Hi everyone, please help me to answer these two questions. Thank you!

1.Legal Reasoning Fact Pattern Q: Carl's television stopped working just before the big game and he did not have enough money to purchase another television. He knew that a motel near his workplace had recently purchased very nice televisions for all of the rooms in the hotel. These television sets cost $1000.00 each, but the fair market value of the used television sets is only $200.00. Carl goes to the motel at 5 pm, opens the unlocked door of one of the rooms (which was rented out by a guest but was not currently occupied because the guest was at dinner with her Grandma who had Alzheimer's), and enters the room. He then picks up the television and starts to take it out of the room, but then hears people coming, drops the television, and runs away. Carl is subsequently arrested and arraigned for burglary.

Assume that the crime of burglary requires that the following elements must be met: Breaking and entering of a dwelling in the nighttime with an intent to commit a felon therein. Additionally, assume that felony larceny applies if the value of the property exceeds $250.00. Also assume that there are no cases that have interpreted the statute and no statutory definitions that apply.

Remember that you are to assume that there have been no cases or legislative attempts to interpret or define the various terms found in the elements of the crime of burglary. Focus on the element of burglary which requires that there be "intent to commit a felony therein." What arguments could be made on both sides of the issue given the facts of the case?

	a.	The only argument to be made is that since the television was purchased for $1000.00, then that shows that Carl intended to commit a felony therein.
	b.	The only argument to be made is that since Carl did not leave with the televsion, then the Commonwealth cannot prove that he intended to commit a felony therein.
	c.	In order to prove Carl's intent, the Commonwealth would introduce evidence that his television was broken and that he could not afford a new one. The Defense attorney for Carl would argue that because the current fair market value of the television was only $200.00, then Carl could not have intended to commit a felony therein.
	d.	The arguments the Commonwealth would advance regarding Carl's intent to commit a felony would focus on the value of the television when purchased, but it would also incorporate the fact that Carl's television was broken and he could not afford a new television. Additionally, the Commonwealth would argue that Carl's attempt to leave with the television was sufficient to establish intent. The Defense attorney for Carl would argue that the fair market value of the television was only $200.00, which would show that this theft was not a felony. Carl's attorney would further argue that Carl's inability to afford a replacement television is hardly evidence of intent to commit a felony and would further indicate that Carl's failure to leave with the television was futher evidence that he did not intend to leave with the television.

2. Sally, a bartender, received a call at work that her daughter was injured and was being taken to the emergency room. She knows she will have to pay a deductible in the amount of $100 for her daughters care in the emergency room, and contemplates stealing a $100 bill from the cash register of the restaurant where she works in order to pay the deductible. If Sally uses a utilitarian model to evaluate her plan, she will

	a.	Compare the number of people that will benefit from the action (i.e., her daughter, herself and possibly the emergency room doctor) to the number of people that will be negatively impacted by the action (i.e.,the restaurant owner).
	b.	Consider what would happen if every restaurant employee stole money from the cash register to pay for personal expenses.
	c.	Consider whether the Ten Commandments would direct her not to take the money.
	d.	Compare the number of people that will benefit from the action (i.e., her daughter, herself and possibly the emergency room doctor) to the number of people that will be negatively impacted by the action (i.e.,the restaurant owner), along with an assessment of the significance of the relative benefits. Additionally, she will look broadly at who should be included in the cost-benefit analysis that she engages in.