Theft, burglary and robbery

Property Offenses: Find the Missing Link Before the Aggravator

Theft, burglary, and robbery are statutory property offenses whose close cases turn on the exact act, mental state, timing, and statutory defense-not on the label the prosecutor gives the conduct. Begin with the baseline offense, then test each aggravating fact and each defense separately. A missing baseline element defeats the aggravated form automatically.

Read a supplied statute in four passes. Circle operative verbs; identify the property, place, person, and mental state; mark timing phrases such as “in the course of taking”; and box every exception or defense. Then map facts to each phrase rather than substituting a familiar rule. “Aggravated” ordinarily modifies a completed baseline offense; it is not a free-standing shortcut.

This chapter is not starred: legal resources may be supplied when it is tested, and where they are not, you need only demonstrate recognition that the topic is at issue.

Baseline Analysis: The Questions Available at Speed

For theft, ask whose movable property was involved, who obtained or exercised control, whether control was unauthorized, and what mental state the statute requires. Then ask whether the property, value, or manner of taking satisfies an aggravated form. For entrustment, separate lawful initial possession from later unauthorized conversion.

For burglary, ask whether the defendant entered or remained, whether that conduct was unlawful, whether the location fits the statute, and whether the required criminal purpose existed at the legally relevant time. Then test each independent aggravator, such as dwelling, weapon, or injury. Entry through an unlocked door can still be unlawful; an authorized entry may not become burglary merely because the defendant later develops a criminal purpose unless the statute covers unlawful remaining.

For robbery, ask whether the conduct satisfies theft, whether property was taken from the person or immediate presence, whether force or threat occurred within the statute’s timing window, and whether the force had the required purpose, such as overcoming resistance or compelling delivery. Then test weapon and injury aggravators. Force during immediate flight may count if the statute says so; force wholly after the taking may not.

The floor also includes the defense names: reasonable belief of permission or right, claim of right, abandonment or renunciation, and any expressly supplied defense. Ask first whether the facts defeat an element; ask second whether a defense excuses otherwise complete conduct. Exact element wording, exception lists, valuation rules, and numbered subsections belong on the supplied page. You do have to recognize which provision to retrieve and which fact controls its application.

Close Calls: Timing, Permission, and the Aggravating Fact

Theft and aggravated theft. A claim that the defendant owned the item, had permission, or had a right to possess it attacks unauthorized control. It is stronger when the belief is honest and reasonable, and weaker when the defendant knows the item belongs to someone else. A mistake about ownership can defeat theft; a mistake about value usually does not defeat underlying theft, though it may defeat a value-based aggravator if value is an element.

Entrustment is a recurring near miss. The recipient may have lawful possession at first, so initial receipt is not itself unauthorized control. The issue becomes whether the recipient later knowingly converts the item beyond the permission given, with the required purpose. Delivery of possession is not the same as transfer of title.

Intent to return is statute-sensitive. Under a provision expressly making return irrelevant, “I planned to give it back” is not a defense. Do not replace the supplied rule with a remembered permanent-deprivation formulation. Abandoning before obtaining or exercising control may prevent completion; abandoning afterward does not undo completed theft; later return is not a defense unless the supplied statute expressly provides otherwise.

Burglary and aggravated burglary. Burglary usually asks two timing questions: was entry or remaining unlawful, and when did the purpose to commit the required crime exist? A person who enters lawfully as a guest and later steals may commit theft without burglary unless the statute treats remaining after permission ends as unlawful conduct. A person who enters unlawfully already intending to steal satisfies the purpose timing even if no property is taken. Leaving empty-handed ordinarily does not erase completed burglary.

Do not confuse an entry aggravator with baseline entry. Breaking a lock is not required unless the statute says it is. A dwelling aggravator depends on the statutory definition of dwelling, not whether anyone was home. A weapon or injury may independently aggravate the offense; the statute may require one trigger, several, or a specified degree of injury. Read the conjunctions carefully.

Robbery and aggravated robbery. Robbery adds a relationship and timing to theft: property must be from the person or immediate presence, and force or threat must occur in the statutory course of taking or flight with the required purpose. Snatching unattended property is not robbery merely because the owner later notices. Force used to overcome resistance while the taking or immediate flight continues can be robbery. A threat of future harm may fail an “immediate” threat requirement even if it frightens the victim.

The most common near miss is force after completion. If the statute includes immediate flight, pushing a pursuing victim to retain recently taken property can satisfy robbery. If the statute limits force to the taking itself, the same facts may support theft and perhaps another offense, but not robbery. The supplied timing language decides.

Recurring errors:

• Treating an unlocked door as permission ignores whether entry was authorized.

• Treating a plan to return a laptop as a defense ignores a statute that expressly rejects return intent.

• Treating every forceful escape as robbery ignores timing and immediate-presence language.

• Treating an aggravator as an independent crime skips the completed baseline offense.

• Treating a reasonable ownership belief as relevant to burglary’s entry element overlooks that it may not excuse separate theft.

Use the following supplied provision as a model of fast application. Its wording, not a remembered general rule, governs the item that follows.

Property Offenses

Theft. A person commits theft if, with purpose to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises unauthorized control over movable property of another.

Aggravated theft. Theft is aggravated if the property is a firearm, a motor vehicle, or property valued at least $1,000.

Burglary. A person commits burglary if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or occupied structure with purpose to commit a crime therein. Burglary is aggravated if the structure is a dwelling, the actor is armed with a deadly weapon, or the actor causes serious physical injury.

Robbery. A person commits robbery if the person commits theft from the person or immediate presence of another and, in the course of the taking or immediate flight, uses or threatens immediate physical force with purpose to overcome resistance or compel delivery. Robbery is aggravated if the actor uses a deadly weapon or causes serious physical injury.

Defenses. It is a defense to the corresponding offense that the actor reasonably believed the actor had permission or a right to the property or to enter the structure, but that defense is unavailable if the actor uses force against a person to obtain the property or effect entry. Intent to return property is not a defense to theft. Renunciation is a defense to theft only if the actor abandons the purpose before obtaining or exercising control; renunciation is not a defense to burglary after a qualifying entry.

Mara sees a $1,500 laptop on a desk inside her neighbor’s apartment. She knows the laptop belongs to the neighbor, enters through the unlocked door without permission intending to take it, and walks out holding it. At the apartment doorway, the neighbor grabs the laptop; Mara pushes the neighbor hard, pulls the laptop free, and runs. Mara had no weapon, and the neighbor suffers no injury.

Decisive Fact Patterns: Three Short Tests

High-Yield Points - ⚡ Biggest Takeaways

Establish the baseline offense before applying any aggravated form. Treat permission, timing, and immediate presence as separate factual questions. A supplied statute’s force and abandonment language controls over remembered general rules.