Crim

Sigmund Freud is addicted to cocaine. He is arrested under a state statute making it a crime to be addicted to a controlled substance. Is the statute valid?

No; crimes that punish status (instead of acts or omissions) are considered unconstitutional,

Arthur and Dan were walking on a mountain road, arguing about affirmative action, when Arthur called Dan a "stupid idiot." Dan, enraged by this remark, pushed Arthur as hard as he could. Unfortunately, Arthur's head snapped backwards and struck a rock. As a consequence, Arthur died a few days later. Which of the following is true? a. Dan is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. b. Dan is not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because he did not intend Arthur's death. c. Dan is not criminally responsible for Arthur's death. d. Dan is guilty of voluntary manslaughter because Dan's insult was adequate to provoke a reasonable person.

A

Assume that the jurisdiction in this case does not permit a claim of imperfect self-defense. Steve and Jenny have been married for five years. Steve has a "temper problem" and has beaten Jenny many times during their marriage. One Saturday night, Steve begins to yell at Jenny when she suggests that he get counseling for his temper. Jenny has never seen Steve so enraged. Steve hits Jenny several times and then says, "Your time is almost up." Steve then turns away and goes to sleep. Two hours later, Jenny, fearing that Steve intends to kill her when he awakes, quietly removes a gun from the kitchen cabinet and shoots Steve in the temple, killing him instantly. Based on these facts, if Jenny is prosecuted for murder, it is most likely that she would be convicted of: a. Murder. b. Voluntary manslaughter. c. Involuntary manslaughter. d. No crime at all.

A

Barker and Samantha are violence-prone computer hackers. They decide to rob a local Geek City Software store. Each uses a handgun. They agree in advance to split up after the robbery and to meet at Samantha's home one hour later to divide their booty. The robbery goes off without a hitch, but on her way home, Samantha is stopped by Frank, a local police officer. She begins to run, but is brought down by Kipper, Frank's police dog. Samantha reaches for a knife concealed in her left stocking and slashes Kipper across the throat. Kipper dies immediately. (Assume that, in this jurisdiction, killing a police dog during commission of a felony is itself a felony.) Based on these facts, if Barker is prosecuted for the killing of Kipper, it is most likely that: a. Barker is guilty because it was reasonably foreseeable that Samantha would use force to avoid capture. b. Barker is guilty because conspirators are culpable for the acts of their co-conspirators. c. Barker is not guilty because Samantha's killing of a police dog was not reasonably foreseeable. d. Barker is not guilty because the conspiracy was concluded when the robbery of the Geek City Software store was concluded.

A

Barney was exposed to Jordan's driving ambition and ruthlessness when they were classmates at Harpert Law School. Years later, when Jordan, after a meteoric but unprincipled career, announced his candidacy for governor of Utopia, Barney felt it was his patriotic duty to stop him before he destroyed the state. Barney read in the local paper that Jordan was going to be making a speech in the public square of Harpert Village the next day. Barney also knew that there was an abandoned office building located opposite the square, where he could position himself in order to fire at Jordan. About 30 minutes before Jordan's speech, Barney entered the building facing the square, carrying a high-powered rifle. A vigilant police officer saw Barney at the window holding what appeared to be a rifle, "casing" the square. The officer immediately broke into the building and arrested Barney. (You may assume that the Model Penal Code is operative in Utopia.) Based on these facts, if Barney is prosecuted for attempted murder, it is most likely that: a. Barney is guilty because he undertook a substantial step toward the assassination with the intent to kill. b. Barney is not guilty because he was waiting for Jordan to begin his speech. c. Barney is not guilty because Jordan had not yet arrived. d. Barney is not guilty if his rifle's range could not reach the spot at which Jordan would be standing.

A

Bethany and Marcy love the same man. Marcy loves him so much that she would be willing to kill Bethany if it came to that. However, she would prefer if Bethany would just get sick or leave town. Marcy comes up with an elaborate plan to drive Bethany from her life. Knowing that Bethany hates snakes, Marcy drops scores of lethal snakes in Bethany's yard. When Bethany returns home, she is bitten by one of the snakes. She rushes to the hospital where they give her an antidote in time to save her. However, when Bethany returns home, she is bitten by another snake and dies before emergency help can arrive. Marcy is charged with attempted murder and murder. When interviewed by the police, all she can say is, "I knew that one of them would eventually get her." Marcy is a. guilty of murdering Bethany. b. guilty of attempted murder and murdering Bethany. c. guilty of only the attempted murder of Bethany. d. not guilty of murder or attempted murder.

A

Falcone sells a sugary substance called lactose. Lactose can be used to supplement baby formula or as a cutting agent to dilute drugs. Approximately 75 percent of Falcone's sales are to Gordy who, as Falcone knows, uses the lactose to dilute and package illegal drugs. Falcone knows he can charge Gordy a little more than other customers because he isn't likely to complain to the authorities. Thus, over the course of a year, Falcone makes numerous sales of large quantities of lactose to Gordy. Gordy and Falcone are charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs and distribution of drugs. Is Falcone guilty of the conspiracy? a. Yes, because he had the necessary mens rea for conspiracy. b. No, because it is not per se illegal to possess or sell lactose. c. Yes, because he was reckless in selling lactose to a drug dealer. d. No, because he was in an official partnership with Gordy.

A

Falu is arrested when he is caught selling heroin to an undercover drug agent. If he is charged in state court, his possible punishment is only three years. However, the authorities charge him in federal court because he sold drugs within 1,000 feet of a school. Falu wants to introduce evidence that he honestly did not know he was within 1,000 feet of a school when the sale took place. The court will not allow this testimony. The statute under which Falu has been charged states, "Any person who knowingly [sells drugs] within one thousand feet of a public or private elementary or secondary school is guilty of a federal crime punishable by twenty years in prison." Falu is convicted under this statute. Falu appeals his conviction. His conviction should be a. affirmed because Falu was within 1,000 feet of a school. b. affirmed because the offense has no mens rea requirement. c. reversed if Falu honestly did not know he was within 1,000 feet of a school. d. reversed if Falu reasonably did not believe he was within 1,000 feet of a school.

A

Forrest's mother, Ena, is terminally ill — the doctors say she has only a few more days to live. Although the doctors have tried everything to ameliorate her pain, Ena continually moans. She asks Forrest to end her misery. Forrest comes into the hospital with a revolver and aims it at Ena, who says, "Please, now." Forrest pulls the trigger four times. a. Forrest is guilty of first-degree murder. b. Forrest is guilty of second-degree murder. c. Forrest is guilty of manslaughter. d. Forrest is not guilty of any level of homicide.

A

George is charged with aiding and abetting involuntary manslaughter. George sells guns at swap meets. He sold a handgun to a minor who accidentally shot and killed a friend while displaying the gun. Is George an accomplice to the involuntary manslaughter? a. Yes, if he should have known that the minor might accidentally shoot someone with the gun. b. No, because he did not have the purpose for the minor to accidentally kill his friend. c. Yes, if it was a strict liability offense to sell the handgun to the minor. d. No, because only the minor was responsible for the shooting.

A

Light my fire. Stanley is charged with arson. The crime of arson requires that a defendant maliciously set fire and cause damage to property. Stanley's house caught fire when he was setting off fireworks in his yard. Part of the house burned before firefighters could extinguish the fire. What would the prosecution have to prove for Stanley to be guilty of arson? a. Stanley knew he could set his house on fire but ignored the risk and set off the fireworks too close to his home. b. Stanley's purpose in setting off the fireworks was to burn down his home. c. Stanley always hated his home and therefore wanted to burn it down, so he set off the fireworks. d. Stanley carelessly burned down his home.

A

Martin is sitting in his living room chair drinking his eighth beer of the night when the police arrive. They demand that he go outside to talk to them about a claim that he stole his neighbor's garden gnome. Martin has no recollection of taking the garden gnome. When Martin refuses to go outside with the officers, the police physically pick him up and carry him outside. While he is standing outside, Martin has a seizure. His body convulses and his arm hits one of the officers. Martin is charged with stealing his neighbor's garden gnome, being drunk in public, and assaulting an officer. Which of the following is false?. a. Martin cannot be guilty of stealing his neighbor's garden gnome because he acted involuntarily. b. Martin cannot be guilty of being drunk in public because he was in public involuntarily. c. Martin cannot be guilty of assaulting an officer because he acted involuntarily. d. Martin cannot be guilty of assaulting an officer because his body acted convulsively.

A

Michael is frustrated with the ongoing war in Iraq and participates regularly in a chat room discussion on the Internet Service regarding the war. In his latest posting, Michael has stated, "It's time to say no. Tear up those Selective cards. Or go AWOL. Don't let the government push us around anymore." Michael hopes his comments will generate more discussion regarding the problems with the war. When a government agent surveying the chat room reads Michael's comments, he has him arrested for soliciting violations of the Selective Service laws. If Michael seeks a First Amendment defense, he will most likely a. succeed because his words were not intended to incite imminent violations of the law. b. succeed because words alone cannot be the basis for criminal conduct. c. fail because his words could prompt a person to disobey the Selective Service laws. d. fail because there is never a First Amendment defense to the crime of solicitation.

A

Monty is furious at his boss, Devon, so he decides to throw a stink bomb in Devon's house during the middle of the night. When the bomb goes off, Devon thinks his house is on fire. He runs out of the house and jumps into his unheated swimming pool. By the time emergency help arrives, Devon is dead. The coroner's report indicates that Devon died of hypothermia from the cold water. Devon was particularly susceptible to hypothermia because he was extremely underweight. Monty is charged with murder. In his defense, Monty claims he did not cause Devon's death. Monty's defense is likely to a. fail because he was the actual and proximate cause of Devon's death. b. fail because he was the actual cause of Devon's death. c. succeed because Devon's actions were a superseding, intervening cause of death. d. succeed because Monty did not have control over the temperature and Devon's sensitivity to cold broke the chain of causation.

A

Mr. Barnes, a senior partner at the We Sue For You law firm, gave a fax machine to Andrew, a file room clerk, to deliver to a repair shop. Andrew, who felt slighted because he was not given a Christmas bonus by Mr. Barnes, took the fax machine to a local pawnshop and obtained $200 for it. He then told Mr. Barnes that a thug had taken the fax machine from him at gunpoint. Two days later, Mr. Barnes happened to see the fax machine in the pawnshop window and called the police. Andrew was subsequently arrested. (Assume that common law principles are applicable in this jurisdiction.) Based on these facts, if Andrew is prosecuted for larceny, it is most likely that: a. Andrew is guilty because he tried to deprive Barnes of his fax machine. b. Andrew is guilty because he lied to Barnes when he said the fax machine was taken from him. c. Andrew is not guilty because Barnes voluntarily gave him the fax machine. d. Andrew is not guilty if he intended to redeem the fax machine from the pawnshop when he was arrested.

A

One summer evening, Alison decided to go swimming in the rooftop pool of her apartment building. She stepped out onto the roof to find only Jamie, her neighbor's seven-year-old. Alison watched in horror while Jamie fell into the deep end of the pool and began to thrash around. Alison had been a lifeguard in high school and could easily have saved Jamie without any risk to herself. Fearing that she might be accused of pushing Jamie in the first place, she decided not to intervene and went back downstairs. She did, however, call the police when she got back to her apartment. The police came immediately, but Jamie had already drowned. Based on these facts, if Alison is prosecuted for homicide, it is most likely that: a. Alison is not guilty because she was under no legal duty to save Jamie. b. Alison is not guilty because she made a reasonable effort to save Jamie by calling the police. c. Alison is guilty because she could have saved Jamie without serious risk of harm to herself. d. Alison is guilty because there is a special duty to help minors in danger.

A

Oswald has decided to kill the Vice President. He buys a high-powered rifle, sets up an ambush spot and waits for the Vice President's motorcade to pass. Oswald has his rifle beside him and is prepared to pick it up at any moment. Less than a minute before the motorcade passes, Oswald is interrupted by a cellular phone call from his mother reminding him to pick up a loaf of bread from the market. Because he is listening to his mother's message, Oswald does not have an opportunity to shoot and kill the Vice President. Under the Model Penal Code approach, is Oswald guilty of attempted murder? a. Yes, because he took a substantial step strongly corroborative of his intent to kill. b. No, because Oswald was not in dangerous proximity of killing the Vice President. c. Yes, because Oswald had already taken the last step toward killing the Vice President when his phone rang. d. No, because Oswald's actions did not show his unequivocal intent to kill.

A

Renee has been despondent. Nothing has been going right in her life. She decides to take her own life by jumping off a bridge. Renee drives to a bridge, climbs on a railing, and says her final words. However, before she can jump, defendant Jones shoots her. Renee falls to her death. The coroner cannot get a definitive answer as to whether the main cause of Renee's death was the fall or the gunshot. Can Jones be prosecuted for murder? a. Yes, Jones was a cause in fact (but for cause) of Renee's death. b. No, Renee caused her own death. c. No, Renee would have died anyway, even if Jones had never shot her. d. Yes, Jones had the intent to kill Renee.

A

The state of Ames has a statute that defines criminal assault as occurring when one person "causes bodily injury to another." The case law of Ames defines criminal assault as a "general-intent crime." George and Kramer are drivers searching for a parking spot at a mall in the state of Ames. Both drivers approach an empty spot at about the same time. They begin to argue over who is entitled to the spot. During the argument, Kramer, intending to scare George away, walks over to George's car and touches George's throat with a screwdriver. Unfortunately, when George twists his head to look at Kramer, he cuts his throat against the screwdriver point and is seriously injured. Based on these facts, if Kramer is prosecuted for criminal assault, it is most likely that: a. Kramer is culpable because he intended to place the screwdriver against George's throat. b. Kramer is culpable because he created an inherently dangerous situation. c. Kramer is not culpable because he could not reasonably foresee George's actions. d. Kramer is not culpable because he lacked the intent to physically injure George.

A

Tommy Student has survived a semester of criminal law. On the day of his final exam, he arrives at the test site exhausted after studying for 72 hours straight. As he reads the exam, Tommy becomes furious. His professor has humiliated him by using him as the clueless defendant in one of her hypotheticals. Unable to focus, Tommy storms out of the exam room and heads for the professor's office. When he arrives at the office, Tommy begins screaming and gesticulating with his pen. When the professor tells him to put down the pen, Tommy picks up a letter opener on her desk and begins to gesture with it. As he jabs at his professor, Tommy falls forward. The letter opener strikes Tommy's professor in the chest. She dies of a wound to her heart. Which of the following is correct? a. If charged with murder, Tommy may use the Model Penal Code to argue that he is only guilty of manslaughter. b. If charged with first-degree murder, Tommy should be acquitted because he had no motive for the killing. c. If charged with second-degree murder, Tommy should be acquitted because he only intended to seriously injure, not kill his professor. d. If charged with negligent homicide, Tommy is not guilty because he did not intend to kill his professor.

A

Bobby and Molly Malone decide to play a friendly game of Russian roulette. They play the game by placing one bullet in a five-chambered gun and spinning the cylinder. Then, they take turns pointing the gun at their temples, pulling the trigger, and seeing if the gun goes off. Bobby goes first. He spins the cylinder, pulls the trigger, but nothing happens. Molly then takes her turn. She spins the cylinder again. This time, the gun fires. Molly loses. She is killed instantly by the bullet and Bobby is charged with murder. a. Bobby is guilty of murder because his participation in the game showed extreme disregard for human life. b. Bobby is not guilty of murder because he didn't intend for Molly to die. c. Bobby is guilty of murder because he should have known Molly might die. d. Bobby is not guilty of murder because he couldn't know for sure whether the gun would fire. e. Bobby is not guilty of murder because Molly consented to playing the dangerous game.

A Step #1: Did the defendant realize the risk to human life? Step #2: Was that risk gross?

Molly and Samantha were neighbors. Molly became convinced that Samantha was having an affair with her husband. This was not the case. One day, Molly, an employee of Wow Chemical, hid a bottle of acid under her smock as she left work. When Molly arrived home, she saw Samantha sunbathing on her porch. Molly uncorked the bottle and splashed acid on Samantha's face, intending to disfigure her. Reacting quickly, Samantha ran to the pool in her backyard and dove in to dilute the acid. In her panic, she dove into the shallow part of the pool and fractured her cheekbone. Her fracture healed, but, despite excellent plastic surgery, her smile was permanently, although only slightly, distorted, due to the injury from her dive into the pool. The crime of mayhem is defined in this jurisdiction as "the intentional infliction of a disfiguring bodily injury." Based on these facts, if Molly is prosecuted for mayhem, it is most likely that: a. Molly is guilty because she intended to cause a disfiguring bodily injury to Samantha. b. Molly is not guilty because Samantha's response was a supervening cause of her injury. c. Molly is not guilty because her conduct was not the proximate cause of Samantha's injuries. d. Molly is not guilty because the acid caused Samantha no disfigurement.

A The fact that Samantha was injured in a desperate attempt to escape the acid was not a bizarre or unforeseeable event under the circumstances, and Molly is guilty of mayhem as defined in the statute.

Abdullah, a native-born American, is a devout Sikh. This requires him to wear traditional clothing, including a turban. For years, Abdullah has endured jibes about his clothes. On several occasions, he has come close to hitting his taunters. One day, Abdullah is walking across campus when Billy Jack mutters, as he is passing by, "Hey **********. We're in America now." Abdullah grabs BJ by the throat and strangles him. Under the common law, Abdullah: a. Is guilty of first degree murder because he had time to premeditate the killing. b. Is guilty of second degree murder. c. Is guilty of manslaughter because no reasonable person can be expected to ignore racial, religious, ethnic, or other such taunts. d. Is guilty of no crime.

B

After Jethro was fired from his job, he decided to "get even" with his ex-employer. So, one night, Jethro broke into Farmer John's barn and set fire to John's favorite tractor. The barn was located approximately 25 feet from the main house. One of Farmer John's neighbors, Leroy, saw smoke coming from the barn. Leroy ran over and put out the fire before any part of the barn was destroyed. There was, however, extensive charring to the barn. Also, several of the items in the barn were burned. (Assume that the common law view of arson is adhered to in this jurisdiction.) Based on these facts, if Jethro is prosecuted for arson, it is most likely that: a. Jethro is not guilty because the barn was only charred. b. Jethro is guilty because the fire caused damage to a structure adjacent to the main house. c. Jethro is not guilty because he did not specifically intend to damage any structure (only Farmer John's tractor). d. Jethro is not guilty because the barn isn't part of Farmer John's house.

B

Annette is swimming at the beach. While she is swimming, she is attacked by Frankie. The lifeguard sees the assault, but does not come to Annette's aid. Annette drowns. When charged with her murder, Frankie claims that the lifeguard's failure to do his duty relieves Frankie of responsibility for the drowning. Frankie's argument will most likely a. fail because there is no duty to rescue others under U.S. law. b. fail because the lifeguard's inaction did not constitute a superseding, intervening act. c. succeed because the lifeguard should have saved Annette. d. succeed because Frankie was not the proximate cause of Annette's death.

B

Barbara admits that she is a nymphomaniac. A nymphomaniac is a person obsessed with having sex. The police arrest Barbara for solicitation for prostitution. Can she be prosecuted for this offense? a. Yes, because the Supreme Court has never held that the status of being a nymphomaniac is a protected status. b. Yes, because Barbara is being prosecuted for her conduct, not her status as a nymphomaniac. c. No, because Barbara has a constitutional right to engage in sexual conduct. d. No, because Barbara cannot be prosecuted for her status of being a nymphomaniac.

B

Boris is charged with illegally passing classified documents. Boris works as a telephone receptionist at a government agency. One day, his friend Natasha asked him if he had a good telephone directory of the Washington, D.C., area because she always had a hard time getting correct telephone numbers. Boris decided to give her a copy of the telephone directory he used at work. When he does so, Boris is charged with "willfully passing information the defendant knows to be classified." Boris claims that he honestly didn't realize that the telephone directory was classified. In support of his defense, he offers the book itself, which does not contain the word "classified." He also calls several witnesses to testify that they saw other people at the agency taking copies of the telephone directory home. Does Boris have a mistake of fact defense? a. Yes, because he did not act willfully. b. Yes, because he didn't realize the information in the telephone directory was classified. c. No, because the crime involves national security. d. No, because the evidence Boris offered was irrelevant to the charged offense.

B

By sheer accident, Shirley learns of a plot to kidnap the President and hold him for ransom. She overhears the conversation when she picks up the wrong phone line. Shirley has always hated the President so she does not report the plot to the police. At the designated time of the kidnapping, Shirley stands by as the President is abducted into a car. As the car is pulling away, the Secret Service ask her which way the abductors are headed. Shirley points in the wrong direction. The abductors get away even though some of the Secret Service agents do manage to go in the right direction to chase them. Shirley has never met the abductors. After the ransom is paid and the President is released, the abductors are charged with kidnapping. Shirley is charged as an accomplice to the kidnapping. Does she have a sufficient actus reus for the crime? a. Yes, because Shirley failed to report the kidnapping plot. b. Yes, because Shirley pointed in the wrong direction. c. No, because Shirley did not know the kidnappers. d. No, because Shirley's wrong directions did not actually help the plot.

B

D is charged with felony murder for the poisoning death of her husband. Poisoning is defined as the "knowing administration of a toxic substance to another with the purpose of causing his death or injury." Which of the following is the most likely outcome: a. D will be convicted of felony murder because the felony is independent of the killing. b. D will be acquitted of felony murder because the felony is not independent of the killing. c. D will be convicted of felony murder, but only in a jurisdiction that follows the Model Penal Code. d. D will be acquitted of felony murder, but only if it is shown that she did not have the intent to kill.

B

David destroyed a gas meter in his mother-in-law's basement in order to obtain the change contained inside; as a result, gas escaped from the pipes and reached the mother-in-law where she was sleeping 3 floors above. David is charged with recklessly injuring his mother-in-law. He will most likely be: a. Acquitted if a reasonable person would not have perceived the danger to his mother-in law. b. Acquitted, regardless of whether a reasonable person would have perceived the danger or not, so long as he did not in fact perceive it. c. Acquitted, because he did not intend to harm his mother-in-law and injuring another is a specific intent crime. d. Convicted, because the injury occurred during the course of another felony.

B

Dillinger and Capone were prison cellmates at Alcatraz. Six months ago, Capone was released from prison after serving his three-year term for tax fraud. Dillinger, who is still serving a life term for murder, wants Capone to kill the police officer who captured him. He sends Capone a letter offering him $50,000 for the hit. Unknown to Dillinger, Capone has been sent to Papillon prison after a new conviction for armed robbery. The letter is forwarded to Capone at his new prison. After Capone receives the letter, he throws the letter in the garbage and mutters, "I'd never help that rat." Based on these facts, if Dillinger is prosecuted for solicitation of murder in a jurisdiction following the Model Penal Code, it is most likely that: a. Dillinger is guilty because the letter was read by Capone. b. Dillinger is guilty because he sent a letter requesting the police officer's murder. c. Dillinger is not guilty because it was impossible for Capone to kill the police officer. d. Dillinger is not guilty because Capone had not yet taken a "substantial step" toward killing the police officer.

B

The Jets, a gang consisting of several former football players, decide to paint a "40" on every sign posting a speed limit of 10, using a paint that is indistinguishable from the legitimate paint. Joe Namath, the founder of the group, goes to the local hardware store and buys a gallon of paint. Namath and the Jets are guilty of attempting to vandalize government property: a. Under the common law. b. Under the MPC. c. Under both. d. Under neither.

B

Dr. Alexandra X told Defendant Jimmy James (a pharmacist) that she had inadvertently prescribed a banned (but not ordinarily dangerous) drug for Mrs. Jones. Pharmacists are under a statutory duty to report violations of the drug laws, and failure to report is a misdemeanor. Defendant did not report Dr. X's violation. He did try to contact Mrs. Jones at the address she had given him, but the address was obviously wrong. Mrs. Jones took the drug and died. Defendant is charged with involuntary manslaughter. Defendant's best defense would be: a. He did not do anything culpable. b. He could not reasonably foresee the death. c. Dr. X alone is responsible. d. He tried to contact Mrs. Jones.

B

Dr. Monray is hired as the personal physician for Michelle Jackson, a popular entertainer who is known for her flamboyant and energetic style. Jackson has had a hard time sleeping and she asks Dr. Monray to prescribe something really strong to help knock her out. Dr. Monray gives her a strong sedative to help her sleep. Because the sedative does not work right away, Jackson doubles her dose and adds a few other sleeping pills of her own. Tragically, she dies of an overdose. When Jackson dies, Dr. Monray says, "This is terrible. She promised me that she would follow my directions. I can't believe this happened." If Dr. Monray claims that he was not the cause of Jackson's death, in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction he would likely a. Succeed because he was not the "but for" cause of Jackson's death. b. Succeed because Jackson acted on her own and contrary to Dr. Monray's advice. c. Fail because Jackson acted out of desperation. d. Fail because Dr. Monray was the actual cause of Jackson's death.

B

Frank was devastated when his girlfriend, Louise, broke up with him. He tried for months to win her back, but she rebuffed him every time. Finally, Frank decided that if he couldn't have Louise, no one else would, either. He bought a gun and drove to her apartment, intent on killing her. When he got there, the janitor told Frank that Louise had moved to the North Side. Frank asked for the address, but the janitor said he didn't know it. Frank drove to the North Side with the gun in his pocket, hoping to spot Louise. As he cruised through the neighborhood, Frank was stopped by a police officer for going through a red light. A check revealed a warrant for Frank's arrest for robbery. Frank was arrested, and the gun was confiscated. (Assume this jurisdiction follows the Model Penal Code.) Based on these facts, if Frank is prosecuted for attempted murder, it is most likely that: a. He's guilty because he intended to kill Louise. b. He's guilty because he made every effort to locate Louise with the intent of killing her. c. He's not guilty because he never actually shot at Louise. d. He's not guilty because he never found Louise.

B

Hicks has heard that Rowe has set out to kill his old enemy, Colvard. When Hicks sees Rowe approach Colvard, Hicks yells to Colvard, "Take off your hat and die like a man." As Colvard starts to take off his hat, Rowe shoots him dead. Rowe is then shot by the police and Hicks is prosecuted for Colvard's murder as an accomplice. Hicks is most likely a. guilty because his words may have had the effect of encouraging Rowe to shoot Colvard. b. guilty if he intended his words to encourage Rowe to shoot Colvard. c. guilty if Rowe would not have shot Colvard unless Hicks had yelled his words. d. not guilty because mere words are not enough to aid and abet a murder.

B

Jane and Sydney both hate Paula. While Paula sleeps, Jane stabs her and Sydney shoots her. Both Jane and Sydney are charged with murdering Paula. Under the Model Penal Code a. neither is guilty because there can be only one cause of a criminal harm. b. both are guilty because they were the actual and legal cause of Paula's death. c. only Jane is guilty because she acted first against Paula. d. only Sydney is guilty because her acts broke the chain of causation for Jane.

B

Judy and Donna go swimming. Judy is aware that Donna is not a great swimmer. Nonetheless, she takes Donna to a beach with strong currents. She then pushes Donna into the water. Her goal is to frighten Donna a little and show off her own swimming skills. Because of the strong currents, Donna starts to drown. However, before she actually does, Donna is rescued by a lifeguard. Judy is charged with attempted murder. Under the majority approach, Judy is a. guilty of attempted murder because she was aware that Donna might be overcome by the currents. b. not guilty of attempted murder because her goal was to frighten, not kill, Donna. c. guilty of attempted murder because she acted with malice when she pushed Donna into the water. d. not guilty of attempted murder because a reasonable person would realize that a lifeguard would probably save Judy.

B

Kara loves to race her dune-buggy through the desert. She has been doing so for many years. Recently, state officials passed a law stating: "It is a violation of the law to drive an off-road vehicle in the desert without a permit. Violation of this law is punishable by six months in jail." Kara fails to obtain a permit, but continues to race her dune-buggy. One day, as she drives over a sand dune, she accidentally plows into a hiker and kills him. Which of the following is true? a. Kara is guilty of felony murder because her criminal violation led directly to the death of another person. b. Kara is guilty of misdemeanor manslaughter if driving a dune-buggy without a permit is inherently dangerous. c. Kara is not guilty of manslaughter because driving a dune-buggy is a malum in se, regulatory offense. d. Kara is not guilty of manslaughter because she did not intend to hit her victim.

B

Larry and Francine saw a neighborhood "thug" selling drugs to several young children at a local schoolyard. Larry, who knew that Francine always carried a gun in her purse, said to her, "Someone should kill the scum." Francine nodded. Larry then suggested that they wait behind a trash bin so that Francine could shoot the dealer as he walked past. While they were waiting behind the trash bin, Larry had second thoughts about participating in a murder. Without saying anything to Francine, he quietly slipped away. Unaware that she was alone, Francine shot and killed the drug dealer. Based on these facts, if Larry is prosecuted as an accomplice to murder, it is most likely that: a. Larry is guilty because he aided Francine in the murder and intended to do so. b. Larry is guilty because he left the area without specifically advising Francine not to kill the drug dealer. c. Larry is not guilty because it was Francine who shot the drug dealer. d. Larry is not guilty because he had already left the vicinity before the shooting occurred.

B

Malone is apprehended outside the sports stadium selling basketball tickets. Malone believes that it is illegal to scalp tickets, but he is willing to take the risk because he can make so much money reselling tickets. An officer charges him with attempted scalping of tickets. In researching the law, Malone's lawyer discovers that the jurisdiction repealed its scalping laws ten years ago. He argues that Malone is not guilty of attempted scalping because it was impossible for him to commit that crime. Under the common law, Malone should a. succeed because he did not intend to violate the law. b. succeed because it was legally impossible to scalp tickets. c. fail because he tried to violate the law. d. fail because he is guilty of attempted scalping.

B

Marcus lives next to Jerry, the neighborhood "mad scientist." Jerry is always fooling around with different experiments and creating obnoxious odors and noises in the neighborhood. Marcus is determined to drive Jerry out of the neighborhood so that everyone else can be rid of his disturbances. Therefore, he wanders over to Jerry's yard when Jerry is not home and mixes up his own surprise for Jerry. In the container that is marked "H2O" for water, Marcus substitutes nitroglycerin, an extremely explosive compound. Sure enough, Jerry comes home from his job as a convenience store clerk and starts again with his home experiments. Soon thereafter, the neighbors hear a loud boom. Not knowing about the switch, Jerry has accidentally mixed the nitroglycerin into his other compound and caused a huge explosion that kills him instantly. Marcus is charged with Jerry's death. a. Marcus is guilty of murder because he negligently caused Jerry's death. b. Marcus is guilty of murder because he acted with callous disregard for Jerry's life. c. Marcus is not guilty of murder because he did not premeditate Jerry's killing. d. Marcus is not guilty of murder because he did not use a dangerous weapon to kill Jerry.

B

Marlin and Paul work together in a restaurant. Although they are not enemies, they prefer not to have much to do with each other. Marlin serves the food and Paul proudly prepares it. One day, Paul saw Marlin snacking on a patron's food before serving it to the patron. A stickler for proper health habits, Paul grabbed the nearest kitchen knife and started stabbing Marlin all over. One of the knife wounds hit Marlin's jugular vein and Marlin died as a result of his wounds. Prosecutors charge first-degree murder. In this jurisdiction, the heightened standard of premeditation is used. Paul is likely to be found a. guilty of first-degree murder. b. guilty of murder. c. guilty of negligent homicide. d. not guilty of any crime.

B

Mike White is charged with abandoning his pregnant wife. Even though he admits he ran out on his wife, he claims that he is not guilty because he didn't know she was pregnant. The year is 1933 and the judge believes that it is wrong to run out on any wife, let alone a pregnant one. Given the court's conclusion as to what makes White's conduct morally culpable, is White entitled to a mistake of fact defense? a. Yes, because Mike was unaware his wife was pregnant. b. No, because Mike's mistake is irrelevant. c. Yes, because the burden is on the prosecution to prove every element of the crime. d. No, because Mike's mistake was unreasonable.

B

Mike and Ben, members of the Clips gang, steal a car while an innocent passenger is in the backseat of the car. During the carjacking, Ben and Mike are spotted by the police. Mike starts shooting at the police as Ben tries to speed away. The police shoot back. During the chase, the police accidentally shoot the passenger in the back seat of the car. Mike and Ben are charged with murder. Assume that the case is charged in a jurisdiction that uses the agency theory of felony murder. Are Mike and Ben guilty of murder? a. Yes, because of the felony-murder doctrine. b. Yes, because of the provocative act doctrine. c. No, because the police shot the victim. d. No, because only Mike acted with malice. e. None of the above.

B

Punchy is serving 20 years in prison for a violent felony. To put it mildly, he has not adjusted well to prison. He has repeatedly attempted to kill the correctional officer who guards him, and has lashed out at fellow inmates who don't give him enough respect. One day, Punchy attacks the trustee who brings him the afternoon meal. A trustee is a prison inmate who works for the warden and receives extra benefits for his work. Typically, inmates become trustees by snitching on their fellow inmates. At the time Punchy attacks the trustee, Punchy is wearing a heavy jacket (even though it is mid-summer), tennis shoes (rather than prison flip-flops), and has a homemade prison knife under his jacket. He kills the trustee with one stab wound directly to the heart. After the stabbing, Punchy hides the knife in the prison commode but it is found by the authorities. Punchy is charged with first-degree murder. a. He is guilty of first-degree murder because he acted with malice. b. He is guilty of first-degree murder under any standard for premeditation. c. He is guilty of first-degree murder only in those jurisdictions that require purposeful conduct, but not in those jurisdictions that require purpose plus a preconceived plan. d. He is guilty of first-degree murder because he used a dangerous weapon. e. He is not guilty of first-degree murder.

B

Puya is an activist against the war. He feels that every day the war threatens to kill more innocent victims. In an effort to try to stop the war, Puya decides to organize a group of protestors to break into the local ROTC office and destroy the equipment inside. When he is apprehended, Puya argues that he was faced with a choice of evils. He could either allow the killing of innocent people or destroy the ROTC office in protest. Puya's necessity defense is likely to a. succeed if the government is fighting an unjust war. b. fail because he could have protested the war by writing to his Congressional representative. c. succeed if he chose the lesser of the two evils. d. succeed because the alternatives might not be as effective as what he did.

B

Regal Pharmacy sells over-the-counter cold medications. One day, there is a flood in the pharmacy. Although the store owner, Henry, cleans up the dirty water, he doesn't check to see if all the containers have remained sealed. As it turns out, one of the cold medications is contaminated. Customer Suzy buys the contaminated container, takes a pill, and dies. Which of the following is true? a. If Henry is civilly liable for the death of Suzy, he is also automatically criminally liable for her homicide. b. Henry may be civilly liable for the death of Suzy, but not criminally liable for homicide. c. The question of whether Henry is civilly liable for Suzy's death requires the same analysis as deciding whether Henry is criminally liable for Suzy's death. d. The term proximate cause is used identically in criminal and civil cases. e. None of the above.

B

The Roaring Stones play a concert in a crowded nightclub. Many of the attendees realize that anything can happen in a crowded club, but they shove their way in anyway. To please the crowd, the nightclub owner decides to use some indoor fireworks to punctuate the band's performance. The fireworks misfire and cause the curtains in the club to burst into flames. As the customers rush to flee the burning club, several are trampled to death. The nightclub owner is charged with involuntary manslaughter. The nightclub owner is guilty of involuntary manslaughter if a. he was on notice of the risk of using indoor fireworks, but disregarded those risks during the show because he was willing to take any risk to bring in more patrons. b. he should have realized the risk caused by his extremely negligent behavior, especially when there was no good reason for him to take the risk. c. he acted in the heat of passion. d. he premeditated the deaths of the patrons. e. the victims did not contribute to the negligent behavior.

B

Tim is furious at his boss, Susan. When Susan tells Tim he is fired, Tim throws a book at her. Just then, Susan's assistant, Marcy, walks in front of Susan. The book hits Marcy in the stomach. Marcy is pregnant and the impact of the blow causes her to lose the baby. The penalty for assaulting an adult is five years in jail; however, the penalty for causing the death of a fetus is 20 years in jail. Which of the following statements is true? a. Under the Model Penal Code, Tim is automatically subject to the increased penalty for injuring the fetus. b. Under the Model Penal Code, Tim is only responsible for harming the mother if the injury to the fetus was too remote to have a just bearing on his liability. c. Under both the Model Penal Code and common law, Tim is automatically responsible for the harm to the fetus and the mother. d. Under both the Model Penal Code and common law, Tim is only responsible for the harm to the mother.

B

Zak is charged with being an accomplice to the illegal dumping of hazardous waste. Zak's friend, Marshal, had asked Zak if he could use Zak's truck to take some used chemicals to the desert where they could be disposed of safely. Zak readily agreed. As it turns out, Marshal dumps the chemicals in an illegal dumping site. Is Zak guilty of the strict liability offense of illegal dumping? a. Yes, because Zak assisted a strict liability offense. b. Yes, if Zak knew that the desert site was an illegal dumping site. c. No, if Marshal believed that it was legal to dump the chemicals at the desert site. d. No, because a person can never be an accomplice to a strict liability offense.

B

Mickey is charged with "knowingly using the credit card of another person." The charges arose when Mickey stole the wallets of a couple of customers shopping at an upscale department store. Upon reflection, Mickey felt badly about stealing the credit cards. Therefore, he decided that he would only charge items on the credit card of the customer who looked like she could afford it the most. While on his shopping spree, Mickey accidentally gave the sales clerk the credit card of the less-affluent customer. Does Mickey have a mistake of fact defense? a. Yes, because he honestly intended to use the credit card of a different customer. b. No, because he violated the charged statute. c. Yes, because he would not have used that credit card if he knew it belonged to the less affluent customer. d. No, because mistake of fact is never a defense to a common law crime.

B Even with his mistake, Mickey still violated the statute charged. He knowingly used another person's credit card without permission. It is irrelevant that he mistakenly thought he was using a different victim's card

Arnold and Maria have had a tumultuous marriage. Arnold decides he wants to get rid of Maria. Accordingly, he takes Maria skydiving and intentionally packs her parachute in a faulty manner. When Maria jumps out of the plane, another skydiver, Diane, accidentally knocks Maria on the head. Maria is temporarily knocked out. She regains consciousness before hitting the ground, but she cannot get her parachute to open. When government officials inspect Maria's parachute pack and discover it was incorrectly packed, they charge Arnold with Maria's murder. Arnold claims he was not the cause of Maria's death. Arnold's defense will most likely a. succeed because Maria took her own life by engaging in the risky activity of skydiving. b. succeed because Diane's act was a superseding, intervening act. c. fail because Diane's act did not break the chain of causation. d. succeed because Diane was an additional perpetrator.

C

Austin Powers intends to steal trade secrets from his competitor at a trade conference. He intentionally buys a briefcase that looks identical to his competitor's so that he can swap briefcases during their meeting and obtain valuable information. However, Austin accidentally picks up his own briefcase and leaves the meeting. He is charged with attempted theft of the trade secrets. Which of the following is correct? a. Powers has a mistake of fact defense because he mistakenly picked up the wrong briefcase. b. Powers has a pure legal impossibility defense because it is not illegal to take one's own property. c. Powers has no impossibility defense under the Model Penal Code because if the circumstances were as he believed them to be, he would have taken his competitor's briefcase. d. Powers is not guilty of attempt because it was factually impossible for him to steal his own briefcase.

C

Catherine is fed up with her boss. He keeps harassing her and making her life miserable. Catherine asks her friend, Erwin, if he will kill her boss for her. Erwin agrees to do so for a modest fee. The night of the planned killing, Catherine gets word that her boss will be having dinner with the chief of police. Catherine calls Erwin and says she wants him to call off the killing. If the victim hears of their plot, and Catherine and Erwin are arrested before he can kill the boss, can Catherine successfully assert a renunciation defense to solicitation? Assume that the case is being handled in a jurisdiction that recognizes the Model Penal Code's standards for a renunciation defense. a. Yes, because Erwin never came within dangerous proximity of killing her boss. b. Yes, because she had the intent to stop Erwin from killing her boss. c. No, because she did not fully and voluntarily renounce her intention to have her boss killed. d. No, because Catherine had already completed the necessary actus reus and mens rea for solicitation.

C

Charles decides to kidnap his high school teacher, and hold her for ransom. The victim was always his favorite teacher. In fact, she is everyone's favorite teacher, so he is fairly sure he can secure a high ransom for her return. Charles intends to return the teacher unharmed as soon as he gets the money he needs to cover some drug debts. A week after the kidnapping, the police find the victim dead in the trunk of Charles's car. In charging Charles with homicide a. prosecutors cannot charge Charles with murder because it is clear he did not act with malice. b. prosecutors can charge Charles with murder and manslaughter for the death of his teacher. c. prosecutors can charge Charles with murder if there is malice or felony murder. d. prosecutors cannot charge Charles with murder because he did not premeditate his victim's death.

C

John won't give up. For the last three months, he has asked Miriam to date him. She has steadfastly refused. He demands that she come out of her house and discuss the issue with him in private. When she agrees, he gently leads her out of the house to the porch. As they are standing there, a lightning bolt comes out of the blue and strikes Miriam dead. John is charged with murder. Is John legally responsible for Miriam's death? a. Yes, because she would not have been standing on the porch but for John's demand that she do so. b. Yes, because he had no right to demand that Miriam date him. c. No, because John's actions were not the legal cause of Miriam's death. d. No, because Miriam should be responsible for the acts that led to her death.

C

David has been telling malicious lies about his sister, Janice, to their parents. Janice is convinced that David is out to get them to disinherit her. Home from college on Christmas vacation, Janice decides to "excise David, once and for all." She makes a batch of poison-laced cookies, puts them on a plate, and leaves the plate on David's desk. Janice then drives downtown to finish her holiday shopping. The holiday music at the mall fills her with remorse and guilt. She calls home to tell David what she's done, but the line is busy. Janice rushes home, intending to throw the poisonous cookies away, but she finds that David has already eaten the cookies and is lying unconscious. She rushes David to the nearest hospital, but David dies in the emergency room. Based on these facts, if Janice is prosecuted for murder, it is most likely that: a. Janice is not guilty because the mens rea element necessary for murder was lacking when David ate the cookies. b. Janice is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not murder, because Janice was provoked by David's malicious lies. c. Janice is guilty of murder because she intended to cause David's death. d. Janice is guilty only of attempted murder because she tried to warn David about the cookies.

C

Defendant Collado-Gomez is charged with possessing cocaine and he faces a penalty enhancement because the cocaine is in crack form. Collado-Gomez claims that he knew that he possessed cocaine, but that he did not know the cocaine was crack cocaine. Can he claim a mistake of fact defense? a. Yes, because the punishment is greater for selling crack cocaine than other types of cocaine. b. Yes, because Collado-Gomez is entitled to show that he is not morally culpable for this crime. c. No, because Collado-Gomez could not show he was engaged in an activity that would have been blameless absent his knowledge that the cocaine was crack. d. No, because it is immaterial whether Collado-Gomez knew he possessed cocaine.

C

Donald is hiking in the mountains when he learns that a storm is headed his way. Donald has time to hike down the mountain and avoid a dangerous situation. However, Donald does not choose that option. Instead, he breaks into a cabin to shelter himself from the coming storm. When he is charged with trespass, Donald tries to argue a necessity defense. Donald's necessity defense is likely to a. fail because the threat of physical harm was not imminent. b. fail because he had a lawful alternative. c. fail because Donald was not under an imminent threat and he had a lawful alternative. d. succeed because Donald was faced with a choice of evils.

C

Dustin Hoffperson knows that Dinah Saur is a pet lover. Dustin threatens to kill all of Dinah's pets unless Dinah helps him embezzle $5,000. If she assists Dustin in the embezzlement, Dinah: a. Has no claim of duress because the harm inflicted is greater than the harm avoided. b. Has a claim of duress because a "person of reasonable firmness" would do just what she did. c. Has no claim of duress because there was no threat of personal injury to anyone, including herself. d. Has a claim of duress because she was in a "maelstrom of circumstances" and could not be said to have acted voluntarily.

C

Fraternity party. James Chow, a 21-year-old college junior, is arrested for driving under the influence on his way home from a weekend fraternity party. James pleads guilty to the offense, but the judge sentences him to the maximum six months in the county jail. At the sentencing hearing, the judge addresses James regarding the sentence: "I'm doing this to teach you a lesson, so that for the rest of your life you'll never get behind the driver's wheel if you've been drinking." Which of the following theories of punishment has the court primarily relied on in sentencing James Chow? a. retribution. b. general deterrence. c. specific deterrence. d. rehabilitation. e. incapacitation.

C

Gary and Maria have been married for 20 years when she suddenly discovers he is having an affair. When Maria confronts Gary with her discovery, Gary decides that the easiest way to resolve the problem is to kill her. After checking her life insurance policy, Gary loosens the wheels on her car. As planned, Maria's car goes off the road while she is driving the kids to school, killing herself and their three children. In that jurisdiction, the death penalty may be imposed only if the jury finds that a defendant committed an intentional killing with special circumstances. Special circumstances include killing multiple victims and killing for profit. Which of the following is true? a. A death-qualified jury must impose the death penalty because Gary committed a killing for profit. b. Gary is not subject to the death penalty because he obviously had to be mentally ill at the time of the offense. c. The prosecution can call Maria's parents to testify tearfully as to whether they believe Gary should get the death penalty. d. Gary's reason for killing his wife is irrelevant to the jury's determination of whether he should receive the death penalty.

C

Glenn was charged with helping with a bank robbery. Prosecutors claimed that Glenn knowingly loaned his car to Roger to use in the robbery. At trial, the prosecution called Roger as a witness. Roger had pled guilty and agreed to testify against Glenn in exchange for leniency at his own sentencing. At trial, Glenn tries to argue that Roger frequently borrows cars from friends for all his errands, not just bank robberies, but the trial court insists on instructing the jury that a person who loans his car is conclusively presumed to know the illegal purposes for which the car will be used. Which of the following is the best basis for Glenn's appeal? a. No rational jury could believe an accomplice witness who has been given leniency in exchange for his testimony. b. The police abused their discretion in arresting Glenn. c. It was improper for the court to instruct the jury to presume Glenn's criminal intent. d. There was insufficient evidence for Glenn's conviction.

C

Ivan Georgski and his wife, Raisa, both new immigrants to the United States, were vacationing in a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code, when Raisa confessed to having an adulterous relationship with Boris Gudunov. Georgski, in keeping with his religious faith, killed Raisa. Ivan's best claim for avoiding a murder conviction is: a. Common law provocation. b. The "cultural defense." c. Extreme emotional disturbance. d. Diminished capacity.

C

Jed is a jazz magazine publisher. He hears that a foreign saxophonist who is illegally in the country and does not have a work permit will be performing in a one-night concert. Nonetheless, Jed buys a ticket to the concert and attends. Jed wants to see if the saxophonist is really as great as everyone says. Jed is impressed. He claps as the saxophonist takes the stage and writes a favorable review of the concert. Jed is charged with aiding and abetting the saxophonist's violation of the immigration labor laws prohibiting foreign musicians from performing without work permits. Which of the following actions would be sufficient to hold Jed guilty of the crime charged? a. Attending the concert. b. Writing a favorable review. c. Clapping at the concert. d. None of the above because the saxophonist would have played regardless of Jed's actions.

C

Jonathan and Peter are classmates at Podunk Law School in the state of Pretoria. One evening, they begin to discuss the proposed Pretoria legislation forbidding any school to promote or utilize affirmative action as a basis for admission. Before long, Jonathan and Peter are on their feet, arguing and shouting at one another. Peter calls Jonathan "a warped, opinionated, prejudiced, calloused, stupid idiot who doesn't belong in law school." Enraged by these remarks, Jonathan pushes Peter, who loses his balance and falls backwards, hitting his head against the edge of an oak table. Peter dies instantly. (Assume that common law principles are applicable in Pretoria.) Based on these facts, if Jonathan is prosecuted for homicide, it is most likely that: a. Jonathan is guilty of first-degree murder. b. Jonathan is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. c. Jonathan is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. d. Jonathan is not criminally culpable for Peter's death.

C

Katie is desperate for money. Her son, whom she adores, wants to go to camp with his friends. However, Katie does not have the money to send him. She decides to get the money she needs by buying insurance on an old boat her family has and surreptiously burning it to collect the insurance proceeds. Believing her son is at school, Katie goes down to the empty lot where the boat is kept. She looks around to make sure no one is nearby and then lights the boat on fire. After the boat is destroyed, she is horrified to discover that her son skipped school that day and was hiding out in the boat with his friends. The friends survived, but her son was killed during the fire. Under the felony-murder rule, Katie is a. guilty of murder because she acted with callous disregard for human life. b. guilty of murder because she should have realized her son could have been hiding in the boat. c. guilty of murder because her son died during her commission of a felony. d. guilty of involuntary manslaughter because a reasonable person would have realized that there is always a risk of harm when one sets a fire. e. not guilty because she never intended to harm another person.

C

Katya objects to the government's use of satellites in military operations. She fears that the satellites have helped the military target and kill thousands of Iraqis through the use of so-called smart bombs. To prevent more killing, Katya sneaks into a military base and destroys one of its computers. As it turns out, the computer she destroys is not one that controls global positioning of the satellites. Does Katya have a necessity defense? a. Yes, because destroying property is a lesser harm than killing thousands of people. b. Yes, because Katya honestly believed that by destroying the computer she would save human lives. c. No, because the government had decided that the war was justified. d. No, because war is the lesser harm.

C

Leland and Jane have a casual conversation about how great it would be if they had as much money as their boss. Leland tells Jane, "It wouldn't be that hard to share his money. All we would need to do is to take it out of the safe when he goes home for the day." Jane, just nods her head in response. At the end of the work day, Jane sneaks into her boss's office. Inside, she sees Leland emptying the safe. Jane helps him by stuffing some of the money into her clothes and carrying it out of the business. Leland has arranged for Myron to act as a lookout for the theft. When their boss discovers the loss, he checks the film from a video camera hidden above the safe. It shows Leland, Jane, and Myron in his office. They are all charged with conspiring to steal from the boss. Jane claims that she never agreed to participate in a conspiracy. Jane's argument is likely to a. succeed because she never said she would help Leland steal from her boss. b. succeed because she never knew that Myron was in the conspiracy. c. fail because the three of them engaged in concerted action. d. succeed, because a nod of the head is insufficient to show membership in a conspiracy.

C

Manny, Moe, and Jack. Manny, Moe, and Jack decide that they need some additional cash, so they agree to rob a bank. Manny gives Jack a gun to use in the robbery, Moe steals the getaway car, and Jack actually robs the bank. All three are apprehended. What crimes can Manny be charged with? a. Conspiracy to rob a bank. b. Conspiracy to rob a bank and bank robbery. c. Conspiracy to rob a bank, car theft, and bank robbery. d. None of the above.

C

Margaret realizes that the dam at the top of the hill is about to break. If it breaks one way, it will kill many people in the town. However, if Margaret dynamites the dam to break in another direction, it will flood Perry's farmlands and destroy all his crops, but no people. Margaret dynamites the dam, knowing full well that Perry's crops will be destroyed. She wishes she had had time to talk to Perry before taking action, but the dam was going to break at any minute. If Margaret is charged with destroying Perry's property, she a. has no defense because she did not have Perry's consent to flood his lands. b. has no defense because the threat was not imminent. c. has a defense because she saved the lives of the townspeople. d. has a defense because Perry is unlikely to complain.

C

Max owns a chemical company. It has become very expensive for Max to lawfully dispose of his company's chemical byproducts. Accordingly, Max loads the byproducts into a truck and starts hauling them 50 miles toward a deserted area in the desert, where Max intends to dump the chemicals. Five miles from his destination, and just as he enters restricted lands, Max is apprehended by law enforcement officers. If Max is charged with the attempted dumping of the chemicals, prosecutors are most likely to succeed with proving a sufficient actus reus under a. the last step test. b. the unequivocality test. c. the dangerous proximity test. d. the probable non-desistance test.

C

Responding to a recent trend in gang violence, the California legislature enacted a statute that makes it a capital offense for any motorist to "knowingly" kill another motorist with an explosive device. (Assume that California law follows the Model Penal Code's definition of "knowingly.") One day, Freddy, a member of a gang called the Hooters, pulls alongside a car driven by Richie, a member of the Rockers gang. Richie makes a derogatory finger gesture toward Freddy. Enraged, Freddy lights a stick of dynamite, throws the stick into Richie's car, and then races away. Richie is killed when the dynamite explodes. Jack, who was sleeping in the back seat of Richie's car, is also killed. Freddy had no way of knowing that Jack was in Richie's car. Based on these facts, can Freddy be successfully prosecuted under the California statute for Jack's death? a. Yes, because he knowingly threw the dynamite into Richie's car. b. Yes, because Jack was clearly within the zone of danger created by Freddy's conduct. c. No, because Freddy did not know Jack was in the car. d. No, because Richie's conduct constituted sufficient provocation.

C

Rudy's life has been a nightmare. He has never had a successful social life because of a large, physical deformity on his face. All his life he has been taunted by people calling him names like "Elephant Man" or "Frankenstein." Some have even attacked him. Even after psychological therapy, he rarely has been able to leave his home because the constant ridicule tends to set him off into an uncontrollable rage. One day, Rudy reluctantly ventures out to buy some food at the market. While he is there, a group of people start to point at him and laugh. Scared and furious, Rudy explodes in anger and kills an innocent bystander. Under the Model Penal Code a. Rudy has a full defense to murder because he was provoked by the group's laughter. b. Rudy is entitled to a manslaughter instruction because there was legally adequate provocation. c. Rudy is entitled to a manslaughter instruction because he suffers from an extreme emotional disturbance. d. Rudy is guilty of murder.

C

The Tison family is a model family — that is, a model family for antisocial and criminal behavior. The father, Gary Tison, was sentenced to life imprisonment for trying to kill a guard during an earlier prison break. Tison's wife, with their three sons, Donald, Ricky, and Raymond, then planned another escape for Gary Tison and his cellmate, Randy Greenawalt. Using an ice chest, they smuggled weapons into the prison and helped Tison escape. When their getaway car broke down, the group of men flagged down a passing motorist to steal his car. Trying to be Good Samaritans, John Lyons and his young family stopped. The Tisons commandeered the Lyons' car and drove them into the desert. There, Gary Tison ordered his sons to get some water for him. While the boys were getting the water, they heard John Lyons beg for his life. Then they heard shots. Gary Tison and Randy Greenawalt had mercilessly gunned down the entire family. Gary Tison escaped into the desert where he subsequently died of exposure, and Donald Tison was killed in a shootout with the police. Randy Greenawalt, Raymond Tison, and Ricky Tison were apprehended by the police. Which of the following is correct? a. In all jurisdictions, Raymond Tison, Ricky Tison, and Randy Greenawalt are responsible for the death of their co-felon, Gary Tison. b. Raymond and Ricky Tison are not guilty of murder because they were not present when the victims were shot. c. If Raymond and Ricky Tison acted with reckless indifference toward Lyons and his family while the Tisons participated in the Lyons' kidnapping and their father's escape, they could face the death penalty. d. Only Gary Tison and Randy Greenawalt are guilty of a capital offense since they were the only felons who killed with premeditation.

C

Tommy Terrorist is trying to recruit people to assist with a terrorist plot against a major business in town. Tommy asks Ernie to help him make a pipe bomb and plant it in the company's headquarters. Ernie agrees and makes a bomb. However, before the bomb can be detonated, Tommy and Ernie are apprehended. Which of the following is incorrect? a. Tommy is guilty of solicitation, conspiracy, and attempted destruction of property. b. Tommy is an accomplice to attempted destruction of property. c. Tommy may be punished for solicitation and conspiracy, but not attempted destruction of property. d. Tommy is guilty of solicitation, conspiracy, and attempted destruction of property, but his crimes of solicitation and conspiracy will merge for purposes of sentencing.

C

Wylie works as a gasoline station attendant. There has been a rash of late afternoon bank robberies in the area. At 4:30 P.M., a car with no license plates and a driver dressed suspiciously pulls into the station. Although Wylie is fairly sure that the driver is the serial bank robber, he fills up the car with gas. The driver then proceeds to rob Security Pathetic Bank. Is Wylie guilty of bank robbery? a. No, because he was not present at the time that Security Pathetic Bank was robbed. b. Yes, because he profited by the bank robber's purchase of gasoline. c. No, because his purpose in selling gas was not to facilitate robbery. d. Yes, because he suspected the car driver was a serial bank robber.

C

Bob Brozio is the deputy in charge of the local jail. He hears that the ACLU is going to review the records of the jail in order to investigate whether there has been an escalation of guard attacks on inmates. Since he is the keeper of the inmates' books and is concerned that he might be in trouble because of the problems at the jail, Bob decides to delete two of the recent entries about inmate beatings. Bob is charged with tampering with records, in violation of MPC §224.4. The statute provides that a person commits that offense, "if, knowing that he has no privilege to do so, he falsifies, destroys, removes or conceals any writing or record, with purpose to deceive or injure anyone or to conceal any wrongdoing." When prosecuted for violating MPC §224.4, Bob claims that he believed he had complete discretion to change the information in the records. If Bob is believed, would he be guilty of the crime charged? a. Yes, because he clearly had the purpose of concealing wrongdoing in the jail. b. Yes, because he did not have authority to change the records. c. No, because he believed he had the authority to remove information from the records. d. No, because he did not have the purpose to conceal any wrongdoing.

C Bob would not be guilty if the jury believed his claim that he thought he had authority to change the records for whatever reason — good or bad. Simply by reading each clause of the statute, and assessing the appropriate level of culpability attached to each, you can accurately determine a defendant's guilt or innocence of a crime.

Brian owns a pitbull named "Killer." Brian received Killer as a gift from his parents. He has no idea why his parents named the dog "Killer," but Brian thinks it is a funny name for such a wonderful, gentle pet. Killer has always been very tame with Brian. At most, he has barked at the postal carrier, but Killer is usually very well tempered. One day, Brian takes Killer to his local playground and lets him run loose among the small children. When one of the children, little Sammy, decides to pet Killer, the dog suddenly turns on Sammy and tears him to shreds. Brian is charged with murder. a. Brian is guilty of murder because he should have known Killer was a dangerous dog. b. Brian is guilty of murder because he knew his dog was likely to kill. c. Brian is guilty of murder if he realized that Killer was a dangerous dog. d. Brian is guilty of murder because he is strictly liable for the acts of his dog. e. Brian is not guilty because he did not command the dog to kill the child.

C In order to have malice, Brian needed to at least realize the risk that his dog would seriously hurt or kill someone. If he realizes that risk, he has malice and is guilty of murder; if he doesn't realize that risk, he is not guilty of murder.

Aaron is charged with first-degree murder for killing a police officer during a scuffle on the street. In that jurisdiction, first-degree murder includes "all intentional murders of police officers." Aaron killed the officer by beating the officer's head on the cement during an altercation over a speeding ticket. Would Aaron be guilty of first-degree murder? a. Yes, if he acted with premeditation. b. Yes, if he intended to seriously hurt the officer during the altercation. c. Yes, if he even accidentally killed the officer. d. Yes, if he intentionally killed the officer by beating his head on the pavement.

D

Barbara is charged with felony murder. Barbara entered a bank and demanded money from the teller. When the teller heard the demand, she pushed the emergency button. Because of a freak electrical storm, the teller was shocked and killed. Is Barbara guilty of the teller's murder? a. Yes, because a felon is guilty of all deaths occurring during the commission of a felony. b. Yes, because Barbara's participation in the robbery was the but for cause of the teller's death. c. No, because Barbara never intended for the teller to be executed. d. No, because the felon's actions were not the but for and proximate cause of the death.

D

Barney, a drunk driver, strikes and severely injures Ellis. When Ellis is taken to the hospital, he is mistakenly left in the corner of an overcrowded emergency room. Tragically, he dies of internal bleeding before doctors can treat him. According to the defense experts, if Ellis had been treated in a more timely manner, he could have been saved. Prosecutors charge Barney with murder. Is Barney the proximate cause of Ellis' death? a. No, because the hospital officials were negligent in not treating Ellis sooner. b. No, because Ellis could have been saved if he had been treated in a timelier manner. c. Yes, because Barney started the chain of causation by striking and injuring Ellis. d. Yes, because the hospital staff's actions did not break the chain of causation.

D

Barry is looking to buy some marijuana, but he is too afraid to ask a dealer to sell it to him. Instead, he leaves a phone message on his friend Don's cell phone asking him if he'll ask around and find someone to sell them some marijuana. Don doesn't get the message because he loses his phone. Campus police learn of the phone message and arrest Barry. In that jurisdiction, it is a misdemeanor to buy or sell marijuana. Which of the following is true? a. Under the Model Penal Code and traditional common law, Barry is guilty of solicitation. b. Under the Model Penal Code, Barry is guilty of attempted solicitation. c. Under common law, Barry is guilty of attempted solicitation. d. Under the Model Penal Code, Barry is guilty of solicitation.

D

Bermuda Petroleum, Inc. ("BP") is a large corporate oil company. Prosecutors discover that BP has been intentionally and unlawfully discharging petroleum byproducts into nearby waterways. It is unclear who at BP is responsible for the discharge, although a whistleblower claims that the President and Chief Executive Officer of the company were aware of the discharge and made no effort to stop it. The Clean Water Act specifically prohibits the willful discharge of petroleum byproducts into waterways. Which of the following is correct? a. BP's President and Chief Executive Officer may be guilty of violating the Clean Water Act, but the corporation is not criminally liable; b. If prosecutors charge BP, they are precluded from prosecuting the individual officers; c. BP is not guilty unless the Board of Directors ratified the actions of the President and Chief Executive Officer; d. BP is criminally liable if collectively the President and Chief Executive Officer acted willfully to violate the Clean Water Act.

D

Mr. Shaw is accused of selling copies of his little black book that lists the phone numbers of all the prostitutes in town. He is charged with "conspiring to corrupt public morals." No statute details the meaning of "corrupting public morals." Prosecutors argue that the jury should decide whether Shaw's activities violated society's norms. If Shaw argues that his case should be dismissed because it violates the principle of legality, his motion should be a. denied because the jury has been given the responsibility to decide society's morals. b. denied because all criminal laws are based upon public morals. c. granted because imprecise statutory language violates principles of legality. d. granted because the statute does not provide sufficient notice as to what behavior constitutes the corruption of public morals.

D

Corey faces charges for attempting to kill a federal agent. There is no question that Corey shot at and narrowly missed killing a federal agent. However, Corey's defense is that he may be guilty of reckless endangerment or even attempted murder, but he is not guilty of attempting to kill a federal agent. Attempting to kill a federal agent carries a higher penalty than standard attempted murder. Corey testifies that he did not realize his target was a federal officer; he believed he was shooting at a competing drug dealer. Under the majority approach, if the jurors believe Corey, they should a. acquit him of the attempted killing of a federal officer because he did not intend to kill anyone. b. acquit him of the attempted killing of a federal officer because he did not intend to kill anyone and he did not know the person he shot at was a federal officer. c. acquit him of attempted murder of a federal agent because he did not have the necessary mens rea for the crime. d. convict him of attempted killing of a federal agent.

D

Daisy needs a new car badly. In fact, she wants one so much that she is prepared to steal it. Daisy goes to the fanciest restaurant in town. When she comes out, she points to the shining Mercedes in front and asks the valet to go get her car. Believing Daisy is telling the truth, the valet goes and delivers the car to her. Daisy is arrested before she can drive off in the car. Which of the following is true? a. Daisy is guilty of solicitation and the valet is guilty of theft. b. Daisy is guilty of solicitation and the valet is guilty of attempted theft. c. Daisy is guilty of solicitation, but the valet is not guilty of any crime. d. Daisy is guilty of attempted theft.

D

Dick was planning to rob Bailey's Bank. He asked John if he would drive the getaway car in exchange for one-third of the loot. John agreed on condition that they use toy guns to avoid the risk of injury to anyone. When they got to the bank, Dick got out of the car and began to walk toward the bank. Realizing that the moment of truth was approaching, John got cold feet, left the car, and hailed a taxi back home. Unaware that John had left the scene, Dick entered the bank and pulled out his toy gun. A bank guard saw him and ordered him to put up his hands. Dick turned toward the guard without lowering his gun, and the guard fired. His shot missed Dick, but struck and killed an innocent bystander. If John is charged with felony murder, he will be: a. Acquitted, because he did not participate in the robbery. b. Acquitted, because he withdrew from the conspiracy before any criminal acts were completed. c. Acquitted, because John's desire to use toy guns indicates he wanted to avoid violence. d. Convicted, because John was a co-conspirator in the robbery.

D

Don't drink and drive. Eric was thrilled that he had just finished his first law school examination. He went out and celebrated with his friends. After several beers, Eric headed home to tell his parents the good news. Unfortunately, he hit Lynn's car on his drive home and totaled it. Eric's actions may make him a. culpable of the tort of destroying Lynn's car, but not guilty of a crime because Lynn was not hurt. b. liable for destroying Lynn's car, but not guilty of a crime because Lynn was not hurt. c. subject to imprisonment for the tort of destroying Lynn's car. d. liable for damages for destroying Lynn's car and subject to imprisonment for the crime of drunk driving.

D

Dr. Death. Assume that crimes in your jurisdiction are statutorily defined, but the legislature has thus far refused to pass a law making it a crime to assist another person in committing suicide. Dr. Death films himself handing poison to an ailing patient who then drinks it and dies. Viewers are appalled. Local law enforcement reacts by charging Dr. Death with assisting a suicide. As to this charge, Dr. Death is a. guilty because it is malum in se to help another person end his life. b. guilty if the common law prohibited assisting a suicide. c. guilty if the Model Penal Code prohibits assisting a suicide. d. not guilty.

D

Elie returns home after a hard day's work. He catches his wife, Debi, in bed with the gardener. Elie starts laughing hysterically and says to the gardener, "If you want her, you can have her. I'd rather mow the lawn." Elie then heads outside. While he is mowing the lawn, he reconsiders what he said and decides this would be a good opportunity to get rid of his wife and her lover. He heads back into the house, loads his gun, and walks to the bedroom. Coolly, he takes aim and fires. He kills the lover instantly. If Elie claims he killed in the heat of passion, his defense will most likely a. succeed because a reasonable person might be provoked to kill if he finds his wife in bed with another man. b. succeed if Elie's wife and her lover intentionally provoked Elie. c. fail because Elie may have been provoked to kill his wife, but not the gardener. d. fail because Elie was not acting in the heat of passion.

D

Erica and Pat are law school roommates. They live in a large duplex located in a nice, quiet section of Houston. They argue constantly about Pat's tendency to let dirty dishes pile up in their sink and her refusal to share in the housekeeping. One day, Erica decides to "teach Pat a lesson." She leaves Pat's new mountain bike unlocked and unattended on the sidewalk in front of their apartment house. Erica keeps an eye on it from the apartment hallway, but, when she returns to the apartment for a moment to get a cigarette, the mountain bike is stolen. Pat is definitely not amused by Erica's excuse and explanation. She decides to flex her law-school-student muscles and files a charge of larceny against Erica. Based on these facts, if Erica is prosecuted for larceny, it is most likely that: a. Erica is guilty because it was reasonably likely that the theft would occur. b. Erica is guilty because her actions were undertaken for the improper purpose of teaching Pat a lesson. c. Erica is not guilty because she didn't participate in taking Pat's mountain bike. d. Erica is not guilty because her intent was only to teach Pat a lesson.

D

Erwin is caught shoplifting several children's videos from a store. He has two prior convictions: one for robbery and one for sale of cocaine. Erwin has never actually hurt anyone during his crimes. Nonetheless, under the recidivist law in his jurisdiction, he receives a life sentence. He will not be eligible for parole until he is 85 years old. In that same jurisdiction, only arson, robbery, murder, and rape would also require the type of sentence Erwin received. Moreover, only two other states have similar punishments for recidivists. Is Erwin's sentence unconstitutional? a. Yes, because it is the equivalent of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. b. Yes, because his last offense was a relatively minor one. c. No, because the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit grossly disproportionate sentences. d. No, because his sentence is not necessarily grossly disproportionate.

D

For Billy, the day was an absolute nightmare. When he got home, he learned that a man in the park had seriously assaulted his daughter. The assailant was still on the loose. After visiting his daughter in the hospital, Billy joined the hunt for the assailant. He spotted a man in the park hiding behind some bushes. Billy yelled, "Did you do that to my little girl?" The man only grinned and said, "You bet. And I loved every minute of it." Enraged, Billy lashed out at the man and struck him in the head with a baseball bat. The assailant died and Billy was charged with murder. If Billy argues that the killing should be mitigated to manslaughter, he will most likely a. succeed because the assailant had earlier assaulted his daughter. b. fail, because a grin is insufficient legal provocation. c. fail because he had sufficient time to cool off after learning about the assault of his daughter. d. succeed, if the court recognizes the doctrines of rekindling and long-smoldering passions.

D

Fred and Wilma have had a tumultuous marriage. After years of fighting with his wife, Fred asks his neighbor, Barney, "to beat some sense into Wilma." Fred thinks Barney will talk to Wilma and get her to stop complaining. Instead, Barney goes to the police and tells them that Fred has solicited him to beat up his wife. Is Fred guilty of soliciting an assault? a. Yes, because words alone are enough for solicitation. b. Yes, because a reasonable person would understand that Fred wanted Barney to beat Wilma. c. No, because Barney went to the police and never attacked Wilma. d. No, because Fred did not have the mens rea for solicitation.

D

Herman is addicted to television. He watches sports on television whenever he can. Herman is very excited about the upcoming Super Bowl game; he plans to be glued to the television. An hour before the game, Herman's television goes on the fritz and he loses the signal. Desperate to watch the game, Herman breaks into his neighbor's house and plants himself in front of his neighbor's television. When the neighbor learns of what Herman has done, he has Herman prosecuted for trespass. Can Herman claim a necessity defense? a. Yes, because he was desperate to watch the Super Bowl. b. Yes, because he did not destroy anything in his neighbor's house. c. Yes, because he had no other choices at the time. d. No.

D

Jimmy Jones is charged with trespass, which is defined as "knowingly entering a private building without permission of the owner." He entered a fenced-in yard. Such a yard is, under state decisional law, a "building." Jones argues that he did not "knowingly enter a building" because he did not know that the yard was a building. Jones's claim is likely to succeed: a. Under the Model Penal Code. b. Under common law. c. Under both. d. Under neither.

D

Joshua illegally smuggles aliens across the border. His partner, Maria, gives Joshua the names of aliens who are willing to pay to be brought across the border. They share the fee paid by the aliens. Maria has recently come to Joshua with the names of more potential customers. Joshua checks the weather report to see when the moon will be new because it is easier to smuggle people without any moonlight. Maria and Joshua are arrested before either one of them can do anything else. Are Maria and Joshua guilty of conspiracy? a. No, because they have not actually started to transport the aliens. b. No, because they have not taken a substantial step toward transporting the aliens. c. No, because it was not illegal for Joshua to check the weather reports. d. Yes, because they both agreed to smuggle the aliens and there was at least one overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy.

D

Late one night, Jim was walking home alone from the library. Ilya, the "Chicago Slasher," began to trail him. Ilya's plan was to kill Jim as soon as they reached a secluded area. Ilya knew of a dark alley that would be "the perfect spot." When Jim was only a block away from the alley, Ilya took a knife from his knapsack and began to run toward Jim. A police officer saw Ilya holding the knife as he moved closer to Jim. Ilya spotted the police officer out of the corner of his eye. He quickly put the knife into his pocket and began walking in the opposite direction. Based on these facts, if Ilya is prosecuted for attempted murder, it is most likely that: a. Ilya is not guilty because he didn't take a substantial step toward commission of the murder. b. Ilya is not guilty because he terminated his plan to murder Jim prior to his arrest. c. Ilya is guilty because he intended to kill Jim. d. Ilya is guilty because he drew the knife from his knapsack with the intent to kill.

D

Manuel asks Franco to help him burn down city hall. Franco thinks Manuel is kidding and answers flippantly, "sure." A police officer, who overhears the conversation, immediately arrests both of them and charges them with conspiracy to commit arson. Is Franco guilty of conspiracy? a. Yes, because he agreed to burn down city hall. b. Yes, because he was on notice that Manuel wanted to burn down city hall. c. No, because it only takes one person to burn down city hall. d. No, because Franco was just kidding when he answered, "sure."

D

Matilda needs money. She buys a gun, loads it, and approaches Delores, on the street, intending to demand her money. At that moment, however, within five feet of Delores, Matilda changes her mind and walks away. If Matilda is not guilty of attempt under the common law, that is because: a. She has not reached the point of probable nondesistance. b. She has not taken a substantial step. c. She has abandoned her attempt. d. She has yet to commit the last act within her control.

D

Merlin is charged with breaking into a store, a crime that has been determined to be a general-intent crime under the common law and that carries the mens rea of "recklessness." Merlin seeks to show that he had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .21 at the time of the break-in. Is the evidence admissible in the majority of states ? a. No, because when you're drunk you take the chance that you'll commit a crime. b. Yes, because no one knows that he'll commit a crime while drunk. c. Yes, because he has to know that it's not his store. d. No, because intoxication, even where allowed to negate mens rea, is only relevant to specific-intent crimes and not general-intent crimes.

D

Michael hates his boss. He often fantasizes about burning down his boss's house. Michael has shared these thoughts with his co-workers. One day, Michael goes to the store and buys some matches. One of his co-workers sees him. The co-worker calls 911 and the police come and arrest Michael for attempted arson. Would you expect prosecutors to charge Michael with attempted arson? a. Yes, because it is immoral to wish harm on another person. b. Yes, because matches can be used to set a fire. c. No, because it is never appropriate to punish someone when they haven't caused any actual harm. d. No, because Michael's conduct is still ambiguous and proceeding against Michael would not be a wise use of police and prosecutorial resources.

D

Myra and Margo have plans to kidnap a wealthy businessman, Douglas, and hold him for ransom. After his business closes, Myra and Margo force Douglas into the trunk of their car. They drive him to a remote location and call his wife. Myra and Margo tell his wife, Lori, to leave $100,000 for them at a designated storage locker, and not to call the police. Lori complies. Douglas is then released and returns home. About a week later, Douglas is so stressed about his ordeal that he has a heart attack and dies. Myra and Margo are apprehended a week thereafter. If Myra and Margo are charged with felony murder, they will most likely a. be convicted because they kidnapped Douglas and caused his stress. b. be convicted because they acted with gross recklessness when they kidnapped Douglas. c. be acquitted because Douglas was never in danger. d. be acquitted because Douglas's death did not occur during the commission of a felony.

D

Obama hears a clicking in his luggage. He believes that it is the travel alarm clock that he packed. Little does he realize that someone has mysteriously substituted a ticking bomb for his alarm clock. When airport security inspects Obama's luggage, they discover the bomb. They charge him with illegally possessing an explosive device. Is Obama guilty of the offense? a. Yes, because Obama had a bomb in his luggage. b. Yes, because Obama owned the luggage with the bomb. c. No, because only the person who put the bomb into the luggage could have possessed it. d. No, because he was unaware that the illegal item was in his possession.

D

On her way home one night, Margot saw Thomas sleeping in a cardboard box outside the entrance to her luxury apartment building. Margot hated the presence of homeless people in her wealthy neighborhood. Determined to send a message to the homeless, she took out a pair of scissors from her purse and stabbed Thomas several times in the neck and back. Margot's intent was not to kill Thomas, but to frighten the homeless away from her posh neighborhood. However, the wounds she inflicted were deep enough to kill any ordinary man. The autopsy revealed not only the extent of the stab wounds but also the fact that Thomas was already dead when Margot stabbed him. He had died an hour earlier from dehydration and hypothermia. Based on these facts, if Margot is prosecuted for murder, it is most likely that: a. She is guilty because she stabbed Thomas with the intent to seriously injure him. b. She is guilty because her stab wounds would have killed the average person. c. She is not guilty because she did not intend to kill Thomas. d. She is not guilty because Thomas was already dead.

D

Polly Prosecutor is trying to decide whether to file conspiracy charges against Darlene Defendant. Darlene was only a peripheral player in the alleged narcotics conspiracy. While her co-conspirators would deliver drugs in 20 states, Darlene merely sat in California as a contact person in case any of the conspirators needed help. The police learned about Darlene when one of her fellow co-conspirators told an undercover officer posing as a buyer that "Big D could handle anything if there were problems with the delivery." Darlene has been charged with conspiracy and the distribution of narcotics in 20 states. Which of the following arguments would be a defense to the charges against her? a. Darlene never even went to the 20 states where delivery occurred. b. The statements by her fellow co-conspirators were inadmissible hearsay. c. Darlene never attempted herself to deliver narcotics. d. None of the above.

D

Simon is charged with "knowingly capturing an American eagle." Simon claims that he intentionally captured the bird, but only because he believed that it was a large hawk. He says he had no idea that the bird he caught was an American eagle. Prosecutors argue that Simon's mistake is irrelevant. In making this argument, prosecutors draw upon the following legislative history. Congresswoman Hall: "Nothing is more precious than the aviary emblem of our country. I am gratified that Congress has decided to criminalize any capture of these magnificent birds, regardless of whether the defendant intends to nab an eagle. Any defendant who is out there trying to capture large birds takes his chances. He should have to live with his mistake because society will have to live without that precious bird." Should Simon be able to argue his mistake of fact defense to the jury? a. Yes, because Simon did not intend to harm the eagle. b. No, because an eagle is a precious bird. c. Yes, because generally it is not a crime to capture birds. d. No, because Simon is guilty regardless of whether he knew the bird he captured was an American eagle.

D

Steve is considered a neighborhood menace. He regularly leaves old junk in his front yard, including automobiles teetering on blocks, old refrigerators, and bins of sharp scrap metal. Several neighbors have complained to Steve that his junk could easily hurt children who play on the block. In fact, there have been several near misses when kids narrowly escaped being injured by one of the cars that fell off its blocks. Steve just ignores his neighbor's complaints. One day, tragedy strikes. Betty Sue, a young child who lives next to Steve, is killed when one of the cars falls off its block and onto her. Steve is charged with Betty Sue's murder. In a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, Steve would be a. not guilty of homicide because the death was an unavoidable tragedy. b. guilty of first-degree murder because Steve knew children could be killed. c. guilty of second-degree murder because Steve acted in a grossly reckless manner. d. guilty of murder.

D

Tom and Alex were both rejected for admission by Avery Law School, although they both had excellent college grades. Tom suspected that the sole reason for their rejection was the blind prejudice of the admissions director against students from Fairmount College. One night, after many beers, Tom asked Alex, "Wouldn't it be great if someone simply got rid of the admissions director?" Alex did not answer, but Tom continued, "If I could just get him alone, I could do it." The next day, Tom asked Alex to accompany him to the admissions office "so I can talk to that SOB once more." When they got there, the director was talking with his secretary. Tom asked Alex to get the secretary to leave the office. Alex responded, "Fine." He succeeded in luring the secretary out of the office on the pretext of showing her a mistake on one of the school's bulletin boards. Tom then closed the door to the director's office, took out a gun, and fatally shot the admissions director. Alex knew that Tom owned a gun, but he didn't believe that Tom actually was carrying it with him. Based on these facts, if Alex is prosecuted as an accomplice to murder, it is most likely that: a. Alex is guilty because he distracted the admissions director's secretary. b. Alex is guilty because he helped Tom carry out the murder plan. c. Alex is not guilty because he did not participate in the actual murder of the admissions director. d. Alex is not guilty because he lacked the necessary mens rea.

D

Wilma and Bernie have been married for 50 years. Tragically, Wilma is dying a painful death from an incurable disease. Every day, she asks Bernie to help her die so that she can be relieved of her misery. Bernie can't bear to see her suffer. He finally takes matters into his own hands and gives Wilma an overdose of sedatives. Wilma dies peacefully in her sleep. a. Bernie is not guilty of murder because he killed Wilma out of mercy. b. Bernie is not guilty of murder because he killed Wilma at her request. c. Bernie is guilty of murder, but not first-degree premeditated murder. d. Bernie is guilty of first-degree murder.

D

Consider again the case of Regina v. Cunningham, 2 Q.B. 396 (1957), where the defendant almost asphyxiated his neighbor by ripping a gas meter from the wall and thereby allowing gas to seep into the victim's room. If Cunningham claimed that he didn't realize that breaking a gas meter would cause gas to seep and the jury believed him, would he be guilty of the crime of recklessly asphyxiating his neighbor? a. Yes, because an ordinary person would have realized that breaking a gas meter would allow the gas to seep into his neighbor's apartment. b. Yes, because the defendant should have considered the risks to his neighbor when he broke the gas meter. c. No, because the defendant did not have the purpose to kill his neighbor. d. No, because the defendant never realized that he might harm his neighbor.

D If the jury finds that the defendant did not consider the risk to his neighbor, the defendant has not acted recklessly. Accordingly, he has not met the mens rea (intent) requirement of the crime for which he was charged.

Ferdinand pours ecstasy into Daisy's orange juice, hoping that he'll "get lucky" with her. She goes into immediate convulsions and dies. She is one of 1 percent of the population to have an allergic reaction to this drug. If Ferdinand claims that he didn't realize that anyone, much less Daisy, could be so allergic, would he nevertheless be guilty of reckless homicide? a. Yes, because any ordinary person would recognize that another person might be allergic to anything. b. Yes, because he should have considered the possibility of an allergic reaction. c. No, because he didn't have the purpose to kill Daisy. d. No, because Ferdinand never realized he might harm or kill Daisy.

D The criminal law requirement of "recklessness" is met only if Ferdinand thought Daisy might die, but laced her drink anyway.

Kevin's Furniture Store was facing bankruptcy. The store occupied the first floor of a two-story building. One evening, Kevin set fire to the building. He planned to collect on the store's insurance policy. Unbeknownst to Kevin, Ben, a 42-year-old homeless derelict, was asleep on the second floor, which was vacant. Ben was burned to death. Before the fire could be put out, the entire building was destroyed. Tormented by this tragedy, Kevin confessed his crime to the police. Based on these facts, if Kevin is prosecuted for murder, it is most likely that: a. Kevin is not guilty because he did not intend to kill Ben. b. Kevin is not guilty because it was not reasonably foreseeable that someone would be killed by the fire. c. Kevin is not guilty because he was only attempting to commit insurance fraud (a felony that is not inherently dangerous). d. Kevin is guilty because Ben was killed in the fire Kevin started.

D f a defendant kills another, even accidentally, during the commission of a felony, he becomes guilty of murder under the felony-murder rule.

Ethan borrowed $10,000 from Carl, a professional loan shark. When Ethan missed his first payment, Carl decided to teach Ethan a lesson. He went to Ethan's house and threw Ethan against the wall. Carl smashed several vases and then told Ethan, "If you don't pay up, this is what's going to happen to you." At this point, Ethan called Carl "a no good SOB." Carl stared menacingly at Ethan for several seconds, but finally turned and left, slamming the door behind him. Ethan was so frightened that he had a massive heart attack and died. Ethan's death was the last thing Carl wanted because it meant that now he would never get his money back. Carl had only wanted to scare Ethan into making his future loan payments on time. Based on these facts, if Carl is prosecuted for Ethan's death, it is most likely he will be guilty of: a. First-degree murder. b. Second-degree murder. c. Voluntary manslaughter. d. Involuntary manslaughter.

D Because Ethan's death occurred during the commission of the battery, Carl is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Ben hears from his best friend, Mike, that Ben's wife has been having an affair with their neighbor. Ben immediately leaves work and gets home in time to see his wife go into the neighbor's house. However, Ben does not see what his wife and the neighbor do in the house. An hour later, the neighbor and Ben's wife come out of the neighbor's house. The neighbor smirks at Ben and says, "She says I'm definitely a better lover than you." The neighbor then flicks a cigarette at Ben. Ben erupts in anger, grabs a brick on the walkway, and throws it at the neighbor and Ben's wife. He kills the neighbor. If Ben is charged with murder and the categorical approach is applied, Ben can a. successfully argue heat of passion because his wife was clearly having an adulterous affair. b. successfully argue heat of passion because the neighbor assaulted Ben with a cigarette butt. c. successfully argue heat of passion because a reasonable man would have been provoked by Ben's situation. d. not succeed in asserting a heat of passion defense.

D Under the categorical approach, Ben does not have a heat of passion defense. Hearing about spousal infidelity is not legally sufficient provocation to mitigate a defendant's crime to voluntary manslaughter. Even provocative words are not enough at common law, no matter how insulting or inciteful those words might be. See Girouard v. State, 583 A.2d 718 (Md. 1991).

Bob hates everything about his job. He hates the job he does, he hates his co-workers, and most of all, he hates his boss. Every day, his boss berates Bob in front of his fellow employees. Because of a physical infirmity, Bob uses crutches; his boss calls him "Stump." One day, Bob's boss sees him taking a break to get a drink from the water cooler. The boss tosses a file at Bob that causes him to trip and fall. As the boss and co-workers are laughing and shouting, Bob grabs the letter opener in his pocket and throws it at his boss. It hits him in the heart and kills him. Under which of the following standards would Bob have the best chance to mitigate the killing to manslaughter because of legally adequate provocation? a. A categorical approach. b. A reasonable person approach that takes into account Bob's physical characteristics of being handicapped. c. A reasonable person approach that takes into account the boss's prior humiliations of Bob. d. B and C.

D because it allows the jury to step in Bob's shoes as much as possible in deciding whether there has been legally adequate provocation. It is the most subjective standard and therefore the standard that gives him the best chance of success.

Andretti was convicted of shoplifting six children's videotapes from Q-Mart Discount Store. The total value of the stolen videotapes was less than $100. Nonetheless, because Andretti has been convicted before of two relatively minor felonies (burglarizing a home when no one was present and using marijuana), he is sentenced under the jurisdiction's three strikes law to life imprisonment without parole. Andretti complains that his sentence is improper. He notes for the judge that under common law, petty theft did not result in lengthy prison terms. Moreover, he notes that he is not really a danger to the community and that he has already paid back Q-Mart Discount Store for its losses. What would Andretti's best argument be for overturning his sentence? a. Andretti's sentence does not serve any purpose of punishment. b. The victim has suffered no permanent injury from Andretti's actions. c. Andretti's sentence does not comport with common law practices. d. Andretti's sentence was per se cruel and unusual punishment. e. None of the above.

E

Dolly is addicted to plastic surgery. Every few months, she feels compelled to run to her plastic surgeon, Dr. Prietty, for another procedure to make her even more "beautiful." The problem is that Dolly is now 75 years old, has a heart condition, and looks more artificial than a Barbie doll. The doctor is reluctant to turn her away because she is a long-time patient and he is convinced that she can still tolerate some additional surgeries. Therefore, Dr. Prietty schedules Dolly for another face lift. During the surgery, Dolly's blood pressure plummets. Dr. Prietty does everything he can do to save her, but Dolly dies during the procedure. Dr. Prietty is sued for malpractice and the prosecutors are threatening criminal charges. Under the Model Penal Code, which of the following is correct? a. Dr. Prietty is guilty of involuntary manslaughter because he should have known that Dolly could not tolerate another surgery. b. Dr. Prietty is not guilty of a crime because malpractice is a tort, not a criminal offense. c. Dr. Prietty is guilty of murder because he acted with extreme indifference to human life. d. Dr. Prietty is guilty of negligent homicide if he acted recklessly in doing the surgery. e. None of the above.

E

Dundee loves his pet alligator. The alligator is so gentle to him that he never even realized that it could hurt another person. However, Dundee is proved wrong when a neighborhood child wanders into Dundee's yard and becomes the alligator's lunch. Under the Model Penal Code, Dundee should be charged with a. first-degree murder. b. second-degree murder. c. involuntary manslaughter. d. manslaughter. e. negligent homicide.

E

John, Mike, Sue, and Roger are at a pool party. During the party, a toddler falls into the pool and starts to drown. Everyone sees what is happening, but no one stops to help. John is the toddler's father, Mike is the hired lifeguard, Sue is an off-duty police officer, and Roger is a guest at the party. The prosecution files criminal charges against all four defendants for failing to help the child. Which of the following is correct? a. None of the defendants is guilty because there is no general duty to help another person. b. Only John is guilty because he is the only defendant related to the child. c. Mike and Roger are guilty if they were capable of saving the child without putting themselves at risk. d. All of the defendants are guilty if they were capable of saving the child without putting themselves at risk. e. John and Mike are guilty if they are capable of saving the child without putting themselves at risk.

E

Manny, Mo, and Jack decide to burn down Jack's dilapidated warehouse to collect the insurance proceeds. At the time they plan to burn it down, they don't realize that two homeless persons (Lou and Larry) have taken shelter in the warehouse. Manny, Mo, and Jack set the warehouse on fire and the structure starts to burn. Firefighters and police respond to an emergency call about the fire. Lou perishes in the fire. However, Larry and Jack are killed when the police accidentally shoot them during their gun battle to apprehend Manny and Mo at the scene. In this jurisdiction, felony murder only applies for the death of innocent persons. If Manny and Mo are charged with the deaths of Lou, Larry, and Jack, which of the following is true? a. In an agency jurisdiction, they are automatically guilty of felony murder for the deaths of all three victims. b. In an agency jurisdiction, they are automatically guilty of the felony murder of Lou and Larry. c. In a proximate cause jurisdiction, they are automatically guilty of felony murder of all three victims. d. In a proximate cause jurisdiction, they are automatically guilty of the felony murder of Lou only. e. None of the above.

E

Margo has always hated Nellie. One day, as Margo is approaching her home, Nellie jumps in front of her from nowhere and begins to scream. Margo hits the brakes, but the car still hits and kills Nellie. An investigation shows that Margo was not exceeding the speed limit at the time of the collision, did not anticipate Nellie's actions, and that not even a reasonable person could have anticipated that Nellie would have jumped in front of Margo's car. Nonetheless, prosecutors seek to prosecute Margo because she is so happy that Nellie is killed. In fact, when she was interviewed, Margo just kept on saying, "The witch had it coming!" Is Margo guilty of murder? a. Yes, because she had a motive to kill Nellie. b. Yes, because driving a car is the equivalent of using a dangerous instrument. c. Yes, because she had a motive to kill Nellie and she was clearly glad that she had done so. d. Yes, because she premeditated Nellie's death. e. No.

E

Sammy the Snake (all good burglars have a nickname) sneaks into the Jones's house at night to steal their precious painting. He intentionally does not bring a gun so that he won't hurt anyone in the house. Hearing a noise, Mr. Jones jumps out of bed and goes into the living room to investigate. He sees Sammy touch his irreplaceable Rembrandt. Jones has a heart attack and dies. Is Sammy guilty of first-degree murder? a. Yes, because he acted in a premeditated manner. b. No, because he did not intend to kill Jones. c. Yes, because he acted in reckless disregard for human life. d. No, because Jones's death was accidental. e. Yes, if felony murder for burglary is considered a first-degree murder.

E

Margaret is stopped at the border as she returns from a recent visit to Tijuana, Mexico. Seeing a small jar of white powder on the seat next to her, the police ask Margaret what is in the jar. She tells them that it is some special talcum powder her friends gave her to deal with her terrible skin condition. When the police test the contents in the jar, it turns out to be cocaine. Margaret is charged with "knowingly possessing a controlled substance." If the jury at trial believes Margaret's story, she is a. guilty because she should have known the jar contained cocaine. b. guilty because she knew she was transporting a powder. c. guilty because her mistake was unreasonable. d. guilty because of the deliberate ignorance defense. e. not guilty.

E If the jury believes that Margaret honestly did not know that the powder was some type of controlled substance, she is not guilty of the crime charged.

Bill and Ted are partners in a major drug distribution operation. They agree to sell ten kilos of cocaine to Mickey, a drug dealer in the town of Bedrock. One night, Bill and Ted drive over to an abandoned warehouse to make the sale to Mickey. Bill notices several police cars cruising the neighborhood, and he becomes alarmed. He tells Ted, "I don't want any part of this one. It's too dangerous. You should pull out, too." Ted responds, "You no-good wimp. I can do this without your help." Bill leaves, and Ted goes through with the sale to Mickey. Unsurprisingly, Ted is arrested on the spot. Hoping to make a deal for a lighter sentence, he tells the police that Bill helped him to plan the sale. Based on these facts, if Bill is prosecuted in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction for conspiracy to sell illegal drugs, it is most likely that :. a. Bill is guilty because he agreed with Mickey to sell drugs. b. Bill is guilty because Ted completed the drug deal. c. Bill is not guilty because he withdrew from the conspiracy and attempted to dissuade Ted. d. Bill is not guilty because he didn't participate in the actual sale of the drugs.

a

A is the organizer and ringleader of a mob of bank robbers. He hires B and C to rob banks 1 and 2, respectively. Although B and C do not meet, both know of A's position in the mob, and each knows of the other's assignment. At A's instigation, D, also knowing of A's position in the mob, steals a car for use in the robberies. B and C perform their robberies, the former using D's car. Which of the following statements has the least support under the common law? a. There is one overall conspiracy among A, B, C, and D, rather than three separate conspiracies, with A as a partner in each. b. Under the conspiracy doctrine, A is liable for the robberies of banks 1 and 2. c. Under conspiracy doctrine, but not under the rules of complicity, B and C are liable for each other's robberies as well as their own. d. Under the rules of complicity, but not under conspiracy doctrine, B and C are liable for each other's robberies as well as their own.

d