Welcome to the third question for the re-boot of RTTBE!

We have a lot of new eyes on the subreddit right now. This is where, for fun, we replay old T3BE questions. T3BE was a popular segment of OA where at the end of each Thursday show, Andrew would look up a (multi-state) bar exam practice question and read it for Thomas. At the end of the following Monday show, they would reveal the answer and whether Thomas got it right.

The answer to last week's question was discussed on OA 101 starting at roughly at 58:24 on the OA website's download link for me. The correct answer was "B) No, the statement can come in as impeachment if the accused takes the stand and as a party admission to show the material facts of knowing the child and that the family had money."

Explanation: the witness statement was testifying as to hearsay, which is ordinarily inadmissible, and we're looking at reasons we otherwise would admit it. This is governed by federal rule of evidence 801(d)(2)(A) which are exceptions to hearsay, 801(d)(2)(A) is the relevant subsection here. Briefly: "out of court statements by a party are admissible if the statements are offered against the party who made them". B is also correct because it includes all of A, but isn't reliant on the accused taking the stand (which is not guaranteed to happen).

I think that was the most common answer last week, though with more disagreement this time.

Scores so far.

Rules:

• You have one week to answer this question, the answer and next RT2BE will go up in early afternoon US Pacific time the following Thursday.

• This is on the honor system, the answer is available if you want it but that ruins the fun! Bonus points for answering without hearing what Thomas guesses.

• You may simply comment with what choice you've given, though more discussion is encouraged!

• Keep top-level responses for answers only, for tallying purposes. I will post an additional top level response for meta discussion. Off topic discussion may be removed.

• Use spoilers to cover your answer so others don't look at it before they write their own.

  • Type it exactly like this >!Answer E is Correct!<, and it will look like this: Answer E is Correct
  • Do not put a space between the exclamation mark and the text! In new reddit/the official app this will work, but it will not be in spoilers for those viewing in old reddit!

This question comes to us all the way from OA 345 published on December 26, 2019. My personal first episode of OA. The segment starts at roughly 1:02:18 for me on the OA website's link, you may have to rewind/fast forward accounting for ad insertion.

"An executive in an accounting firm was fired. She was told to immediately leave the building where she worked.

The executive went home but returned later that night to retrieve personal items from her office. When she discovered that her key no longer opened a door to the building, she instead forced the door open and went to her former office. To avoid attracting attention, she did not turn on any of the lights. In the dark, she knew that she was taking some items that were not hers and she planned to sort those out later and return them.

Upon arriving home she found out that she had taken a record book and some financial papers that belonged to the firm. After thinking it over and becoming angrier over being fired she burned the book and the papers in her fireplace.

This jurisdiction has expanded the crime of burglary to include all buildings.

What crimes has the executive committed?

A) Burglary and Larceny.

B) Burglary, but not Larceny.

C) Larceny, but not Burglary.

D) Neither Larceny nor Burglary."