The picture has the question and answer choices. which one is it?

best answer gets renounced brainliest.

What film is responsible for the creation of the pg-13 rating?

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.

The police of a resort town discovered that a well-known cat burglar was currently living in town under an assumed name. to try to catch her in the act of burglary, an undercover officer approached the burglar with a plan for a burglary. the undercover officer told the burglar that he knew who she was and that he had a plan to steal jewels from someone staying in one of the town's resorts. the burglar initially refused the offer; however, after lengthy cajoling, she finally agreed to the plan. as the time for the burglary drew near, the burglar had second thoughts. three hours before the theft was scheduled to take place, the burglar called the police and told them of the plan. she told them that she was not going to show up, but that her cohort (the undercover officer) would be there, and told them how to recognize the undercover officer. is the burglar guilty of conspiracy at common law?