It is no defense to theft prosecution that the actor has an interest in the property if another person has the right of exclusive possession. Which statement is true?

• A. It is not a defense; exclusive possession by another defeats the defense.
• B. It is a defense if the actor has an ownership interest.
• C. It is always a defense.
• D. It is irrelevant to the case.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that possession controls what can be taken, and a person’s own interest in property doesn’t automatically shield them from theft liability when someone else has exclusive possession. Theft requires taking property of another with the intent to deprive the possessor of that property. If another person has the exclusive right to possess the item, the actor’s personal interest in the property does not provide a defense to theft. In other words, even if you have some stake or claim to the property, taking it from the person who has exclusive possession is still theft.

For example, if a third party has exclusive possession of a bicycle, and someone else takes that bicycle intending to deprive the possessor of it, that act can be theft despite any claimed interest. The other options suggest that ownership or certain defenses would negate liability, but those ideas don’t apply here because exclusivity of possession by another overrides any asserted interest as a defense.