UBE Theft, Robbery, Burglary
Last updated: May 2, 2026
Theft, Robbery, Burglary questions are one of the highest-leverage areas to study for the UBE. 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 (the specific intent must exist at the moment of the taking). Robbery is larceny accomplished by force or threat of imminent force from the victim's person or presence. Common-law burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with intent to commit a felony therein; modern statutes generally drop the dwelling, nighttime, and breaking requirements and expand 'felony' to include any crime. Embezzlement and false pretenses cover the gaps left by larceny: embezzlement requires fraudulent conversion of property already lawfully in the defendant's possession, while false pretenses requires obtaining title (not just possession) by a knowing false representation of a material past or present fact.
Elements breakdown
Larceny
The trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.
- Trespassory taking (without consent)
- Carrying away (slightest movement suffices)
- Personal property of another
- Intent to permanently deprive at time of taking
Common examples:
- Pickpocketing a wallet
- Continuing-trespass doctrine: borrower forms felonious intent later
- Larceny by trick: possession obtained by fraud, title remains with owner
Embezzlement
The fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person already in lawful possession of it.
- Fraudulent (intentional, unauthorized) conversion
- Of property of another
- Defendant had lawful possession when conversion occurred
- Intent to defraud the owner
Common examples:
- Bank teller pocketing customer deposits
- Trustee diverting trust funds for personal use
- Employee with custody who exceeds authority and treats property as own
False Pretenses
Obtaining title to property of another by a knowing false representation of a material past or present fact, with intent to defraud, where the victim relies on the misrepresentation.
- False representation of material past or present fact
- Defendant knew representation was false
- Intent to defraud
- Victim relied and passed title (not just possession)
Common examples:
- Selling a fake antique as genuine and receiving payment
- Cashing a check drawn on a closed account for goods
- Distinguishing from larceny by trick: title vs. mere possession
Robbery
Larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or by threat of imminent force, putting the victim in fear.
- All elements of larceny
- Property taken from victim's person or presence
- By force or threat of imminent force
- Force or threat used to take or retain property
Common examples:
- Mugging at gunpoint
- Snatching purse with sufficient force to overcome resistance
- Threat of imminent harm to victim or family member nearby
Common-Law Burglary
The breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with intent to commit a felony inside.
- Breaking (actual or constructive)
- Entering (any part of body or instrument crosses threshold)
- Dwelling of another
- At nighttime
- Intent to commit a felony at the time of entry
Common examples:
- Pushing open an unlocked door (slight force suffices)
- Constructive breaking by fraud or threat
- Felonious intent must coexist with the entry, not form later
Modern (Statutory) Burglary
The unlawful entry into any structure with intent to commit a crime therein; most jurisdictions retain a heightened grade for dwellings or nighttime entries.
- Unlawful entry (breaking often eliminated)
- Into a structure (not limited to dwellings)
- With intent to commit any crime therein
- Intent existing at time of entry
Common examples:
- Entering a closed retail store after hours to steal
- Entering an open business with felonious intent (split authority)
- Aggravated burglary where defendant is armed or victim is present
Larceny by Trick (Sub-rule)
A species of larceny where the defendant obtains possession (but not title) of personal property through fraud or deceit, with intent to permanently deprive at the moment possession is acquired.
- Possession obtained by fraud or misrepresentation
- Title remains with the owner
- Intent to permanently deprive at time of taking
- Carrying away of the property
Common examples:
- Borrowing a car under false pretenses, never intending to return
- Renting equipment with no intent to return
- Distinguished from false pretenses: only possession (not title) passes
Common patterns and traps
The Possession-vs-Title Cut
Examiners draft fact patterns that look like fraud-based takings and ask the candidate to choose between larceny by trick and false pretenses. The dispositive fact is whether the victim transferred ownership (title) or only the right to use or hold (possession). A 'sale' induced by lies is false pretenses; a 'loan' or 'rental' induced by lies is larceny by trick. Misclassifying the transfer is the single most common error on these items.
An answer choice will offer the right outcome (defendant guilty of fraud-based theft) but cite false pretenses when only possession passed, or larceny by trick when title actually passed.
The Wrong-Moment-of-Intent Trap
Larceny requires intent to permanently deprive at the moment of the taking. Defendants who form the felonious intent later present a continuing-trespass problem: if the original taking was itself trespassory (e.g., a wrongful borrowing), the continuing-trespass doctrine treats each moment of possession as a fresh taking, and later-formed intent suffices. If the original taking was lawful (e.g., a true bailment), later conversion is embezzlement, not larceny.
A choice will conclude 'guilty of larceny' on facts where intent formed only after lawful possession — ignoring that embezzlement, not larceny, fits.
The Force-After-Taking Issue
Robbery requires that force or threat be used to take property or to retain it during the immediate flight. Force used purely to escape after the taking is complete is generally not robbery at common law, though many modern statutes extend robbery to force used during 'flight.' MBE items often hinge on whether the force is sufficiently contemporaneous with the taking.
A choice will label the crime 'robbery' based on a struggle that occurred only after the defendant had concealed the property and walked away — confusing assault-plus-larceny with true robbery.
The Common-Law-vs-Modern Burglary Switch
Common-law burglary requires breaking, entering, dwelling, nighttime, and felonious intent at entry — all five. Modern statutes typically jettison breaking, dwelling, and nighttime, and expand 'felony' to any crime. Items signal which framework applies through phrases like 'at common law' or 'under the modern majority statute.' Applying the wrong framework converts a correct rule into a wrong answer.
A choice will reject burglary 'because the entry was through an open door' on a modern-statute fact pattern where breaking is no longer required.
The Asportation Minimum
Larceny requires carrying away (asportation), but the slightest movement of the property suffices — even an inch. Candidates often think a thwarted theft is no larceny because the defendant did not get away, but the moment the defendant lifts or shifts the property with felonious intent, the crime is complete. Robbery similarly requires only the slightest movement.
A choice will conclude 'no larceny' or 'attempted larceny only' because the defendant was caught immediately, ignoring that any movement of the item completes the crime.
How it works
Property crimes on the MBE almost always come down to two questions: (1) which crime fits the facts, and (2) was the required mental state present at the right moment? Imagine that Reyes asks his neighbor Liu to lend him a power drill 'for the weekend.' If Reyes already plans to sell it when he asks, he commits larceny by trick (possession obtained by fraud + intent to permanently deprive at the moment of taking). If Reyes genuinely intends to return it but later decides to keep it and pawns it, the common law would say no larceny — the intent did not exist at the taking — but the continuing-trespass doctrine or embezzlement may fill the gap if the original taking was wrongful or if Reyes was a custodial bailee. Now suppose Reyes confronts Liu in the driveway and shoves him aside to grab the drill: that shove converts a larceny into a robbery because force was used to take property from the victim's presence. Finally, if Reyes pries open Liu's garage at 2 a.m. intending to take the drill, he commits common-law burglary; under most modern statutes, breaking into the garage during daylight with the same intent suffices.
Worked examples
With which crime is Patel most properly charged?
- A Larceny, because Patel took Reyes's motorcycle without paying for it.
- B Larceny by trick, because Patel obtained the motorcycle through a fraudulent representation about the check.
- C False pretenses, because Patel obtained title to the motorcycle through a knowing misrepresentation of a material present fact. ✓ Correct
- D Embezzlement, because Patel converted the motorcycle to his own use after acquiring it from Reyes.
Why C is correct: Reyes signed over the title certificate in exchange for the forged check, so Patel obtained title — not mere possession — through a knowing false representation of a material present fact (that the check was good), with intent to defraud, and Reyes relied. That is textbook false pretenses. The transfer of title is the dispositive fact distinguishing false pretenses from larceny by trick.
Why each wrong choice fails:
- A: Larceny requires a trespassory taking without consent. Reyes consented to the transfer (induced by fraud), and title passed, so the elements of common-law larceny are not met. (The Possession-vs-Title Cut)
- B: Larceny by trick applies only when the fraud induces transfer of possession but title remains with the owner. Here Reyes signed over the title certificate, so title passed — pushing the offense into false pretenses, not larceny by trick. (The Possession-vs-Title Cut)
- D: Embezzlement requires that the defendant already be in lawful possession of property of another and then fraudulently convert it. Patel never had lawful possession in a fiduciary or custodial capacity; he obtained the motorcycle directly from Reyes through fraud. (The Wrong-Moment-of-Intent Trap)
With which crime is Cho most properly charged?
- A Larceny, because the taking was complete before Cho used any force against Liu.
- B Robbery, because Cho used force against Liu while still in her presence to retain the property he had just taken. ✓ Correct
- C Assault and larceny as separate offenses, because the force occurred only after the carrying away was complete.
- D Attempted robbery, because Cho was caught attempting to leave the shop before completing the theft.
Why B is correct: Robbery is larceny accomplished by force or threat used to take or retain the property in the victim's presence. Cho's shove of Liu — used to retain the backpack and complete his escape from the immediate scene — supplies the force element, and the taking occurred from Liu's presence. The contemporaneous use of force to retain the property converts the larceny into robbery under the majority rule.
Why each wrong choice fails:
- A: Although Cho had completed the asportation when he tucked the backpack under his arm, force used to retain the property in the victim's immediate presence is sufficient for robbery under the majority rule. The crime is not merely larceny. (The Force-After-Taking Issue)
- C: Splitting the conduct into assault and larceny ignores the rule that contemporaneous force used to retain property in the victim's presence merges the offenses into robbery. Charging them separately understates the offense. (The Force-After-Taking Issue)
- D: Robbery (and the underlying larceny) was complete the instant Cho moved the backpack with intent to permanently deprive — the slightest asportation suffices. There is no 'attempt' problem; the offense is consummated. (The Asportation Minimum)
Should Okafor be convicted of common-law burglary?
- A No, because he did not actually take any property from the house.
- B No, because pushing open an unlocked door does not constitute a 'breaking' at common law.
- C Yes, because all elements of common-law burglary were satisfied at the moment Okafor crossed the threshold. ✓ Correct
- D Yes, but only if the jurisdiction has eliminated the breaking requirement by statute.
Why C is correct: Common-law burglary is complete on entry; no theft need actually occur. The elements — breaking (the slightest force, including pushing open an unlocked door, suffices), entering (crossing the threshold), dwelling of another, nighttime (2:00 a.m.), and intent to commit a felony at the time of entry (larceny of jewelry) — were all satisfied when Okafor stepped into the foyer. The completed offense does not require successful execution of the underlying felony.
Why each wrong choice fails:
- A: Burglary punishes the entry-with-intent, not the completed underlying felony. Whether or not Okafor succeeded in taking property is irrelevant once the burglary elements are met at entry. (The Asportation Minimum)
- B: At common law, even minimal force to gain entry — including pushing open an unlocked door — qualifies as a breaking. The breaking element is satisfied; this answer applies a stricter, non-existent standard. (The Common-Law-vs-Modern Burglary Switch)
- D: This choice inverts the doctrine. Under common law (which the facts say the jurisdiction retains), breaking is required and is satisfied here. Modern statutes typically eliminate breaking, but elimination is not necessary on these facts because the breaking element is met. (The Common-Law-vs-Modern Burglary Switch)
Memory aid
For larceny: 'TT-CAP-PD' — Trespassory Taking, Carrying Away of Personal property of another, with intent to Permanently Deprive. For burglary at common law: 'B-E-D-N-F' — Breaking, Entering, Dwelling, Nighttime, Felony. To pick among larceny / larceny by trick / false pretenses / embezzlement, ask in order: (1) Did defendant have lawful possession? → embezzlement. (2) Did victim transfer title? → false pretenses. (3) Did victim transfer only possession by fraud? → larceny by trick. (4) Otherwise → larceny.
Key distinction
Larceny by trick versus false pretenses turns on a single question: did the victim transfer title, or only possession? If title passed (a completed sale based on a lie), it is false pretenses. If only possession passed (a loan, rental, or bailment induced by fraud), it is larceny by trick. Examiners exploit this constantly with facts that look like a sale but are actually a bailment, or vice versa.
Summary
Property crimes are decided by matching the facts to the precise mental state and the precise moment it must exist — and by distinguishing possession from title, force from stealth, and entry from completed entry-with-intent.
Practice theft, robbery, burglary adaptively
Reading the rule is the start. Working UBE-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 trialFrequently asked questions
What is theft, robbery, burglary on the UBE?
At common law, larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive (the specific intent must exist at the moment of the taking). Robbery is larceny accomplished by force or threat of imminent force from the victim's person or presence. Common-law burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with intent to commit a felony therein; modern statutes generally drop the dwelling, nighttime, and breaking requirements and expand 'felony' to include any crime. Embezzlement and false pretenses cover the gaps left by larceny: embezzlement requires fraudulent conversion of property already lawfully in the defendant's possession, while false pretenses requires obtaining title (not just possession) by a knowing false representation of a material past or present fact.
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 UBE; 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?
Larceny by trick versus false pretenses turns on a single question: did the victim transfer title, or only possession? If title passed (a completed sale based on a lie), it is false pretenses. If only possession passed (a loan, rental, or bailment induced by fraud), it is larceny by trick. Examiners exploit this constantly with facts that look like a sale but are actually a bailment, or vice versa.
Is there a memory aid for theft, robbery, burglary questions?
For larceny: 'TT-CAP-PD' — Trespassory Taking, Carrying Away of Personal property of another, with intent to Permanently Deprive. For burglary at common law: 'B-E-D-N-F' — Breaking, Entering, Dwelling, Nighttime, Felony. To pick among larceny / larceny by trick / false pretenses / embezzlement, ask in order: (1) Did defendant have lawful possession? → embezzlement. (2) Did victim transfer title? → false pretenses. (3) Did victim transfer only possession by fraud? → larceny by trick. (4) Otherwise → larceny.
What's a common trap on theft, robbery, burglary questions?
Intent forming after the taking (continuing-trespass vs. no larceny)
What's a common trap on theft, robbery, burglary questions?
Possession vs. title (larceny by trick vs. false pretenses)
Ready to drill these patterns?
Take a free UBE assessment — about 25 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