What are the differences in the elements that must be proven when comparing theft of an automobile and unauthorized use of a vehicle?
What will be an ideal response?
In proving theft of an automobile the prosecution must establish that the offender appropriates the vehicle without effective consent of the owner and intends to deprive the owner of the vehicle either permanently or for an extended period of time. In unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) cases, the state must show only that the offender operated the vehicle without the owner's effective consent. Theft cases involve exercising control over the vehicle (e.g., driving it or towing it) while UUV cases are restricted to cases where the offender operated the vehicle. Likewise, theft cases require proof of intent to deprive while UUV cases focus merely on lack of effective consent.
You might also like to view...
In which case did the Supreme Court hold that the prosecution "may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant…"?
a. Massiah v. United States b. Rochin v. California c. Miranda v. Arizona d. Kirby v. Illinois
Behavior that has as its goal the infliction of harm upon another person who is in turn motivated to avoid the harm, is called
a. violence b. aggression c. crime d. hostility
This principle suggests that the more one comes into contact with offenders, the more likely he is to be victimized.
A. principle of status quo B. principle of hierarchy C. principle of homogamy D. principle of lex talionis
Which of the following is a reason that innocent people confess?
A) Intoxication B) Fear of violence C) Ignorance of the law D) All of the above