Harry Potter (Part II): Not Without My Horcrux

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Facts: Albus Dumbledore and Harry Potter travel to a magical cave over a stormy coast, in hopes of recovering a magical locket belonging to Voldemort. After travelling across an enchanted lagoon, they arrive at an island, where they see a case under a pool of potion. Dumbledore (with Harry's assistance) drinks all of the potion and Harry takes the case before they head back to Hogwarts. After Dumbledore is killed, Harry opens the case and sees the item inside is a forgery placed there by R.A.B., who took the original many years ago.

Issue: Did Dumbledore and Harry commit a crime even though the locket is a forgery?

Law: Larceny is the intentional taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the person of his property.

Analysis: Likely. Although Dumbledore and Harry did not take any of Voldemort's property, they left the cave with a case believing it belonged to Voldemort, i.e., with the intent to permanently deprive Voldemort of the locket. Because Dumbledore and Harry did not complete the crime of larceny against Voldemort, they are only guilty of attempted larceny because they took a substantial step toward committing the underlying larceny (carrying away the case with the fake locket). At the same time, they are probably guilty of larceny of R.A.B.'s property, under a theory of transferred intent.

But, you're probably thinking that Dumbledore and Harry were justified in their actions because it was to prevent a greater harm in the form of Voldemort. This is the defense of necessity, which excuses some criminal conduct if there is an imminent danger and the harm from the conduct would be less than the harm from the imminent danger. Harry (since Dumbledore is dead and can't be prosecuted anymore) has a good argument here.

Bonus: They may also be guilty of conspiracy to commit larceny as there appears to be an agreement between Dumbledore and Harry to retrieve this item, even though Harry may not have known exactly what they were going to do at the time he agreed to help Dumbledore and at the time they left the cave with the fake locket.

For an additional post on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, click here.

More..

The Hangover: The Tyson or the Tiger

The Hangover (2009)

Facts: Doug, his two best friends (Phil and Stu), and his future brother-in-law Alan go to Las Vegas for one last weekend of bachelor mayhem before Doug's wedding. To start the night, the guys head to the roof of Caesar's Palace, where Alan offers a bottle of Jagermeister and shot glasses. Unknown to the other guys, Alan dropped what he thought were pills of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (a/k/a ecstasy) into the bottle of Jager; In reality, the pills were flunitrazepam (a/k/a roofies--or "floories," if you prefer). The men then began their night of debauchery, which involved a lot of alcohol consumption.

The next morning they woke up, very hungover, and found a tiger in their bathroom. They do not remember anything that happened after they had the shots of Jager on the roof. Mike Tyson, the owner of the tiger, confronts the guys and tells them to return his tiger. They bring the tiger back, at which point Tyson shows video footage of them taking the tiger from his property via the front drive gate.

Issue: Did the guys commit a burglary, a larceny, or both OR did their intoxication negate everything?

Law: A larceny is the taking of another person's property with the intent to permanently deprive the person of the property. A burglary is the breaking and entering into the dwelling of another with intent to commit an offense.

Involuntary intoxication is a defense to criminal conduct if the accused unknowingly ingests the substance that causes the intoxication.

Analysis: Probably no crime here. On their face, the facts seem to satisfy the elements of larceny and burglary. With the burglary, they opened the gate of Tyson's house they committed a breaking because they had to move something to enter the property. The issue is then whether they had the intent to commit an offense, which in this case would be the larceny. On the larceny, they clearly took Tyson's property (the tiger) but did they intend to permanently deprive Tyson of the tiger or were they just borrowing it? The best argument against them is that they never gave an indication that they were simply borrowing the tiger, of course the guys will say it was just a prank and they were going to return the tiger later in the day. That doesn't help us answer this case, though.

The real issue here is whether their behavior is excused because there were unknowingly drugged with roofies that made them unable either to control their actions or to form the necessary intent to commit these acts. Doug, Phil, and Stu did not know that Alan put anything in their drinks, meaning they have a strong argument that they could not have intended to commit either the larceny or the burglary.

Alan could (and should) argue that he mistakenly believed he was taking a different drug and should also benefit from this defense; however, Alan's mistake is not completely innocent as he knew he was putting some illegal substance into the drinks. Alan would also want to argue for the defense of voluntary intoxication (since he caused his own intoxication) as this defense is only available for specific intent crimes, such as burglary and larceny--they both require an addition level of intent above the basic intent to commit the crime: intent to commit an offense (burglary) and intent to permanently deprive (larceny).

Bonus: Assuming the intoxication defenses do not work, the guys are probably also guilty of conspiracy to commit burglary and conspiracy to commit larceny because they entered into an agreement and committed an overt act by going to Tyson's house. As we've discussed, conspiracy does not merge into a completed offense and you can be found guilty of both.

Double Bonus: Assuming the guys were simply intoxicated from their excessive alcohol consumption, they could argue they were unable to form the specific intent needed to commit burglary, larceny, and conspiracy (also a specific intent offense).

More..

Gossip Girl: What's Yours is Ours

Gossip Girl: Southern Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
(aired April 27, 2009)

Facts: Serena goes on a Spanish holiday with her friend Poppy and Poppy's boyfriend Gabriel. While in Spain, Serena and Gabriel get married after a night of drinking. Serena returns to the United States regretting what happened, but soon Gabriel follows her and they begin to date. But Gabriel is still dating Poppy so he can keep her business contacts for his telecommunications start-up company. Poppy finds out and Gabriel and Poppy break up. Without Poppy's contacts, though, Gabriel is concerned he'll have to go work for his father's tobacco business. Serena proposes Gabriel solicit her mother and other rich friends to invest in his new company. He does with great success.

In reality, there is no company and Gabriel and Poppy plan to keep the money for themselves. Before they could skip down together, Gabriel takes all of the money, including $500,000 from Poppy. Poppy tells Serena everything that happened.

Issue: Are Gabriel and Poppy liable for the same or different offenses? If so, which ones?

Law: A conspiracy is an agreement between at least two people to commit an offense, and all parties to the agreement are liable for the acts of other conspirators if those acts are within the scope and objective of the conspiracy. False pretenses is the obtaining of another's property through a false representation of an existing fact.

Analysis: Likely the same. Gabriel and Poppy entered into an agreement to solicit investment funds for a company that does not exist. At a minimum they are both guilty of conspiracy to commit false pretenses. Because Gabriel, in furtherance of the conspiracy, actually obtained the funds through his false representation, he is also likely guilty of false pretenses. Poppy assisted in Gabriel's acts, and therefore, she is likely liable under accomplice liability (think: aiding and abetting).

And even though Poppy told Serena everything that happened, that doesn't change anything. While a conspirator can withdraw from a conspiracy (and avoid liability for subsequent acts), she can only withdraw from the conspiracy by telling her co-conspirator, Gabriel, that she was leaving the conspiracy. It does not appear she withdrew from the conspiracy, as seen in her apparent surprise at Gabriel's double-crossing of her. Let that be a lesson to you potential conspirators out there!

Bonus: Here's a fun fact to share at cocktail parties. Under the common law, a conspiracy required only an agreement to commit an offense. Most jurisdictions now treat conspiracy as a two-element offense: (1) an agreement to commit a criminal offense and (2) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. Even under modern criminal law, Gabriel and Poppy are guilty of conspiracy because the committed an overt act when they tricked Serena into introducing Gabriel to the investors at the cocktail party.

As an added bonus, consider the following. Gabriel and Poppy can be guilty of both conspiracy to commit false pretenses and false pretenses because conspiracy offenses do not merge with a completed underlying offense. This is different from the two other inchoate crimes--solicitation and attempt--where you can only be guilty of the completed offense or the completed underlying offense.

More..