California Bar Theft/robbery/burglary

Last updated: May 2, 2026

Theft/robbery/burglary questions are one of the highest-leverage areas to study for the California Bar. This guide breaks down the rule, the elements you need to recognize, the named traps that catch most students, and a memory aid that scales to test day. Read it once, then practice the same sub-topic adaptively in the app.

The rule

At common law, larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive at the time of taking. Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of another by force or threat of imminent force. Burglary at common law is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with intent to commit a felony therein; modern statutes (and California Penal Code §459) drop the breaking, nighttime, and dwelling requirements and reach entry into virtually any structure with intent to commit larceny or any felony. The intent to steal must exist at the moment of taking (larceny/robbery) or at the moment of entry (burglary).

Elements breakdown

Larceny

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of another's personal property with intent to permanently deprive the owner at the time of the taking.

  • Trespassory taking (without consent)
  • Carrying away (asportation, slightest movement)
  • Personal property of another
  • Intent to permanently deprive at time of taking

Common examples:

  • Pocketing a watch from a store display
  • Continuing trespass doctrine where intent forms after innocent taking

Embezzlement

Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of property of another by a person already in lawful possession.

  • Lawful possession by defendant
  • Fraudulent conversion (serious interference with ownership)
  • Property of another
  • Intent to defraud

Common examples:

  • Bookkeeper diverting employer funds
  • Trustee using trust corpus for personal expenses

False Pretenses

False pretenses is obtaining title to property of another by an intentional false statement of past or existing material fact, with intent to defraud.

  • False representation of material past or existing fact
  • Knowledge of falsity
  • Intent to defraud
  • Victim transfers title (not just possession) in reliance

Common examples:

  • Selling forged painting as authentic
  • Buying car with check from closed account

Larceny by Trick

Larceny by trick is obtaining possession (not title) of property of another by fraud or deceit, with intent to permanently deprive.

  • Misrepresentation to obtain possession
  • Victim transfers possession only (not title)
  • Intent to permanently deprive at time of taking
  • Property of another

Common examples:

  • Borrowing a car by lying about destination, then keeping it

Robbery

Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim accomplished by force or threat of imminent force.

  • All elements of larceny
  • Property taken from person or presence of victim
  • By force or threat of imminent force
  • Force/threat used to take or retain property

Common examples:

  • Mugging at gunpoint
  • Snatching purse with struggle (but not pure pickpocketing)

Common Law Burglary

Common law burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another at night with intent to commit a felony therein.

  • Breaking (actual or constructive)
  • Entering (any part of body or instrument crosses threshold)
  • Dwelling house of another
  • At nighttime
  • With intent to commit felony at time of entry

Common examples:

  • Picking a lock on a home at midnight to steal

California Burglary (Penal Code §459)

Under California law, burglary is entry into any building, room, vehicle, vessel, or specified structure with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony.

  • Entry (no breaking required)
  • Into a building, room, locked vehicle, or specified structure
  • With intent to commit larceny or any felony at time of entry
  • Felonious intent must exist when defendant enters

Common examples:

  • Walking into open store with intent to shoplift (Cal. burglary)
  • Entering car through unlocked door is not burglary; locked vehicle is

Robbery vs. Larceny — Force/Threat Element

The force or threat element converts what would be larceny into robbery; pickpocketing without force is larceny, not robbery.

  • Force greater than mere taking
  • OR threat of imminent bodily harm
  • Directed at victim, family, or someone present
  • Used to obtain or retain property

Common examples:

  • Snatching with resistance is robbery; clean pickpocket is larceny

Common patterns and traps

The After-Formed Intent Trap

Defendant enters a structure lawfully or without felonious intent, and only later decides to steal once inside. The MBE distractor will label this as burglary, but it is not — burglary requires intent to commit a felony at the moment of entry. The defendant may still be guilty of larceny for the in-store theft, but burglary fails on the timing element.

A choice that says 'Guilty of burglary, because he entered the store and stole merchandise' without addressing whether felonious intent existed at entry.

The Pickpocket-as-Robbery Trap

Defendant skillfully takes property from a victim's person without force and without the victim noticing. Because the property was on the person, students reflexively call this robbery, but robbery requires force or threat of imminent harm. A clean pickpocket is larceny from the person, not robbery; force greater than the mere taking is required.

A choice that reads 'Robbery, because he took the wallet directly from her pocket' with no mention of force, struggle, or threat.

The Title-vs-Possession Switch

This pattern tests whether the victim transferred title or only possession in response to the defendant's deception. False pretenses requires title transfer; larceny by trick requires only possession transfer with intent-to-permanently-deprive at the time. Distractors swap these labels, hoping you will not check whether ownership actually passed.

A choice that calls the crime 'larceny by trick' when the victim signed over a deed or executed a sale, or 'false pretenses' when the victim merely lent the item.

The California-vs-Common-Law Burglary Switch

On California-tested questions, the call may apply common law's breaking/nighttime/dwelling requirements when Penal Code §459 actually governs. The §459 elements are entry plus contemporaneous felonious intent into any building, locked vehicle, or specified structure — a much broader sweep. Watch for distractors that acquit on the basis of 'no breaking' or 'daytime' when California law is in play.

A choice that says 'Not guilty of burglary, because the door was unlocked and it was 2 p.m.' on a California-tested fact pattern.

The Embezzlement-vs-Larceny Conflation

The defendant lawfully receives property — as bailee, employee, trustee, or agent — and then converts it. The trespassory-taking element of larceny is missing because possession was lawful at the outset. Distractors will label this as larceny when the correct answer is embezzlement; the diagnostic question is whether possession was lawful when defendant first received the property.

A choice reading 'Larceny, because she took money belonging to her employer,' ignoring that the employer voluntarily entrusted the funds to her.

How it works

Start by identifying what the defendant intended and when that intent formed. If the defendant intended to steal at the moment of the taking, you are in larceny territory; if force or threat accompanies that taking from the victim's person or presence, escalate to robbery. If the defendant lawfully possessed the property first and then converted it, the crime is embezzlement, not larceny — the bookkeeper case. If the victim was tricked into handing over title, it is false pretenses; if only possession was transferred by trick, it is larceny by trick. Burglary collapses to a single question: did the defendant form the intent to commit a felony at the moment of entry? Under California Penal Code §459, you can ignore breaking, nighttime, and dwelling — focus only on entry plus contemporaneous felonious intent. The classic essay trap is a defendant who enters a store lawfully and then decides to steal: no California burglary, because the felonious intent did not exist at entry.

Worked examples

Worked Example 1

Is Reyes guilty of burglary under California law?

  • A Yes, because he entered the store and committed a theft inside.
  • B Yes, because California Penal Code §459 reaches entry into any building with intent to commit larceny.
  • C No, because he did not break into the store and entered during daytime.
  • D No, because he did not form the intent to steal until after he entered the store. ✓ Correct

Why D is correct: California Penal Code §459 requires that the defendant possess the intent to commit larceny or any felony at the moment of entry. Because Reyes formed his intent to steal only after he was already inside browsing, the felonious-intent-at-entry element is missing. He is guilty of petty theft (larceny) for taking the drill, but not burglary. This is the classic after-formed intent trap.

Why each wrong choice fails:

  • A: This conflates 'entered and stole' with burglary, but burglary requires the felonious intent to exist at the moment of entry. The fact that a theft occurred inside is not enough; timing of intent is dispositive. (The After-Formed Intent Trap)
  • B: The choice correctly states the §459 rule but misapplies it to facts where felonious intent did not exist at entry. Section 459 still requires contemporaneous intent — the broader §459 sweep relates to the type of structure and the entry act, not to relaxing the timing-of-intent element. (The After-Formed Intent Trap)
  • C: This applies common law burglary's breaking and nighttime requirements, but California §459 dispenses with both. The reason for acquittal is not absence of breaking or daytime entry, but absence of intent at entry. (The California-vs-Common-Law Burglary Switch)
Worked Example 2

Is the robbery charge supported on these facts?

  • A Yes, because Cordero took property directly from Patel's person.
  • B Yes, because removing the strap from her shoulder constitutes the force element of robbery.
  • C No, because Cordero used no force or threat beyond the mere taking, so the crime is larceny from the person, not robbery. ✓ Correct
  • D No, because Patel did not consent to the taking, which negates the force element.

Why C is correct: Robbery requires force or threat of imminent harm beyond the mere effort needed to take the property. A clean snatch with no resistance, struggle, or weapon is larceny from the person, not robbery. The pressure of sliding a strap off a shoulder, without the victim resisting, has historically been treated as insufficient force to elevate the offense to robbery.

Why each wrong choice fails:

  • A: Taking from the person establishes only the 'from the person or presence' element of robbery; it does not establish the force or threat element. Pickpockets and purse-snatchers without resistance commit larceny from the person, not robbery. (The Pickpocket-as-Robbery Trap)
  • B: The force element requires more than the de minimis effort to detach the property from the victim. Courts generally require force directed at the victim — a struggle, a push, a yank that overcomes resistance — not the bare physical motion of taking. (The Pickpocket-as-Robbery Trap)
  • D: Lack of consent is part of the trespassory-taking element of larceny, not the force element of robbery. Every larceny lacks consent; the force element is what distinguishes robbery, and it is not satisfied here.
Worked Example 3

What is the most accurate characterization of Okafor's offense?

  • A Larceny by trick, because Okafor used deceit to obtain the $18,000 from Reyes Manufacturing.
  • B Embezzlement, because Okafor was entrusted with property and converted it.
  • C False pretenses, because Okafor obtained title to the $18,000 by an intentional false statement of material fact with intent to defraud. ✓ Correct
  • D Common law larceny, because the trespassory taking of the wired funds occurred without consent.

Why C is correct: False pretenses requires (1) a false representation of material past or existing fact, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to defraud, and (4) the victim's transfer of title in reliance. The forged provenance documents are the false representation, the CEO relied on them, and Reyes Manufacturing transferred title to the $18,000 by wiring the funds in a completed sale. Because title — not just possession — passed, the crime is false pretenses, not larceny by trick.

Why each wrong choice fails:

  • A: Larceny by trick applies when the victim transfers only possession, not title. Here, Reyes Manufacturing executed a completed sale and transferred ownership of the funds outright, which puts the offense in false pretenses, not larceny by trick. (The Title-vs-Possession Switch)
  • B: Embezzlement requires that the defendant first obtain lawful possession of the property and then convert it. Okafor was never entrusted with the $18,000 in any fiduciary or bailment capacity; he obtained it through fraudulent inducement of a sale, which is false pretenses. (The Embezzlement-vs-Larceny Conflation)
  • D: Common law larceny requires a trespassory taking — a taking without consent. Reyes Manufacturing consented to transfer the funds (the consent was fraudulently induced, but it was consent in fact), so the trespassory-taking element fails. Fraudulently induced consent is the domain of false pretenses or larceny by trick, not larceny. (The Title-vs-Possession Switch)

Memory aid

Theft taxonomy mnemonic 'TIPS-T': Trespass = Larceny; In-possession-already = Embezzlement; Possession-by-trick = Larceny by Trick; Sale-with-title-by-fraud = False Pretenses; Threat-or-force = Robbery. For burglary remember 'EFI' — Entry + Felonious Intent (at entry). California drops Breaking-Nighttime-Dwelling.

Key distinction

The single highest-yield distinction is the title-vs-possession line between false pretenses and larceny by trick: if the victim handed over title (ownership), it is false pretenses; if only possession transferred, it is larceny by trick. Closely related: the timing-of-intent rule for burglary — felonious intent must exist at the moment of entry, not formed later inside.

Summary

To distinguish theft, robbery, and burglary, fix three things: (1) was possession lawful when the crime began (embezzlement) or trespassory (larceny); (2) was force or threat used at the person/presence of the victim (robbery); (3) did felonious intent exist at the moment of entry (burglary, especially under California's expansive §459).

Practice theft/robbery/burglary adaptively

Reading the rule is the start. Working California Bar-format questions on this sub-topic with adaptive selection, watching your mastery score climb in real time, and seeing the items you missed return on a spaced-repetition schedule — that's where score lift actually happens. Free for seven days. No credit card required.

Start your free 7-day trial

Frequently asked questions

What is theft/robbery/burglary on the California Bar?

At common law, larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive at the time of taking. Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of another by force or threat of imminent force. Burglary at common law is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with intent to commit a felony therein; modern statutes (and California Penal Code §459) drop the breaking, nighttime, and dwelling requirements and reach entry into virtually any structure with intent to commit larceny or any felony. The intent to steal must exist at the moment of taking (larceny/robbery) or at the moment of entry (burglary).

How do I practice theft/robbery/burglary questions?

The fastest way to improve on theft/robbery/burglary is targeted, adaptive practice — working questions that focus on your specific weak spots within this sub-topic, getting immediate feedback, and revisiting items you missed on a spaced-repetition schedule. Neureto's adaptive engine does this automatically across the California Bar; start a free 7-day trial to see your sub-topic mastery climb in real time.

What's the most important distinction to remember for theft/robbery/burglary?

The single highest-yield distinction is the title-vs-possession line between false pretenses and larceny by trick: if the victim handed over title (ownership), it is false pretenses; if only possession transferred, it is larceny by trick. Closely related: the timing-of-intent rule for burglary — felonious intent must exist at the moment of entry, not formed later inside.

Is there a memory aid for theft/robbery/burglary questions?

Theft taxonomy mnemonic 'TIPS-T': Trespass = Larceny; In-possession-already = Embezzlement; Possession-by-trick = Larceny by Trick; Sale-with-title-by-fraud = False Pretenses; Threat-or-force = Robbery. For burglary remember 'EFI' — Entry + Felonious Intent (at entry). California drops Breaking-Nighttime-Dwelling.

What's a common trap on theft/robbery/burglary questions?

Treating pickpocketing as robbery (no force = larceny only)

What's a common trap on theft/robbery/burglary questions?

Forgetting intent must exist at moment of taking/entry

Related California Bar sub-topics

Ready to drill these patterns?

Take a free California Bar assessment — about 30 minutes and Neureto will route more theft/robbery/burglary questions your way until your sub-topic mastery score reflects real improvement, not luck. Free for seven days. No credit card required.

Start your free 7-day trial