crim law final exam
Which of the following statements are true regarding the "reasonable belief" requirement in a self defense claim at common law? If you have a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to repel an imminent attack, you can use self-defense. There must be a reasonable belief that he or she was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm before deadly force can be used. All of these are correct. None of the these. The belief must not only have been honestly entertained but also objectively reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances.
All of these are correct
The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires the prosecution in a criminal matter to prove each element of a crime: By Clear and Convincing Evidence . Correct! Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (BARD). All of these are correct. None of the these. By a Preponderance of the Evidence.
BARD
Celia shot Barry in the chest after a heated domestic dispute. The gunshot wound was a serious one and Barry would have died from it in a few hours. But Barry actually died as a result of a traffic accident when the ambulance driver rushing him to the hospital, Lewis, recklessly decided to drive the wrong way down a one-way street and smashed headfirst into an oncoming car. Barry was killed when the ambulance burst into flames after the crash.Celia and Lewis have both been charged with homicide offenses relating to the death of Barry. Each of them is defending on the ground that the other one "caused" Barry's death. Which of the following is true: Celia and Lewis each caused Barry's death. Only Celia caused Barry's death. Neither Celia nor Lewis caused Barry's death. Only Lewis caused Barry's death. None of the these.
Celia and lewis each caused barry's death
Deff and Puff are longtime rivals. They were rivals in middle school, and high school. They are both now employed at the same local packaging and shipping company. Deff competes with Puff on a daily basis at work. One day during work, Deff said "it's time to end this competition by getting rid of Puff all together and for good." "I can't stand him." David, another co-employee, overheard Deff's comments and thought that he would like to help Deff because Deff is a good friend. Unknowing to Deff, David called a friend, Denver, and asked him to help kill Puff. Denver refused David's request. David decided that he must go ahead and kill Puff because it is "clear that Deff wants Puff dead." David shoots and kills Puff one afternoon as Puff was leaving work. In a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, which of the following statements is true? David is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Deff and David are guilty of involuntary manslaughter. None of the these. David is guilty of murder.
David is guilty of murder
David was recruited by some of his friends to take part in a bank robbery. Each of the five young men who became involved in the bank robbery plot was assigned a specific role to prepare for it. David's job prior to the robbery was to scout the scene of the crime and to prepare an accurate drawing of where all of the bank employees, including the guards, were likely to be on the Tuesday morning when the robbery was planned to take place. On the day of the robbery, David's assigned job was to stay in the car during the robbery and serve as a getaway driver. David visited the bank half a dozen times in order to figure out where all of the employees were likely to be. He then put together on his computer a detailed drawing of their likely positions. The other four would-be bank robbers had different preparatory tasks, and all of them accomplished their assigned jobs and began meeting to do the actual planning. Two weeks before the bank robbery was to take place, David began regretting his decision to get involved in the robbery. As a result, he told the others that he was no longer going to take part in the crime. Although reluctant at first to let him leave the group, the rest ultimately agreed when he swore that he would not tell anyone what the group was up to. The remaining four robbers found another friend to join the group as the getaway driver and the bank robbery went on just as planned. The group got away with over $24,000 in cash. Unfortunately for the new group of robbers, however, their identity was discovered. They were all arrested and charged with the crime of bank robbery. One of the robbers decided to plead guilty and cooperate with the government in exchange for a lesser charge, and that robber informed the authorities of David's earlier role in the plot. David has now been charged as an accomplice to bank robbery. Without regard to any defense he may have due to his withdrawal from the planning, was David an accomplice to the bank robbery that took place without him? Which of the following is most accurate: None of the these. David was an accomplice in the bank robbery. David was not an accomplice in the bank robbery because there is no proof that he actively assisted the others in committing this crime. David was not an accomplice in the bank robbery because there is no proof that he intended to assist the others in committing this crime.
David was an accomplice in the bank robbery.
Steven is s a storm tracker, who travels around the state chasing tornados in order to collect data for his research. One night Steven miscalculated his data and actually places himself directly in the path of the tornado. He quickly panics out of fear for his life and breaks into a home to take shelter in the basement, in order to save his life. Steven was later arrested and charged with criminal trespass. Defense of Duress. Defense of Necessity. All of these are correct. Defense of Property. Defense of Habitation.
Defense of necessity
Diana anonymously telephoned a false bomb threat to a public high school. The school was evacuated and searched top to bottom, but, of course, nothing was found as there was no bomb there. Diana's role in making the call was discovered when her brother overheard her talking about it with one of her friends, and he turned her in for the $1,000 reward money. Diana was subsequently arrested and charged with the criminal offense of recklessly endangering another person. In the jurisdiction where these events took place, this offense is defined as follows: "A person is guilty of recklessly endangering another person where he or she recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury." Recklessness is defined in this jurisdiction the same way it is defined in the Model Penal Code: "A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation." Which of the following is most accurate: Diana is not guilty of recklessly endangering another person because she did not consciously intend to harm anyone. Diana is guilty of recklessly endangering another person. None of the these. Diana is not guilty of recklessly endangering another person because no one was actually placed in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
Diana is not guilty of recklessly endangering another person because no one was actually placed in danger
Kevin and Bailey, husband and wife, were engaged in a violent domestic dispute in their own living room, arguing bitterly, screaming, and throwing things at one another. Finally, Kevin ran into the kitchen and picked up a carving knife. He returned to the living room with the knife in his hand, brandished it in front of him, and said to Bailey: "So help me, Bailey, if you don't leave this house this very minute, I'll carve you up like a turkey!"In response, Bailey ran to the front door, opened it and started to step outside. But then she paused. She turned back around and faced Kevin and snarled to him: "Wait a minute, buster! I'm not going anywhere. This is my house, too. F*** you, a*******! And you know what? I'm not afraid of you either." After saying that, Bailey reached into her purse and pulled out a handgun and aimed it directly at Kevin's heart.Kevin growled back: "You don't have the guts to shoot me, Bailey. You're a wimp. You always have been." And, after saying that, he came after her with the carving knife. But Kevin was wrong. Whether or not she was a wimp, Bailey did have the guts to shoot him. Bailey stood her ground and just before Kevin reached her with the knife, she calmly shot him six times in the chest.Kevin died as a result of these gunshot wounds. Bailey was subsequently charged with first degree murder as a result of the shooting and killing of her husband, Kevin. Her defense counsel, Preston, has argued, however, that Bailey's actions were justified as she was acting in self defense in response to Kevin's threatened attack on her with a knife.The jurisdiction in which this occurred has a "retreat requirement" similar to that found in the Model Penal Code as part of its self-defense law. Which of the following is most accurate: Even though she was in her own home, Bailey had an obligation to retreat if she could do so safely before shooting Pat. Bailey and Pat were co-habitants in their own home and, hence, neither of them had an obligation to retreat. Bailey had no obligation to retreat because she was in her own home when she shot Pat. None of the these.
Even though she was in her own home bailey had an obligation to retreat if she could do so safely
A father was terminally ill with a particularly painful form of cancer. His daughter visited him every evening in the hospital and for several months listened to his pleas to put him out of his misery. On her final visit, she gave her father a hug and then pulled a small revolver from her purse. She fired a single shot at her father killing him instantly. The daughter immediately broke down in tears and surrendered to the police. The daughter was charged with her father's death. What is the most serious offense of which the daughter can be convicted? Involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter. Second degree murder; defined by this jurisdiction as any murder not classified as first degree murder. First degree murder; defined by this jurisdiction as the premeditated and deliberate killing of another human being.
First degree
A hospital patient had a heart ailment so serious that his doctors had concluded that only a heart transplant could save his life. The doctors arranged to have the patient flown to a bigger hospital to have the operation performed. The patient's nephew, who stood to inherit from him, poisoned him. The poisoned produced a reaction that required postponing the trip to the bigger hospital. The plane on which the patient was to have flown crashed, and all aboard were killed. By the following day, the patient's heart was so weakened by the effects of the poison that he suffered a heart attack and died. If charged with a criminal homicide in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, the nephew should be found: Guilty. Not guilty, because the deceased was already suffering from a fatal illness. None of the these. Not guilty, because the poison was not the sole cause of the death, and the patient would have died if he had traveled on the plane. Not guilty, because his act did not hasten the decedent's death, but instead prolonged it by one day.
Guilty
Vin and Val, the Valley brothers, broke into the home of Lest, the President of Gold Nugget Bank, and kidnapped Lest's wife Lucy. The brothers took Lucy hostage, pointed a gun at her head and demanded that she drive them in her car to their hideout. As Lucy was driving done Busy Street, a lady pushing a baby in her stroller, suddenly stopped in the middle of the intersection. In order to avoid hitting the lady and her child, Lucy veered the car to the left, and intentionally struck a bystander killing him. If Lucy is subsequently prosecuted for the murder of the bystander in an early common law jurisdiction, she will most likely be found: Not guilty, by reason of duress. Not guilty, by reason of self defense. Guilty. Not guilty, by reason of necessity.
Guilty
Dan was an alcoholic who frequently experienced auditory hallucinations that commanded him to engage in bizarre and sometimes violent behavior. He generally obeyed these commands. The hallucinations appeared more frequently when he was intoxicated, but he sometimes experienced them when he had not been drinking. After Dan had been drinking continuously for a three-day period, an elderly woman began to reproach him about his drunken condition, slapping him on the face and shoulders as she did so. Dan believed that he was being unmercifully attacked and heard the hallucinatory voice telling him to strangle his assailant. He did so, and the woman died. If Dan is charged with second-degree murder under a state statute, Dan's best chance of acquittal would be to rely on a defense of: Lack of malice aforethought. Self-defense. Intoxication. Insanity.
Insanity
While walking home alone late one evening, Marcel was accosted by Carl, who jumped out at him unexpectedly from a dark alley. Carl grabbed Marcel by his arm and shouted at him: "Give me your wallet! Now! Right now!"Marcel reached into his pocket. But instead of pulling out his wallet, he pulled out a knife instead and stabbed Carl three times in the chest. Carl subsequently died as a result of complications resulting from internal bleeding caused by the stab wounds.Marcel has been charged with second degree murder as a result of his stabbing of Carl and Carl's subsequent death. Marcel's defense counsel, Ursula, has argued, however, that Marcel's actions were completely justified as he was acting in self defense in response to being physically accosted by Carl in a robbery attempt.Is Ursula correct? Does Marcel have a good self defense argument in these circumstances? Which of the following is most accurate: Marcel has a good self defense argument. Marcel does not have a good self defense argument because Carl did not threaten him with deadly force. None of the these. Marcel does not have a good self defense argument because Marcel was the aggressor in this situation.
Marcel does not have a good self defense argument because carl did not threaten him with deadly force
Miles borrowed Kate's television set for the weekend because his was broken. Miles wanted to watch a couple of important football games over the weekend and he knew that Kate, a co-worker, was going to be out of town and wouldn't be using her set anyway. Kate was perfectly agreeable to lending her television set to Miles. But, she made him "swear" to her that he would return it sometime on Monday. Miles told Kate that that was no problem. He would return the set first thing Monday morning, before Kate left for work.Miles had every intention of returning Kate's television on Monday morning. But on Saturday morning, he received a call from his father, who lived with his mother a four-hour drive away. His father told him that Miles' mother had been hospitalized, and Miles immediately packed a suitcase and drove to join them at the hospital. He never gave any thought to Kate's television as he was preoccupied with his mother's illness.As a result, Miles did not talk to Kate or return her television set on Monday as he had agreed. Miles did not even return from visiting his parents until Thursday night, after his mother was released from the hospital. However, on Wednesday morning, after Miles had not returned her television set and she had not heard anything from him and he had not showed up for work, Kate called the police and accused Miles of stealing her television set. She subsequently filed a criminal complaint against him.Is Miles guilty of a common law or traditional theft crime in these circumstances? Which of the following is most accurate: Miles is guilty of larceny and false pretenses but is not guilty of larceny by trick or embezzlement. Miles is not guilty of any common law or traditional theft crime. Miles is guilty of false pretenses but is not guilty of embezzlement. Miles is guilty of larceny, but is not guilty of larceny by trick.
Miles is not guilty of any common law or traditional theft crime
The defendant bought a new bow and arrow set at a local sporting goods store and went to a public park to try it out. Based on prior experience, the defendant knew that practicing his marksmanship at the park was a violation of park regulations and constituted a misdemeanor. Right at the moment that the defendant fired his first arrow, a park ranger yelled at him from a distance to "stop shooting, stupid." Perturbed that he was caught so early, the defendant decided to fire an arrow a couple of feet above the ranger's head. Unfortunately, the defendant's aim was slightly off, and the arrow struck the ranger right between the eyes, killing him instantly. The defendant is charged with homicide for the park ranger's death. At trial, the jury was given instructions on common law murder and manslaughter. If the jury believes the defendant's testimony that he did not intend to hit the park ranger with the arrow, the most serious charge for which the jury may find him guilty is: Involuntary manslaughter based on recklessness. Murder. None of the these. Voluntary manslaughter.
Murder
Will, an indigent, was walking through Central Park when he decided to rob someone. He hid behind a tree, lying in wait for a victim to approach. Shortly after, Vicky, a sixteen year-old girl, was walking in the park when Will suddenly jumped from his hiding place and accosted her. Although Willy only intended to rob his victim, he punched Vicky in her head, and she fell to the ground. Will then grabbed her pocketbook and fled. Unknown to Will, Vicky suffered a fractured skull when she fell to the ground. Vicky subsequently died from her head injuries. Which of the following is the most serious crime for which Will can be found guilty at common law? Unlawful act manslaughter. Murder. Involuntary manslaughter. None of the these.
Murder
Norman was sound asleep in the upstairs bedroom of his home late one evening when he heard what he thought were noises coming from downstairs. Norman got out of bed and walked quietly into the upstairs hallway. He couldn't hear anything more. "Who's there? Is anyone there?," Norman yelled down the staircase.In apparent response to his yelling, he heard some loud but garbled voices and what then sounded like people running and crashing into things. Quickly grabbing his shotgun from the upstairs closet, Norman ran downstairs to the kitchen. When he got there, he saw the kitchen door wide open with the window smashed and glass from the broken window all over the floor. A number of the cabinet doors and kitchen drawers were open with their contents strewn around all over the kitchen. Norman ran to the kitchen doorway. Looking outside, he saw two men running away from his home at the far end of the back yard. "Stop!," he screamed at them, "Stop or I'll shoot!" The two men did not stop, and Norman shot twice and hit them both. Both men, who subsequently admitted that they had been burglarizing Norman's house thinking that no one was at home, were seriously but non-fatally wounded by the shotgun blasts. Norman has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault, one count for each of the two men he shot and wounded. His defense counsel, Lee, has argued that Norman had every right to shoot these two men as they were burglarizing his home. Is Lee correct? Which of the following is most accurate: Norman does not have a good defense of habitation defense in these circumstances because that defense only applies when the actor's actions were necessary to terminate the unlawful intrusion into the home. Norman has a good defense of habitation defense in these circumstances. Norman does not have a good defense of habitation defense in these circumstances because that defense does not permit the actor to use deadly force. None of the these.
Norman does not have a good defense of habitation defense in these circumstances because that defense only applies when actors actions are necessary to terminate the unlawful intrusion into the home
Stewart had sexual intercourse with Allie forcibly and without her consent. Stewart was forced against his will to commit this sexual act by Logan, Allie's bitter and psychotic ex-boyfriend.Logan held a loaded gun on Stewart, and was present during the entire event. He told Stewart that he would shoot him if Stewart did not rape Allie immediately. After the sexual act was completed, Logan shot and killed himself.Stewart has been charged with the crime of the rape of Allie. Does Stewart have a tenable defense to this charge? Which of the following is most accurate: Stewart does not have a good duress defense to this charge because the threat made to him was one that a reasonable person would have and should have resisted. None of the these. Stewart has a good duress defense to this charge. Stewart does not have a good duress defense to this charge because actions undertaken in response to a threat never justify an act of forcible rape.
Stewart has a good duress defense
The defendant, angered because a rival gang member had twice beaten him up after school, obtained a heavy lead pipe and waited in a deserted alleyway which he knew the rival took as a route home every day after school. When his enemy came walking down the alley, the defendant leapt out behind him and smashed the pipe into the victim's head, knocking him to the ground. The defendant then rolled the victim over and pounded his face with 15 to 20 heavy blows with the lead pipe, killing him. The jurisdiction defines first degree murder as murder committed with premeditation and deliberation. All other murders are defined as second degree murders. If the defendant is convicted of first degree murder (as opposed to second degree murder), it will be because: The relationship between the defendant and the victim requires that a finding of first degree murder be made. The degree of causative relationship between the defendant's acts and the death of the victim renders it murder of the first degree. The nature of the acts causing death distinguishes the defendant's action as first-degree murder. The defendant's mental state up to and including the moment of the attack determines that the act is first degree murder.
The defendants mental state up to and including the moment of the attack determines that the act is first degree murder
After a drug deal went wrong, George shot Rudolfo twice in the abdomen, gravely wounding him. Rudolfo was rushed to the hospital.While he was still unconscious, Rudolfo was placed on a gurney and wheeled into an X-ray room. A hospital employee then sat him up at an angle but failed to secure him to the gurney before lowering a side rail. As a result, Rudolfo fell off of the gurney, breaking his neck at the fifth and sixth vertebrae. This break resulted in Rudolfo dying almost instantaneously as a result of spinal shock.George has been charged with first degree murder in the shooting of Rudolfo. His defense counsel has argued, however, that George did not cause Rudolfo's death due to the intervening negligence of the hospital employee who failed to secure him to the gurney while he was being x-rayed, resulting in his fall and subsequent death. Which of the following is most accurate: The fact-finder will probably find that George caused Rudolfo's death. None of the these. The fact-finder will probably find that George did not cause Rudolfo's death because the hospital employee's negligence broke the causal chain. The fact-finder will probably find that George did not cause Rudolfo's death because the hospital employee was the only proximate cause of Rudolfo's death.
The fact finder will probably find that george caused rudolfo's death
A manufacturer has released five times the permitted amount of dangerous gas into the air, in violation of a state criminal environmental statute. Courts in this jurisdiction have construed this statute as strict liability. Which of the following is most accurate: The manufacturer has no possible mens rea defense in these circumstances. The manufacturer has a strong defense that it was not aware of the statutory requirements and did not intend to violate the law. The manufacturer cannot be convicted of violating the statute if it can show that it did not know the gas was being emitted. None of the these.
The manufacturer has no possible mens rea defense in these circumstances
Sylvie was arrested by a local police officer for walking her dog, Trixie, in a park near her home without Trixie being on a leash. The criminal statute under which she was arrested provides that "[n]o dog shall be permitted except on leash within any park or wildlife management area except in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources, and whoever shall be the owner of any dog at large within any park or wildlife management area, knowing that this conduct is unlawful, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." When she was arrested, Sylvie told the arresting officer that she did not know that she needed to have Trixie on a leash. The officer responded, "I'm sorry, but that's irrelevant, ma'am. Ignorance of the law is no defense." Assuming that Sylvie's statement that she did not know that she needed to have Trixie on a leash is truthful, is that a defense in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction? No, it is not a good defense. Yes, but only if the statute also includes a mens rea element of purposeful, intentional, or knowing behavior. Yes, it is a good defense. Yes, but only if her belief was a reasonable one.
Yes it is a good defense
Defendant was involved in a car accident in which a passenger of the other car was seriously injured. Defendant exited his car and looked at the injured passenger, and after realizing that the passenger would survive her injuries, Defendant got back into his car and drove away without rendering aid. The Defendant was later arrested and charged with leaving the scene of an accident. Should the Defendant be convicted as charged? No, because there is no duty to generally assist others. No, because the injured passenger would survive the injuries and so there was no urgency or need for immediate aid. Yes, because the Defendant had a legal obligation to offer aid since he caused the accident that injured the passenger. Yes, if there is a statute in that jurisdiction that requires the Defendant to render aid or report the accident. None of the these.
Yes, if there is a statute in that jurisdiction that requires the Defendant to render aid or report the accident.
Which of the following statements are true regarding the different approaches to felony murder when the killing is perpetrated by a non-felon? None of the these. According to the "Proximate Causation" approach, a felon is liable for any death resulting from the felony whether the shooter is a felon or a third party. According to the "Limited Version" of the proximate causation approach, a felon can only be convicted of killing an innocent victim but not another felon. All of these are correct. According to the "Agency" approach, the Felony Murder Rule does not extend to a killing if directly attributable to the act of one other than the defendant or those associated with him or her in the unlawful enterprise.
all of these are correct
Defendant is in a parking lot in the process of stealing a car. After he manages to get the car's door open, Defendant realizes that he dropped one of his tools further back. Leaving the door open, Defendant runs back to get it. On the way back to the car, two men jump out from behind another car and startled him. The men laugh at him, causing Defendant to get angry. He returns to the car he was stealing, gets in, and runs the car into the men wanting to badly hurt or kill them for laughing at him. One of the men breaks his leg and the other one dies. At common law, what crimes is Defendant most likely to be convicted of? Felony-murder and battery. Manslaughter. Assault, battery, murder. Attempted murder and murder.
attempted murder and murder
Bill, a summer lifeguard at a municipal swimming pool, failed to notice that Cindy, a six-year old child who was swimming in the crowded pool, had slipped off the flotation devices that had been on her arms, and was drowning. Bill failed to notice this because he was preoccupied with flirting with two young women wearing skimpy swimsuits who were standing next to him, busy flirting with him. By the time Bill was finally alerted by others to Cindy's distress and jumped into the water to rescue her, it was too late. Cindy never regained consciousness. Bill has been charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of Cindy. His defense counsel claims that he is not guilty of these charges, inter alia, because he committed no criminal act. Rather, Bill simply failed to act—an omission, which is not deemed to be culpable in criminal law. Which of the following is most accurate in a Common Law jurisdiction? Bill's failure to act satisfies the actus reus element of involuntary manslaughter, but only if he was related to Cindy. None of the these. Bill's failure to act does not satisfy the actus reus element of involuntary manslaughter. Bill's failure to act satisfies the actus reus element of involuntary manslaughter. Bill's failure to act satisfies the actus reus element of involuntary manslaughter, but only if a statute created a duty for lifeguards to act to save distressed swimmers.
bills failure to act satisfies the actus reas element of involuntary manslaughter
Heinrich saw a notice on a supermarket bulletin board in which Laura and Michelle offered to come and clean up people's basements for a very reasonable price. Heinrich contacted Laura and Michelle and arranged for them to spend one morning later in the week cleaning out his very cluttered and filthy basement. Laura and Michelle worked furiously for four hours in Heinrich's basement without taking a break. They took out and discarded all of the trash and broken items. They straightened up and organized all of the remaining, unbroken items that Heinrich told them to keep there. When all of that was accomplished, they then swept up and mopped the basement floor and, finally, dusted all of the shelves and the basement walls. After they had completed all of this work, Laura and Michelle went to Heinrich to be paid the $120.00 he had agreed to pay them ($15 an hour for each of them). Laughing at them, Heinrich refused to pay them anything at all and threatened them if they didn't leave his premises immediately. Laura and Michelle have filed a criminal complaint against Heinrich with the local police. The jurisdiction in which the foregoing took place still uses the common law larceny offense. Did Heinrich commit larceny in these circumstances? Which of the following is true: Heinrich is not guilty of larceny because he did not take any personal property. None of the these. Heinrich is guilty of larceny. Heinrich is not guilty of larceny because Laura and Michelle had not contracted with him in writing.
heinreich is not guilty of larceny because he did not take any personal property
Ike and Eden were cross-country skiing in a remote, wilderness area when an unexpected blizzard hit. The snowfall became so heavy that they became completely disoriented and lost. While Ike had a mobile phone with him, there was no reception during the storm and—although he tried—Ike failed to reach anyone to ask for help. In truth, even if Ike had reached someone, given the severity of the storm and their remote location, it was doubtful that anyone could have reached them quickly enough to offer them any real assistance.Ike and Eden feared with good reason that they might get lost and be seriously injured or die in the snowstorm, either through exposure or just by falling and hurting themselves. Luckily for them, however, at the height of the storm, they stumbled upon an unoccupied cabin in the woods. They broke the lock on the cabin door and stayed inside for a day and a half, until the storm subsided. At that point, the owner of the cabin showed up and called for assistance for them.The owner of the cabin also called the police and asked them to arrest Ike and Eden. He was not sympathetic to the dilemma that caused them to break into his cabin as he had already had to repair the cabin a dozen times after hikers had broken into it. The cabin owner was just plain tired of the break-ins and he wanted to teach someone a lesson. So he filed a criminal complaint for breaking and entering and criminal trespass against both Ike and Eden.If Ike and Eden are actually prosecuted for one or both of these criminal offenses, do they have a good defense? Which of the following is most accurate: Ike and Eden do not have a good defense of necessity to these charges because the dangers they faced were the result of a natural event not an imminent threat from another person. Ike and Eden do not have a good defense of necessity to these charges because they had other non-criminal alternatives open to them to escape from harm. Ike and Eden have a good defense of necessity to these charges. None of the these.
ike and eden have a good defense of necessity to these charges
After drinking heavily at his bachelor party at a beachfront resort, the groom was helped into a speedboat by a few of his close friends and taken to a small island off the coast as a joke. They left him on the island which had a small shelter. As a result, the groom missed his wedding the next day. One of the groom's friends, Defendant, was charged with kidnapping. Kidnapping in this jurisdiction is defined as the "unlawful movement or concealment of a person without his or her consent." In his defense, the Defendant claims he was so intoxicated that he did not realize what he was doing, and that the groom had consented to being left on the island. Which of the following would not be helpful to the Defendant's defense? The Defendant had overheard the groom say that he was not sure about going through with the wedding. Kidnapping is a general intent crime in this jurisdiction. The groom was not legally intoxicated that evening. Kidnapping is a specific intent crime in this jurisdiction.
kidnapping is a general intent offense in this jurisdiction
Angela had a medical marijuana license in the State of Colorado for treatment of a broken finger. While driving down to Florida for spring break, she was pulled over by Officer Reinaldo. He arrested her after he saw a half smoked marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. The search after arrest resulted in a quarter ounce of marijuana hidden in the arm rest. She was charged with possession, a specific intent crime in this jurisdiction. In court, what would her best defense be? All of these are correct. Lack of requisite mens rea. Lack of intent. Mistake of Law. Mistake of Fact.
lack of requisite mens rea
The Defendant rented a room for three nights a hotel. The hotel room was equipped with a large LG HDTV television set. The Defendant decided to steal the Television set, pawn it and keep the proceeds. To conceal his identity as thief, he contrived to make his hotel room look as if it had been burglarized. However, he was traced through the pawn shop and arrested. On these facts, the Defendant is guilty of: Embezzlement. False pretenses. Larceny by trick. Larceny.
larceny
Larry, who lived in Detroit, was out of town on a business trip for a week in February. While he was gone, he let two of his friends, Dan and Candy, use his house. He did not tell them, however, that the furnace in his home was an old one, and that he knew that it was not working well, that it did not produce enough heat, and that the house stayed too cold. As a result, Larry had scheduled a furnace repair person to come and look at it the week after he returned to town to let Larry know if it could be repaired, or if he needed to replace it.While he was gone and Dan and Candy were living in the house, carbon monoxide leaked from the furnace late one evening. Dan never woke up, but Candy woke up, nauseous and lightheaded, and feeling that her heart was beating funny. She dragged Dan, who was unresponsive, out of the house and called 911. The Fire Department arrived and discovered the leak. Dan was rushed to the hospital, but he subsequently died there of carbon monoxide poisoning.Assume that Larry has been charged with involuntary manslaughter of Dan for failing to tell Dan and Candy that he suspected that his furnace might be leaky. Involuntary manslaughter murder in this jurisdiction contains a mens rea element of criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is defined in this jurisdiction the same way it is defined in the Model Penal Code: "A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. "Which of the following is most accurate: Larry is probably not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because he did not actually know that his furnace was leaky and posed a risk of harm to others. None of the these. Larry is probably not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because his failure to inform Dan and Candy of the risk of harm was not a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have observed in his situation. Larry is probably not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because there is no evidence that he actually intended to harm Dan. Larry is probably guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
larry is probably guilty of manslaughter
Mike and Ellen were cross-country skiing in a remote, wilderness area when an unexpected blizzard hit. The snowfall became so heavy that they became completely disoriented and lost. While Mike had a mobile phone with him, there was no reception during the storm and—although he tried—Mike failed to reach anyone to ask for help. In truth, even if Mike had reached someone, given the severity of the storm and their remote location, it was doubtful that anyone could have reached them quickly enough to offer them any real assistance.Mike and Ellen feared with good reason that they might get lost and be seriously injured or die in the snowstorm, either through exposure or just by falling and hurting themselves. Luckily for them, however, at the height of the storm, they stumbled upon a cabin in the woods. Mike knocked on the cabin door and the owner, Zeb, opened the door just a crack while he kept the door secured with a security chain."Let us in. Please, please, mister, let us in!," Ellen cried out, "we're freezing out here. We're lost. We'll die out here! Let us in!" Zeb responded coldly: "Get the hell out of here! There's only room for one person in here. And that's me!" And then Zeb slammed the door shut.Mike and Ellen huddled on the front porch of the cabin as long as they could. But after a couple of hours, they were frozen and nearly covered with drifting snow and they both began hammering on the cabin door with their fists, screaming at Zeb to let them in. At first, Zeb did not respond at all, but then he screamed back at them through the closed and locked door: "Get the f*** outta here! I got a rifle. If I hear anything more out of you two, I'll open the door and shoot you both. Clear out!"Eventually, Mike and Ellen decided they had no choice. If they stayed huddled outside any longer, they were likely to die. They talked about it and they decided that there was two of them and only one person inside the cabin. If they had to kill Zeb to get inside, then, as Mike said: "So be it. It's better that two people survive than that just one person survive. I'm going in."Mike then pulled out the pistol he carried in his backpack, and shot off the cabin door lock. As he and Ellen rushed inside, they saw Zeb, who had apparently been asleep, stumble toward his rifle. Mike shot and killed him.Mike has now been charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of Zeb. His defense counsel, Allyson, has argued that Mike was justified in shooting and killing Zeb because—just as Mike had reasoned before entering the cabin—the commission of that crime was justified because it resulted in a net increase in the amount of lives saved from the storm: two rather than one. Is this a good defense to this charge? Which of the following is most accurate: Mike does not have a good defense of necessity to this charge because he did not face an imminent threat of serious harm to himself if he did not reach a place of shelter quickly. None of the these. Mike does not have a good defense of necessity to this charge because he killed another person. Mike has a good defense of necessity to this charge
mike does not have a good defense of necessity to this charge because he killed another person
Mother intending the death of Victim, her child, furnished poison to X a home nurse telling her it was medicine to give to Victim. X did not believe the Victim needed it and did not administer the poison. X placed the poison on a mantel where Sister, another child, gave it to Victim and Victim died. Which of the following statements are accurate? Mother is guilty of Victim's death because Mother was the proximate cause. Mother is not guilty of a homicide because this was a coincidental intervening cause. Mother is guilty of Victim's death because this was a responsive intervening cause. None of the these.
mother is guilty of victim's death because she was a proximate cause
Defendant worked as a corporate attorney in a New York law firm. Late one evening, he left the office and proceeded outside to his brand-new Bentley 1200. While in the parking lot, the Defendant noticed a gold and diamond Rolex watch lying on the ground. When he picked the watch up, the Defendant realized the watch belonged to one of the partners of the law firm that he worked at. The Defendant took the watch home with him, intending to return it the next day. The following morning, however, the Defendant decided to keep the partner's watch and did so. In a common law jurisdiction, the Defendant has committed which of the following offenses: Larceny by trick. Embezzlement. Neither Larceny nor embezzlement. Larceny Only.
neither larceny or embezzlement
The president of a pharmaceutical firm received a report from his testing bureau that a manufactured lot of the firm's anti-cancer prescription medication was well below strength. Concerned about being able to fulfill contractual commitments, the president instructed his staff to deliver the defective lot. A cancer patient who had been maintained on the drug died shortly after beginning to take the defective pills. Medical evidence established that the patient would have lived longer had the drug been at full strength, but would have died before long in any event. The president was convicted of murder. On appeal, he argues that his conviction should be reversed. Should the conviction be reversed? Yes, because the cancer, not the president's conduct, was the proximate cause of death of the patient. Yes, because distribution of the defective lot was only a regulatory offense. No, because the intentional delivery of adulterated or mislabeled drugs gives rise to strict criminal liability. None of the these. No, because the jury could have found that the president's conduct was sufficiently reckless to constitute murder.
no because the jury could find the jury could have found that the presidents conduct was sufficiently reckless
Cheech was growing a small marijuana patch in his backyard garden. Possession of marijuana remains a crime in this jurisdiction. A neighbor observed the marijuana, alerted the police, and Cheech was arrested. He has been charged with possession of marijuana.Cheech can convince a jury that he honestly believed that it was not against the law to grow a small amount of marijuana for one's own personal use in that jurisdiction, would that be a good defense? Yes, but only if the possession of narcotics statute in his jurisdiction includes a mens rea element of purposeful, intentional, or knowing behavior. No, it would not be a good defense. None of the these. Yes, but only if the possession of narcotics statute in his jurisdiction is a strict liability statute.
no it would not be a good defense
joe, a law abiding citizen who has never been diagnosed with a mental defect, was at the post office when he heard God tell him to cut down a tree. Joe goes outside and proceeds to cut down a big oak tree. Unfortunately, what Joe thought was an oak tree turned out to be Bill, an innocent passerby. Joe takes a machete out of his trunk and decapitates Bill. Joe, satisfied with his actions, gets in his car and drives home to tell his wife that God sent him a message and he followed God's orders. Under the M'Naghten insanity test, Joe would be found: Not guilty, because he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to requirements of law Guilty, because he knew what he was doing since he said he was following God's order. Guilty, because he was never previously diagnosed with a mental illness. Not guilt, if this jurisdiction follows the deific exception to the M'Naghten test.
not guilty if this jurisdiction follows the deific exception to the m'naghten test
Sandy knew that the brakes on his truck were failing. He simply did not have the money to get them repaired for a couple of weeks, until after he got paid. Finally, payday came and Sandy had enough money in the bank to take his truck to a service station for repair. Unfortunately, on his way to the service station, his brakes failed completely as he tried to come to a complete stop at a red light and he rolled right through the intersection and smashed into the passenger side of a car, killing the front-seat passenger, Tim.Sandy has been charged with first degree murder. In the jurisdiction where these events took place, first degree murder has a mens rea element of "purposeful" conduct, i.e. to be guilty of first degree murder, the prosecution must prove, inter alia, that the accused had the "conscious object to cause" the resulting death of the victim. Which of the following is most accurate: None of the these. Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim if but only if his actions were reckless. Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim. Sandy acted purposefully in killing Tim. Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim if but only if it is true that he did not have the money to repair the truck's brakes prior to the accident.
sandy did not act purposefully in killing tim.
Sergio has a sleep disorder that causes him occasionally to wander around his home late at night and to make other movements without being aware that he is doing so. One night, Sergio, while sleepwalking in his living room, tripped over an electrical cord and fell onto and seriously injured a friend, Ilsa, who was sleeping on the living room couch. Which of the following is most accurate in a Common Law jurisdiction? Sergio did not commit a criminal act because his actions were involuntary since he was sleepwalking at the time he injured Ilsa. None of the these. Sergio did commit a criminal act if but only if the crime with which he is charged is a strict liability offense.
sergio did not commit a criminal act because his actions were involuntary since he was sleepwalking at the time he injured ilsa
In which of the following cases would the Defendant's voluntary intoxication defense most likely be used successfully? This jurisdiction allows voluntary intoxication as a defense. the Defendant is charged with assault with intent to rape Victim. While on trial, the Defendant testified that he was intoxicated to such an extent that he did not remember striking the Victim. The Defendant is charged with raping Victim. At trial, the Defendant testifies that he was so inebriated that he was unable to understand that the Victim did not consent to his conduct. The Victim was horseback riding when she was approached by the Defendant, who rode up from behind and struck her horse with his riding whip, causing the horse to bolt and throw the Victim off injuring her. On trial for battery, the Defendant testified that he was so drunk that he was only "playing" around and did not intend to injure the Victim. While intoxicated, the Defendant wandered into the Victim's barn, lit a match, and began looking for some whiskey which he thought was hidden there. Angered at not finding any whiskey, the Defendant threw the match into a bale of hay, which quickly ignited, causing the complete destruction of the Victim's barn. The Defendant is charged with arson.
the Defendant is charged with assault with intent to rape Victim. While on trial, the Defendant testified that he was intoxicated to such an extent that he did not remember striking the Victim.
Bianca was standing at the rail on the top deck of a ferry boat, smoking and talking to her friends, while the ferry crossed a long expanse of water. At one point, Bianca flicked her half-smoked cigarette overboard. But, because of the strong wind generated by the ferry boat's motion, the cigarette was blown right back at the boat and onto a lower deck, and it was still lit and burning.The cigarette landed in a pail of cleaning liquid that was being used by a crew member to clean woodwork, and it immediately ignited that liquid. The ensuing fire on the ferry boat ended up engulfing the entire boat in flames, causing many injuries, including the deaths of two passengers, Bernard and Penny, who jumped in the water to escape the burning boat and drowned.Bianca has been charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of Bernard and Penny. Her defense counsel claims that Bianca could not have anticipated the strong wind that caught her cigarette and blew it back onto the boat and that, accordingly, she was not criminally responsible for their deaths. Which of the following is most accurate: The fact-finder will probably find that Bianca caused Bernard's and Penny's deaths. None of the these. The fact-finder will probably find that Bianca did not cause Bernard's and Penny's deaths because the fact that the wind blew the cigarette back onto the boat was causing those deaths was a result that was too remote or accidental. The fact-finder will probably find that Bianca did not cause Bernard's and Penny's deaths because the wind blowing the cigarette back onto the boat was an action that broke the causal chain.
the fact finder will probably find that bianca caused bernard and penny's death
Two men drinking at a local bar got into a heated argument. The small, slightly built man knew that the large burly man had a short fuse, yet continued to argue with him. The larger man insulted the smaller man's religion and national origin, whereupon the smaller man spat on the other, who responded by pouring a glass of beer over the smaller man's head. The smaller man then punched the larger man in the nose, catching him off guard and knocking him to the floor. The larger man got to his feet, pulled out a knife, and advanced toward the other, who was standing by the door. The smaller man reached inside his boot and drew out a small gun and shot the larger man, killing him instantly. This common law jurisdiction makes it a crime to carry a concealed weapon. The smaller man is charged with murder. If the smaller man claims the killing was in self-defense, which of the following is the most helpful to the prosecution? The smaller man initiated the physical violence by spitting on the larger man, and his punching the larger man in the nose is what caused him to threaten the smaller man with the knife. Before any violence erupted, the smaller man was aware that the larger man was becoming increasingly quarrelsome and belligerent, and continued to drink and argue with him notwithstanding. Correct Answer The smaller man was standing very close to the door and could have broken off the affray if he had chosen to do so. The use or possession of the type of gun that the man used is a crime under state law, and carrying any concealed weapon is a separate crime. None of the these.
the smaller man was standing very close to the door and could have broken off the affray if he had chosen to do so
As part of her new landscaping, Rita had a wood-burning fire pit installed at the back of her property, close to the wooden fence that separates her lot from a neighbor. On a chilly evening in early October, she left the fire unattended and went into the house to answer the telephone. While she was inside, a strong wind came up and suddenly sparks from the fire pit blew onto the wooden fence. The fence caught fire, and the fire quickly spread to Rita's neighbor's house, which nearly burned to the ground before the fire department got the blaze under control. Rita has been charged with arson, which requires, in this jurisdiction, a showing of purpose to commit the offense. Which of the following best describes what the prosecutor must prove to convict Rita of this offense? A reasonable person would have known not to leave the fire unattended. Rita should have known that leaving the fire unattended could result in this damage. Rita knew that leaving the fire unattended could result in this damage, but she did it anyway. When she left the fire unattended, Rita consciously meant to burn her neighbor's house down None of the these.
when she left the fire unattended rita conciously meant to burn her neighbors house down
