Posted: December 3rd, 2022
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
Complete the following questions.
The answers to the questions should be thorough to display a complete understanding of the text and be at least 5 sentences. On every question.
While some questions may seem opinion based, I will be looking for information from the text to confirm your learning.
If an elderly father puts his daughter’s name on his accounts at a bank and an investment company as a “joint owner”, with instructions that she may deposit and withdraw funds from the accounts, can the daughter be convicted of theft for such withdrawals? If so, under what circumstances? See Wagner v. State, 128 A.3d 1 (Md. App. 2016)
Robbery requires a “forcible” taking of property. We saw in this chapter that states have gone beyond a strict definition of “taking” as meaning the actual act of theft, and have also included in the definition of “forcible” under a robbery statute the force used in flight after the theft. Was the force used in the theft that occurred in People v. Williams, 305 P.3d 1241 (Cal. 2013)? There, the defendant used fraudulent credit cards to buy gift cards at a Wal-Mart store. Store security officers discovered the fraud while the defendant was still in the store, and attempted to block his exit from the store. The defendant struggled with the officers and was held for the police to arrive. He was convicted of robbery, and appealed. Should his conviction be reversed? Why or why not?
Carlos Ezeta was a professor and student advisor at a Las Vegas community college. As part of his position he advised Hispanic students on enrollment and curriculum choices. He also helped these students apply for federal financial aid by making false statements on FAFSA forms. He did not receive any payment for his actions, and any financial aid went to the students. Ezeta was indicted under 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a) for making false statements to the government to “obtain federal financial aid money.” He moved to quash (dismiss) the indictment, contending he could not violate the statute because he did not “obtain” any financial aid for himself. The trial judge agreed, and dismissed the indictment. The government appealed. What should the appeals court decide? Why? See United States v. Ezeta, 752 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2014)
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.