the requisite intent to steal per Criminal Code 302? Brief Answer The brief answer should clearly and fully respond to the question presented. Begin with your conclusion: yes, no, probably yes, etc., if the question can be answered that way.

Then give a brief (usually no more than four or five sentences long) self-contained explanation of the reasons for your conclusion. Summarize for your reader how the relevant law applies to your significant facts. As a general rule, include no citations. Discussion This is the heart of the memo. Here, you need to educate the reader about the applicable legal principles, illustrate how those principles apply to the relevant facts, and explore any likely counterarguments to the primary line of analysis you present Intent Put your discussion of this element – Follow the components of CRAC.

Formation of intent Put your discussion of this element – Follow the components of CRAC. Whether or not you find that there was an intent to steal, please discuss when the formation of intent was formed because in law you have to prepare as if the jury will find each element of the crime. Conclusion Summarize your analysis and conclusion to the question presented. Identify the level of certainty with which you render a conclusion for each issue or sub-issue, but be sure to draw a conclusion even for closer questions. Do not provide citations. The conclusion should be limited to one paragraph, and in some cases involving just one short issue, the conclusion might not be necessary at all.

Paper for above instructions

Legal Memorandum: Robbery Charge Against Snare Drum Bennett

Question Presented
Whether Snare Drum Bennett has formed the requisite intent to steal, as defined by Criminal Code § 302, during the events leading to her arrest for robbing Teddy Washburn of his gun.
Brief Answer
No, Bennett likely did not have the intent to steal the gun, as her actions and words indicate she was not seeking to permanently deprive Washburn of his property. Instead, Bennett aimed to leverage her possession of the gun to compel payment for a debt owed to her by Washburn. This nuance regarding intent—whether formed before or after taking the item—is critical based on the evidence provided. Under the legal principles of robbery as illustrated in previous cases, Bennett’s claim to the gun was more representational in nature and not indicative of the intent to steal.

Discussion

Legal Framework
Robbery is statutorily defined in Criminal Code § 302, indicating that a person commits robbery if they take property with the intent to steal it from another person, either with violence or intimidation. The crucial element here is the intent, which can significantly alter the outcome of the prosecution's case against Bennett.
Formation of Intent
The relevant cases demonstrate how intent influences convictions in robbery cases. For example, in Butts v. State, the defendant had no intent to steal because he wrongfully believed the money he demanded was owed to him, thus negating the requisite intent for the robbery charge (Butts v. State, [citation]). Similarly, in State v. Smith & Jordan, the court clarified that if defendants take an object with the intent of temporary use rather than permanent deprivation, it does not constitute robbery (Smith & Jordan, [citation]). The emphasis in both cases hinges upon the mindset of the accused at the time of taking the property.
In Bennett’s case, her actions post-encounter raise questions about her mindset. Upon picking up the gun, she spoke to Washburn assertively about a debt he owed her, stating, "I think you should go back inside," which suggests her intent was not purely to steal Washburn's property but rather to emphasize a point regarding payment (Memorandum Facts, [citation]). The fact that she dropped the gun into a dumpster shortly afterward further corroborates that she did not intend to keep it or deprive Washburn of it permanently.
Intent to Steal and Legal Principles
Citing Criminal Code § 302, it is essential to consider whether Bennett’s intent was formed before or after the act of taking the gun. The statute clarifies that an individual cannot be convicted for robbery if the intent to steal was conceived after the act of taking. Given that Bennett's demand for payment directly followed her retrieval of the gun, it could be argued that her intention at that moment leaned more toward negotiating rather than stealing.
As observed in State v. Smith & Jordan, intent is not merely a function of possession but rather the psychological underpinning during the act. If Bennett's motives can be construed as efforts to reclaim her debt through possession of the gun, this would diminish the likelihood that a jury would view her actions as theft intended to deny Washburn his property permanently.
Furthermore, if we consider that asserting her rights to a debt is grounded in a belief that she had the right to possess the gun temporarily until matter was resolved, it further implies a lack of intent to deprive Washburn. The pivotal factor would rest on whether a reasonable person could infer from Bennett's language and action that her desire was to recover a debt rather than steal.
Counterarguments
It can be contended that Bennett's act of picking up the gun could be interpreted as preliminary theft. However, in conclusion, Bennett neither approached Washburn with aggression nor expressed intentions evident in typical robbery cases. Her interaction suggests she sought a resolution rather than outright theft. Her demeanor, characterized by a smile and a verbal warning to Washburn, indicates her intentions lacked menace inferring a robbery.
Moreover, her subsequent action of discarding the gun in a dumpster—an act that distances it from any potential substantial use—supports a defense that she sought neither ownership nor control in the context of robbery. This is indicative of a temporary act of possession rather than a calculated effort to permanently deprive Washburn of his property.

Conclusion

In summarizing the analysis, it is posited that Snare Drum Bennett did not possess the requisite intent to steal the gun from Teddy Washburn, given that her actions and statements portrayed a focus on debt recovery rather than theft. The context established, particularly her immediate dropping of the gun into a dumpster, aligns more with an absence of permanent intent to deprive than with the culpable mindset for robbery defined under the statutes. Thus, it is reasonably concluded that Bennett may not be found guilty of robbery as charged.

References

1. Butts v. State, [citation].
2. State v. Smith & Jordan, [citation].
3. Criminal Code § 10.
4. Criminal Code § 302.
5. McDaniel, J. (2022). Criminal Law: Concepts and Cases. NY: Legal Press.
6. Krebs, T. (2023). Intent in Criminal Law. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 48(2), 123-145.
7. Smith, A. (2020). Robbery and Its Legal Definitions. The Legal Review Journal, 15(4), 309-320.
8. Baker, R. (2021). The Psychology of Intent in Criminal Actions. Journal of Theoretical Criminology, 24(1), 45-70.
9. Thomas, L. (2022). Navigating Robbery Charges: A Defense Perspective. Defense Attorney Quarterly, 2(3), 112-126.
10. Adams, T. (2023). Understanding Criminal Intent: A Comparative Study. Legal Studies International, 10(1), 88-102.
(Note: References contain fictitious citations for illustrative purposes only.)