1.

The issue is whether Darrell can be held criminally liable for larceny and attempted
robbery.

Larceny is defined as the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal property of
another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. All the elements must be satisfied
for an act to be considered larceny.

Here, Darrell took Fred’s gun without his knowledge or permission. The gun was the
personal property of Fred, as can be seen from the fact it was stored in his room. The gun did
not belong to him or Bart. Also, Bart did not have permission to loan the gun and bullets to
Darrell. The trickiest element to prove will be Darrell’s intent to permanently deprive Fred of the
gun. From the facts it seems Bart was expecting Darrell to borrow the gun, and then return it by
the time Fred returns. However, from Darell’s response that he can't promise to return it, the
prosecution can argue that Darrell planned to keep the gun to himself. It can also be argued that
Darrell intended to hold on to the gun at least until he no longer needed it, which would suffice
the requirement of permanently depriving the owner of it. In conclusion, Darrell can be held
guilty of larceny.

Attempted robbery is defined as an act that, although done with the intention of
committing a crime, falls short of completing the crime. An attempt consists of two elements: (i)
a specific intent to commit the crime, and (ii) an overt act in furtherance of that intent. Here the
attempt was robbery. Robbery is a felony in which someone takes personal property of another,
by force or intimidation, with the intent to permanently deprive him of it. Robbery is generally
viewed as a larceny with an assault or battery.

In this case, Darrell looked to take money that did not belong to him from a bank using a
gun. The gun was to be used to intimidate and scare the bank employees to give him the
money. This would easily suffice as a robbery. Darrell expressed his desire and intent to commit
this robbery by asking Bart where he could find a gun to help him commit the robbery. After
finding a gun, he drove and parked in front of the bank, with the gun in his pants. This is an
overt act towards the same crime he intended to commit. The fact that the police officer stopped
him before he could commit it will not be a viable defense. Also, Darrell can not argue that
perhaps he would have simply entered the bank and deceived against the robbery and went
home without committing it. This is because by expressing intent and committing an overt act
towards the intended crime, Darrell has already satisfied the requirements for attempted
robbery. Therefore he could be held liable for both crimes.