The Little Known Larceny

I did this question today and it was the last straw and provoked my first full-on, frothing-at-the-mouth, face-in-my-hands nervous breakdown.

While hiking through an area that had been recently devastated by fire, Hiker discovered a sign that stated: "Now entering State Wilderness Area." Thinking that the sign would make a nice decoration, Hiker took the sign home with him. He was arrested and charged with violating a state statute that provides, " Any person who appropriates to his own use property owned by the state shall be guilty of a crime and shall be punished by fine and/or imprisonment. At trial, Hiker admitted taking the sign, but claims that he believed the sign had been abandoned since the area had recently been devastated by a fire. In fact, the sign had not been abandoned.

Hiker will most likely be found:

(A) Guilty, because this is a strict liability offense.
(B) Guilty, because intent is not placed in issue by this statute.
(C) Not Guilty, unless the jury finds that the state hadtaken adequate steps to inform the public that the sign had not been abandoned.
(D) Not guilty, if the jury finds Hiker honestly believed the sign had been abandoned.

So this is what I did...

I lost a lot of stupid points on the practice MBE because I rushed thru the problems, and blew over one word that changed the whole problem. AND I finished both halves of the MBE with 15 minutes left. So I'm making a more conscious effort to read the problems slower, and analyze each answer choice, even if I think it's wrong.

So here's my analysis...
(A) This seems to make sense for now because there is no mens rea given in the statute, which would make this a strict liability offense, rendering what he was thinking when he stole the sign meaningless. Even though the offense itself sounds like a common law larceny, the definition of the offense in the statute is different from larceny in that it does not require intent.
(B) This sounds to me to be the right conclusion, but the way it's worded makes it sound like one of those answers you can typically eliminate off the bat. Also, since there's no mens rea given, no mental state is put in issue, let alone intent; if this is a strict liabilty offense, he'd be guilty even if he stole it recklessly or negligently or lovingly. Plus, it's not as specific as (A), which comes to the same conclusion.
(C) This sounds like they're hinting at Due Process - that (for the purpose of the exam) a defendant generally can't be convicted of a crime that has only recently become a crime, unless legislators have issued some kind of notice to the public. But when this is an issue in a question, it's far more explicit than it is in this fact pattern, so Due Process is prolly not gonna save Hiker.
(D) An honest mistake can only function to negate intent, but this statute - even though the offense sounds like larceny - doesn't require intent, so this can't be right.

So I casually pick (A) and check my answer...

...only to learn that there is a little known form of larceny known as the larceny-type offense. And that a larceny-type offense requires intent! What the EFF is a "-type" offense?!?!? So now, when I read a question like this I have to think to myself, "Sounds to me like the legislature in this case meant something entirely different than what they very explicitly wrote." Seems to me that a methodical reading of this question would be a huge impediment to answering correctly. This question totally favors the knee-jerk response that we keep hearing we have to avoid - if I had just mowed thru this question without a careful reading, I would have said "larceny, intent, (D)," and never looked back... and I'd have gotten this question right because it turns out then when a statute sounds like a common law offense, it is applied like a common law offense.

I'd like to suggest to BarBri that no, this does not sound like a common larceny because it doesn't require intent!!!

But, man I hope that philosophy will get me thru torts. "Wow, I really don't remember much about defamation, but this kinda sounds like a defamation-type tort, so the answer must be defamation."

Sounds to me like either BarBri wants to keep us nervous, or the bar examiners were drunk and high when they wrote this question to be funny, and they can't wait to see our faces when it shows up on the exam.

Fuck this man, I need a little Dane Cook, to relax.