Even though the gambling laws of the state prohibit gambling on professional sports games, the defendant placed a bet with a bookie on the outcome of a football game. There was a disputed call near the end of the game that resulted in the defendant losing the bet. However, later films showed that in fact the call should have been for the defendant's team, which would have changed the outcome. The bookie refused to pay the bet to the defendant. Later that night, the defendant broke into the bookie's home and took the amount he would have won. What is the defendant's best defense to a charge of common law burglary

He lacked the specific intent necessary for burglary because he believed that the bookie owed him the money.

Explanation:

Gambling can turn out sour sometimes, especially when results come out controversial. Although the defendant is not supposed to break into someone's home but according to the common law burglary he has some defense to make for himself which is he believed that the bookie owed him the money that's what he based his action for. The definition of common law burglary requires that the defendant break into the dwelling place with the intent to commit a felony. He would claim he didn't destroy any item or take more than what He was owed but just stocked to taking the money he was owed.

answer; i believe the correct answer is norming;