respond to two students discussion post

First student (Jeremy)

A statue and case I used for an example was the Court of appeals of the United States for the Second Circuit, 500 Fed. appx. 6 (2nd Cir.2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2038 (2013), the case of Bakalar v. Vavra consisted of the Nazi government and its forceful control over Jews confiscating their properties with well over millions of dollars’ worth of properties being valued. This case concludes valued art that was owned by a person who was taken into custody to the Nazi camps and the art collection was later sold even though the owner was remained in possession to the Nazis. Later the art was sold again and then almost again with having a valued placed at 64 percent higher than the first purchase amount, however that sale was stopped, and a lawsuit took effect from the first original heirs claiming ownership and rights. Personal ownership rights.
The breakdown of the statute into elements was how the piece was acquired and was it done so in a way that it was not acquired through any criminal acts against property. Unknowing that it was honestly bought was not good enough, proof of the transaction was required to prove an innocent of this particular property.
In identify the facts that correspond to each element concluded that the personal art was in fact sold from the original heirs having ownership but could not provide how it came to be in their possession. So the court finally ruled in favor as it did show a proof of purchase from the heirs, so the claiming heirs could not take back a possession that was once in their bloodline because it was originally sold from their bloodline.

Second student(Adam)

For the week five crime against property discussion, I wanted to choose a prevalent property crime. For this, I decided on the case of People v. Olivo reference in the textbook (Anderson & Gardner, 2015). The case made some excellent distinctions as to what constitutes intent to steal. We must first look at the elements of the statute. Shoplifting in New York falls under Petit Larceny, and this case was not different. Larceny is defined under Penal Law – PEN § 155.05 Larceny(New York PEN § 155.05 Larceny, 2021). The elements of the statute are as follows.
1. The intent to deprive another of property or wrongfully taking, obtaining, or withholding such property from an owner.
2. Inclusions of wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding of another’s property, consistent with section 1:
(a) trespassory taking, common-law larceny by trick, embezzlement, or obtaining property by false pretenses;
(b) Knowingly taking something lost without the owner’s consent.
(c) Using a bad check knowingly.
(d) Theft by false promise.
(e) Theft by threatening to harm another by way of,
(i) Cause harm in the future.
(ii)Cause property damage.
(iii)Engage in other crimes.
(iv)Accusations of crimes or criminal charges.
(v)Expose information, whether true or false.
(vi)Cause concerted actions to someone’s business (strikes).
(vii)Testify or withhold testimony concerning legal defense.
(viii)Using a position of influence to enact or refuse action to harm the person.
(ix) Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person.
(New York PEN § 155.05 Larceny, 2021)
A security guard observes Ronald Olivo in the hardware section of a department store. He was seen in conversation with another and then attentively began to look around. The attendant watched Olivo take a crouching position and then place some wrenches inside his coat. After surveying the area again, the defendant began to walk towards the exit while passing numerous cash registers. The security guard stopped him just shy of the entrance. Olivo denied having the items, but while the security guard was walking him to the office, he places the wrenches under his arm. At trial, the defendant stated that the tools were under his arm and was at the register (People v. Olivo, 1981).
The plaintiff in the case was the State of New York, while the defendant-appellant was Ronald Olivo (People v. Olivo, 1981). Under the elements of the statute, the prosecutor would prove the defendant committed petit larceny. Under section (1), the defendant did intend to withhold property from the owner by concealing the items in his jacket. Under section (2)(a), he did by way of trick (concealment) attempt to elude observation and try to deprive the property of another. Finally, he did substantiate sections (1)(2)(a) by attempting to physically bypass the places set for payment of the items (New York PEN § 155.05 Larceny, 2021).
The Jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of petit larceny. In February of 1981, the New York Court of Appeals would affirm the lower court’s decision on the case. The judge concluded that a larceny conviction could be substantiated in certain situations even though the defendant had not physically exited the store (People v. Olivo, 1981). Here, enough evidence supported the statute’s elements to prove that the defendant intended to deprive another of property.