|
This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone who handles matters like yours.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
|
|
If the last one isn’t satisfied, say, she wanted it for her OWN party and could demonstrate that she would be returning it AFTER the party, would there be a separate charge?
This is assuming, of course, that she is still stupid enough to “borrow without permission.”
I would guess that it’s not time specific. Intent to deprive someone of their property for a week would still be the intent to deprive them of their property. The clause is there to establish mens rea, I suspect. If you took their property because the backpack they had stuck it in looked like yours, you didn’t take it with the intention to deprive them of it, you took it because you were mistaken about the facts. If you took it knowing it wasn’t yours, you had the intent to deprive them of their property.
You could also have taken their backpack with the intention of putting it in the “lost and found” pile, or with the intention of running after them to try to catch them before the bus leaves. Then you would have been taking someone else’s stuff intentionally, but not with the intent to deprive them of it.
Umm… actually… She didn’t take it to deprive him, she took it because she liked it. Based on her thought bubbles, a duplicate would have been just fine. Oh, and free.
Is this one of those cases where the phrase has a specific meaning to the legal profession?
The intent clause here is mens rea. She took someone else’s property (thus depriving them of it), and she intended to do so (she knew that it didn’t belong to her and that taking it would mean that Jack would no longer have the violin.)
“Intent” does not mean “motive” in this case. Laurel might not have done it to hurt Jack, but she did intend to take his property and thus deprive him of it.