This week we learned about the elements of property crimes that the prosecutor must prove at trial. Based on the following fact patterns what would...

The first issue for both cases is that laws and terminology vary from state to state. Thus the answer will vary depending on the state in which it occurred. 

Case 1: The law distinguishes between trespass and burglary. To prosecute the man for home invasion or residential burglary, one would require evidence that the man had entered the home with the intent to commit burglary. Not only is there no evidence of intent of burglary but no burglary has occurred. Although there is evidence of trespassing, as no harm or intent to harm is evident, the man did not commit the crime of home invasion. Although there is an element of unlawful entry, there is not solid evidence for a charge of forced entry. Thus this seems a fairly straightforward case of trespass. Given the man's cooperation with the police the next morning, this might be a case where mediation or arbitration would be more appropriate than traditional litigation.

Case 2: In the second case, if one can prove that the man entered the home with the intent to steal money, then he can be prosecuted for home invasion burglary. If one cannot prove intent, but only the act of taking the money, the charge would be the lesser one of theft. The main issue here is ability to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. If the man broke into the house, took the money, and left, one would have a good case for home invasion burglary, the more serious charge. On the other hand, if the man broke in, passed out, slept for several hours, and then spotted the purse on a table when he woke up, one would have weaker evidence of intent, and might be advised to settle for the lesser charges of trespassing and theft.