Criminal Law Final Exam

The categorical rule for the provocation/heat of passion doctrine, which reduces murder to manslaughter, is a part of which set of laws? A. Common Law B. Modern majority rule (meaning that this is the modern rule based on the common law that most states follow) C. Model Penal Code

A. Common Law

A defendant can only be convicted of murder if they intentionally kill. A. True B. False

B. False

The crime of manslaughter requires an intentional killing. A. True B. False

B. False

X is planning to commit an arson of a residence. Y decides to help accomplish the arson by making sure that there is a gas leak in the residence before X starts the fire. The assistance is effective, because the added fuel from the gas leak ensures that the residence catches fire. X and Y do not coordinate in advance about the plan or Y's assistance. Under what mode of liability is Y guilty of the arson? (A) Aiding/abetting (B) Conspiracy/Pinkerton (C) Aiding/abetting and conspiracy/Pinkerton (D) Neither aiding/abetting nor conspiracy/Pinkerton

(A) Aiding/abetting

A man breaks into a locked residence with the intent to commit a theft while inside the residence. The man expects the residence to be unoccupied. However, once the man is inside the residence, he hears a rustling sound and sees someone entering the living room. The man panics and throws a large statute that he is holding at the occupant of the house, hoping to slow down the occupant so that he can escape the residence. The occupant later dies from the injury and the man is arrested after a short investigation. In a jurisdiction that applies both enumerated and unenumerated felony murder, which type of felony murder would be applied in this case? (A) Enumerated felony murder. (B) Unenumerated felony murder. (C) Either enumerated or unenumerated felony murder. (D) The case does not fall under felony murder at all.

(A) Enumerated felony murder.

Felicity opens the door of her house. Standing in front of the house is a solicitor asking for donations for a local charity. Felicity interprets the requests as a demand for money that will be backed up by physical force if she does not comply. Instead of turning over the money, Felicity pulls out a gun and kills the solicitor. Felicity is charged with murder but wants to assert self-defense. Which statement is most accurate? (A) Felicity will be justified if she believed that she faced an imminent threat of serious bodily injury and her belief was reasonable. (B) Felicity will be justified if she believed that she faced an imminent threat of serious bodily injury and her belief was sincere. (C) Felicity will be justified if she believed that she faced an imminent threat of any bodily injury and her belief was reasonable. (D) Felicity will be justified if she believed that she faced an imminent threat of any bodily injury and her belief was sincere.

(A) Felicity will be justified if she believed that she faced an imminent threat of serious bodily injury and her belief was reasonable.

Marino is having a serious professional dispute with a colleague named Jason. Marino and Jason are both partners in a dental practice. Marino is desperate to buy out Jason's share of the practice, but Jason refuses to sell it at a price that Marino considers reasonable. The relationship soon sours and devolves into animosity. Marino speaks with a friend of a friend who is a former gang member. Marino asks the former gang member to murder Jason for him. Unfortunately for Marino, the conversation is recorded by the police. The police arrest Marino and the murder never happens. Which statement is most correct? (A) Marino is guilty of the inchoate crime of solicitation. (B) Marino is guilty of solicitation as a mode of liability. (C) Marino is not guilty of solicitation, because the crime never occurred. (D) Marino is guilty of conspiracy but not solicitation.

(A) Marino is guilty of the inchoate crime of solicitation.

Two men are involved in a heated verbal dispute on a street corner. One of the men issues the following taunt: "I hate your guts and you are a pathetic human being." The other man gets enraged and responds by stabbing the man to death. At trial, the defendant argues that he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. In a jurisdiction that applies the common-law defense of provocation, should he be convicted of murder or manslaughter? (A) Murder, because words alone are usually insufficient as a matter of law to trigger the provocation defense. (B) Murder, because provocation does not apply to the crime of murder. (C) Manslaughter, because "taunts" are an exception to the general rule that words are not enough to trigger the provocation defense. (D) Manslaughter, because the taunts were especially severe.

(A) Murder, because words alone are usually insufficient as a matter of law to trigger the provocation defense.

Milton goes to a house on Main Street. He breaks the window of the door, reaches his hand through the broken window to open the doorknob from the inside, and gains access to the dwelling. Once inside, Milton walks to the kitchen. There he is confronted by the owner of the house who tackles him and restrains him until the police can arrive. Milton is charged with burglary. However, Milton's lawyer argues that the burglary charge must be dismissed because Milton had no intention of taking anything from the house. In fact, Milton was planning to assault someone in the house, although that individual turned out to be absent from the house that day. Is the lawyer correct that the burglary charge should be dismissed? (A) No, because he intended to commit a felony (B) Yes, because he did not intend to commit a theft or larceny (C) Yes, because the intended target of the crime was absent from the scene (D) Both A and C

(A) No, because he intended to commit a felony

Maurice is determined to steal a neighbor's flat-screen TV. At first, Maurice plans to break a window and climb into the neighbor's house while the neighbor is away on vacation. But Maurice changes his mind and picks the lock to gain entry to the house and steals the television. Maurice is charged with both burglary and theft. His lawyer argues that he cannot be convicted of burglary because he did not commit a breaking and entering of the house. Is the lawyer correct? (A) Yes, because picking a lock does not constitute a physical breaking (B) No, because picking the lock constitutes a constructive breaking (C) Yes, because the lock was apparently not strong enough (D) Both A and C

(B) No, because picking the lock constitutes a constructive breaking

A father was fired from his job. Too proud to apply for unemployment benefits, he used his savings to feed his family. When one of his children became ill, he did not seek medical attention for the child at a state clinic because he did not want to accept what he regarded as charity. Eventually, weakened by malnutrition, the child died as a result of the illness.Which of the following crimes has the father committed? A. Involuntary Manslaughter B. Second Degree Murder C. Voluntary Manslaughter D. No Criminal Responsibility

A. Involuntary Manslaughter

Bartholomew is the treasurer for a local Boy Scout troop. The troop holds a bake sale in a school basement one weekend. Over two days, the bake sale raises $1,450 in cash proceeds. Bartholomew takes the cash and brings it home with him on Sunday night. On Monday morning, Bartholomew deposits $950 in the Boy Scout troop bank account at the local branch. Bartholomew keeps $500 for himself, which he uses to buy a used motorcycle. What is Bartholomew guilty of? (A) Larceny (B) Embezzlement (C) Extortion (D) All of the above

(B) Embezzlement

Francine is very angry with her ex-husband Bob and wants to kill him. However, she doesn't think she can do it herself and so she asks around if anyone knows someone who could "solve her problem for her." A distant acquaintance tells Francine that he might know someone who can do the job, and he offers to set up an initial meeting. Francine meets with the prospect hit man, and they agree to the terms of the arrangement. Francine will pay the hit man $3,000 up front and $7,000 upon completion of the murder. Francine goes to a bank to withdraw the $3,000 and comes back to meet the hit man. When she does, she is arrested. The hit man was actually an undercover police officer. At trial, Francine's lawyer argues that she cannot be convicted of conspiracy because there was no "agreement" with the undercover police officer. He was only feigning agreement to the plan. Which of the following statements is most correct? (A) Francine is guilty of conspiracy under the bilateral view. (B) Francine is guilty of conspiracy under the unilateral view. (C) Neither A nor B. (D) Francine is not guilty of conspiracy under the unilateral view.

(B) Francine is guilty of conspiracy under the unilateral view.

Jeremiah is a hit man who has been hired to kill someone in exchange for payment of $10,000. Jeremiah meets with the client, George, who is hiring him. George gives Jeremiah a down payment of $5,000 and a picture of the target. Jeremiah spends the next two weeks following the target and learning his schedule and routine. Then, Jeremiah decides that the best opportunity to kill the target will be at 5am the next morning when the target will go for his morning run and will be on a deserted path before sunrise. The night before, however, the police learn of the plot and arrest both Jeremiah and George before the target is killed. The jurisdiction applies the Model Penal Code. Which of the following statements is most correct? (A) Jeremiah is guilty of attempted murder if he was dangerously close to completing the murder. (B) Jeremiah is guilty of attempted murder if his actions were a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime. (C) Jeremiah is guilty of attempted murder if his actions were even "slight acts" in furtherance of his criminal design. (D) None of the above.

(B) Jeremiah is guilty of attempted murder if his actions were a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.

Alice, Bill, and Cindy are all in the same room together. Alice has a gun. Billy is standing right in front of Cindy. Alice fires the gun. The bullet hits Billy, travels through his body, and then hits Cindy. Alice wanted the bullet to hit Billy. Alice was aware that the bullet was virtually certain to hit Cindy. Which statement best describes Alice's mental state? (A) She killed Billy with knowledge and Cindy with purpose. (B) She killed Billy with purpose and Cindy with knowledge. (C) She killed Billy with knowledge and Cindy with recklessness. (D) She killed Billy with purpose and Cindy with negligence.

(B) She killed Billy with purpose and Cindy with knowledge.

Victor works at a financial company. Victor is engaged in a massive financial fraud that involves a pyramid scheme. Individuals believe that their money is being invested in the stock market when, in reality, Victor is using the money to finance his lavish lifestyle. During the course of this fraud, Victor has a meeting with one of his clients, who eventually learns about the massive fraud and gets so upset that he suffers a heart attack and dies. Victor is charged with felony fraud for the pyramid scheme. The prosecutor also wants to charge Victor with felony murder because the jurisdiction applies the felony murder rule. Is this charge legitimate? (A) Yes, because in this case the fraud was inherently dangerous (B) No, because fraud is not an inherently dangerous felony (C) No, because the fraud merged with the resulting death (D) The jury has discretion because it is a matter for the fact finder to decide

(B) No, because fraud is not an inherently dangerous felony

A driver drove his car through a playground crowded with children just to watch the children run to get out of his way. His car struck one of the children, killing her instantly. Which of the following is the best theory for finding the driver guilty of murder? A. Second degree murder B. Voluntary Manslaughter C. First Degree Murder D. Involuntary Manslaughter

A. Second degree murder

Marianna's arm hits Jackson in the jaw causing significant damage and requiring medical attention. The police arrive and Marianna concedes that it was her arm that caused the damage to Jackson's jaw. The police charge Marianna with assault. At trial, Marianna offers uncontested evidence that the physical movement of her arm was the result of an epileptic seizure. Did the state's proof satisfy the actus reus requirement? (A) Yes, because an epileptic seizure is an act (B) No, because the crime presupposes a voluntary act and an epileptic seizure is involuntary (C) Yes, because Marianna was not born with epilepsy but developed it later in life (D) Yes, because assault is a strict liability crime

(B) No, because the crime presupposes a voluntary act and an epileptic seizure is involuntary

Judge Rana is sentencing a defendant who committed armed robbery and stole more than $10,000 from a bank. The defense lawyer in the case tells the judge that his client should receive no prison time. To support his argument, he notes that his client was severely injured during the bank robbery and is now physically incapable of repeating the crime, so a prison term is not needed to convince the defendant not to return to a life of crime. Is this a retributive argument? (A) Yes, because retributive arguments always entail that defendants receive no prison time (B) No, because the lawyer's argument is about deterrence, not retribution (C) No, because the judge is unlikely to agree with the argument (D) Yes, because criminal punishment is never morally justified

(B) No, because the lawyer's argument is about deterrence, not retribution

A man was angry at a coworker who had received a promotion. The man believed that the coworker had taken credit for the man's work and had bad-mouthed him to their boss. One day, as the man was leaving the company parking lot in his car, he saw the coworker walking through the lot. On a sudden impulse, the man pushed the accelerator pedal hard and veered toward the coworker with the intention of scaring him. The coworker tried to jump out of the way but slipped and fell and was run over. Although the coworker suffered life-threatening injuries, he survived.Under the common law, could the driver be convicted of attempted murder? (A) No, because the coworker's slip and fall broke the chain of proximate causation. (B) No, because the man lacked the requisite intent. (C) Yes, because the coworker suffered life-threatening injuries. (D) Yes, because the man acted with reckless disregard for human life.

(B) No, because the man lacked the requisite intent.

Frank is convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder. During the sentencing phase, the prosecutor makes the following statement: "Frank deserves to be punished for a very long time. His actions—killing two innocent people—represent the worst possible moral violation possible. We will never be able to bring the victims back. They are gone forever. Frank deserves to suffer for his crimes and suffer for a long time." The prosecutor's argument is: (A) Based on the notion of deterrence. (B) Retributive in nature. (C) Unconstitutionally vague, because it appeals to morality. (D) Both B and C.

(B) Retributive in nature.

Heather is accused of killing Baxter with "depraved indifference to human life." What category of homicide will most likely be listed on the charging instrument? (A) First-degree murder (B) Second-degree murder (C) Voluntary manslaughter (D) Involuntary manslaughter

(B) Second-degree murder

Two important limitations on the felony murder doctrine are the inherently dangerous felony limitation and the merger limitation. In most jurisdictions, these doctrines are applied to limit what type of felony murder? (A) Enumerated felony murder. (B) Unenumerated felony murder. (C) Both enumerated and unenumerated felony murder. (D) All types of felony murder.

(B) Unenumerated felony murder.

Assume that a man breaks into an occupied home while the residents are home (a burglary). The homeowner is startled and grabs his gun. The homeowner hears movement and shoots. Tragically, he shoots and kills a family member. True or False: The man who broke into the home be found guilty of felony murder in a state that follows the majority rule? A. True B. False

B. False

Trisha commits arson. She burns down a commercial building in order to collect the proceeds from an insurance policy. Trisha assumes that the building is unoccupied because it is the middle of the night. However, she turns out to be wrong. A night-time cleaning crew is in the building, and four of them die during the fire that Trisha set. Is Trisha guilty of felony murder? (A) No, because the killing was unintentional (B) Yes, because even an unintentional killing during the course of a felony constitutes felony murder in many jurisdictions (C) Yes, because the death of four individuals constitutes an aggravating factor that triggers the felony murder doctrine (D) No, because Trisha believed that the building was not occupied

(B) Yes, because even an unintentional killing during the course of a felony constitutes felony murder in many jurisdictions

In most jurisdictions in the United States, an individual can be convicted of murder under a felony murder theory when the underlying felony is assault. A. True B. False

B. False

Billy is walking through a park when he is confronted by someone who tries to take his wallet by force. Billy struggles with the robber and then takes out his gun and shoots and kills the robber. Billy is charged with murder but claims self-defense. Specifically, his lawyer claims that Billy's force was appropriate because the jurisdiction recently passed a Stand Your Ground law. Which statement is most accurate? (A) Billy had a duty to retreat because he was outside of his castle. (B) Billy had no duty to retreat because a park is the same as a castle. (C) Billy had no duty to retreat because he reasonably believed that force was necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (D) Both A and B.

(C) Billy had no duty to retreat because he reasonably believed that force was necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Jeremy, David, and Gwyneth are loitering in a park late on Saturday night. They are all talking and laughing. It is almost midnight. Another individual is walking down a path and David confronts the man and robs him of $100 and his watch. During the entire episode, both Gwyneth and Jeremy are recording the incident with their smart phones. They later post the videos online on social media. Taken together, the two videos prove that David robbed the victim and that both Jeremy and Gwyneth were present at the scene of the crime. Which of the following statements is most accurate? (A) Jeremy and Gwyneth are responsible as accomplices because they were present during the robbery. (B) Jeremy and Gwyneth are responsible as accomplices because they filmed the robbery. (C) If the videos are the only evidence in the case, Jeremy and Gwyneth are not responsible as accomplices. (D) Both A and B.

(C) If the videos are the only evidence in the case, Jeremy and Gwyneth are not responsible as accomplices.

Vladimir and Robert are the co-owners of an accounting firm. Unable to make a living providing tax services to legitimate business owners, Vladimir and Robert start preparing fraudulent tax returns for members of an organized crime family. Vladimir and Robert are explicitly aware of the illegal nature of the tax returns and work together with the members of the criminal organization to engage in tax evasion. One day, Robert gets a call from an IRS agent who wants to audit one of the returns that they prepared. Robert asks the IRS agent for a meeting later that day while Vladimir is out of town. Robert does not tell Vladimir that he is going to meet with the IRS agent. During the meeting, Robert shoots and kills the IRS agent in order to keep the tax evasion scheme a secret. Vladimir is guilty of which crimes in a jurisdiction that applies Pinkerton? (A) Tax evasion but not murder (B) Murder but not tax evasion (C) Murder if the murder was a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the tax evasion conspiracy (D) Tax evasion and murder if the murder was a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the tax evasion conspiracy

(D) Tax evasion and murder if the murder was a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the tax evasion conspiracy

Bob is at his friend's house and is very intoxicated after smoking a large amount of marijuana. The police arrive at the house and drag him from inside the doorway of his house into the street. Bob is arrested there and charged with appearing in public while in an intoxicated state, a misdemeanor in that state punishable by up to one year in jail. Can Bob be convicted of this offense? (A) Yes (B) Yes, as long as his sentence is only a fine and does not include a jail term (C) No, because Bob's "appearance in public" was not a voluntary act (D) No, because the police conduct violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination

(C) No, because Bob's "appearance in public" was not a voluntary act

Xavier hires Richard to do a job for him. Richard knows that, in the past, Xavier has been involved in the illegal drug business. Indeed, Richard knows that Xavier has been convicted for dealing narcotics on multiple occasions. Xavier tells Richard that the job involves driving a car across the country and delivering the car to another individual, who will take receipt of the car and give Richard $200,000 in cash. The car is a 1995 Chevy Malibu in poor condition. The plan is for Richard to then take an airplane back home and give the $200,000 in cash to Xavier. For his labor, Richard is scheduled to receive $15,000 in cash from Xavier. Xavier tells Richard not to let anyone look in the trunk or the merchandise in it. Xavier also tells Richard: "You might prefer not to open the trunk either if you don't want to know what's in it." The police stop the car and find drugs in it. Richard is arrested and charged with drug possession, which in this jurisdiction requires that the defendant "knowingly" possess an illegal substance. Richard claims at trial that he never knew that the trunk contained drugs and therefore he shouldn't be convicted. Is Richard's argument valid? (A) Yes, because he did not have direct knowledge that drugs were in the car (B) No, because he knew that Xavier had been previously convicted of drug offenses (C) No, because Richard deliberately and willfully avoided obtaining the relevant information (D) Yes, because the mental state of knowledge requires practical or virtual certainty

(C) No, because Richard deliberately and willfully avoided obtaining the relevant information

Jason takes Harold's BMW car for a drive at 11am on Monday to run some errands, with the intention of bringing it back to Harold's house at 2pm that day. Jason did not have Harold's permission. At 1pm, while Jason is still using the car, he is arrested. Is Jason guilty of theft? (A) Yes, because he did not have Harold's permission (B) Yes, because he acted with the intent to deprive Harold of the car (C) No, because he did not act with the intent to permanently deprive Harold of his car (D) No, because there was insufficient asportation

(C) No, because he did not act with the intent to permanently deprive Harold of his car

A husband and wife are locked in an intense, verbal altercation. The verbal dispute escalates, and the wife responds after a few moments by stabbing her husband in the neck, killing him. The state charges the wife with first-degree murder in a jurisdiction that defines first-degree murder as a killing performed with premeditation and deliberation. The woman seeks a jury instruction that there was insufficient time for her to premeditate the killing. Will the judge grant the requested instruction? (A) Yes, because the event happened too quickly. (B) Yes, because there must be a minimum time lag of one minute in cases of premeditated murder. (C) No, because there is no specific time period required for premeditation. (D) No, because the wife acted with malice.

(C) No, because there is no specific time period required for premeditation.

The operator of a carnival park has a vintage Ferris wheel which is a major draw from the park. The ride is inspected every week. One Monday, the inspector arrives and tells the operator that metal supports on the wheel have been weakened by structural defects, that the wheel is in immediate danger of breaking while in operation, and that the Ferris wheel should be repaired immediately. The repair will take two weeks. The operator calculates that he will lose $10,000 in lost revenue if he takes the ride out of service to be repaired. Not wanting to lose the revenue, the ride is kept in service. The next day the metal fractures, causing an accident, which results in the death of a boy that was on the ride. An investigation conclusively establishes that the metal fractures were caused by the very structural defects identified by the inspector. In a jurisdiction that applies the Model Penal Code scheme for mental states, what is the operator's mental state with regard to the boy's death? (A) Purpose (B) Knowledge (C) Recklessness (D) Negligence

(C) Recklessness

Marianna resides in a jurisdiction that retains the old common law categories of theft offenses. One day, Marianna decides that she is tired of her poor financial situation and takes out an advertisement as a "mystical expert in the occult" who can contact the dead. A man named Icarus sees the advertisement and visits Marianna. Icarus is plagued by sadness over the death of his soul mate, his wife Christine, who died last year. Marianna looks into a crystal ball and claims to "communicate" with the soul of Christine. Marianna says that Christine revealed the following information to her: If Icarus proves that he has a virtuous soul, Christine will be released from the afterworld and may come back to life. Furthermore, Marianna indicates that the best way for Icarus to demonstrate his virtue is to give away all of his money. Marianna offers to "help" Icarus by taking his money. The next day, Icarus comes to Marianna's office with a check for $10,000—his entire life savings. What crime, if any, has Marianna committed? (A) Embezzlement (B) Extortion (C) Theft by false pretenses (D) None

(C) Theft by false pretenses

Two men X and Y discuss the possibility of conducting a tax evasion scheme for an enterprise in which they are partners. X agrees to file the illegal tax returns. Y knows that the illegal tax returns will be filed by X, but Y does not participate in the scheme with the purpose to personally file the illegal tax returns. His purpose is to have X file the false tax returns for him. Which of these individuals is guilty of conspiracy? (A) X (B) Y (C) X and Y (D) Neither

(C) X and Y

Judge Thornburn is charging a jury regarding accomplice liability and conspiracy liability. The defendant in the case is charged with murder as an accomplice and murder under the conspiracy doctrine. The defendant did not personally carry out the physical act of killing. Which of the following statements is the best answer? (A) It is possible for a defendant to be an accomplice and a conspirator at the same time. (B) It is impossible for a defendant to be an accomplice and a conspirator at the same time. (C) Accomplices can be held responsible as conspirators if there was an agreement between the accomplice and the principal perpetrator. (D) Both A and C.

(D) Both A and C.

Lenny walks into Josephine's house and looks around for valuable materials to steal. Seeing nothing at first glance, he walks upstairs to Josephine's bedroom, where he notices a jewelry box sitting on a dresser. He opens the box and sees an expensive gold necklace. He picks up the necklace and puts it in his pocket. At that moment, Josephine comes home. Lenny is startled and rushes down the stairs. In the commotion, the necklace falls out of his pocket while Lenny is on the staircase. A moment later, an empty-handed Lenny rushes out of the house through the front door. Did Lenny commit larceny? (A) No, he committed burglary and larceny merges into burglary (B) No, because he left the premises without the necklace in his custody (C) Yes, because removing the necklace from the jewelry box and placing it in his pocket was an asportation sufficient to constitute a taking (D) Yes, because Lenny entered he dwelling with the intent to commit larceny

(C) Yes, because removing the necklace from the jewelry box and placing it in his pocket was an asportation sufficient to constitute a taking

Heather is charged with murder for killing Jennifer under a statute that defines murder as "knowingly killing another human being." Heather worked as a pharmacist and gave Jennifer the wrong medication when she came to the pharmacy to have a prescription filled. The incorrect prescription was fatal to Jennifer because of a cardiac condition that she suffered from. Should Heather be convicted of murder under the statute? (A) Yes, but only if Heather gave Jennifer the wrong medication with the purpose of killing her (B) Yes, if Heather consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk of death (C) Yes, if Heather was aware that Jennifer's death was practically or virtually certain to occur (D) Yes, because medications are regulated by strict liability statutes

(C) Yes, if Heather was aware that Jennifer's death was practically or virtually certain to occur

The City of Caroline has a problem with illegal narcotics. In the last two years, the police have responded to 300 heroin overdoses, 50 of which were fatal. Arrests for possessing and selling illegal narcotics have skyrocketed. Many of the arrests involve individuals who have prior drug convictions. The City of Caroline has decided to create a special drug court with jurisdiction over all narcotics offenses. The judges in the court use jail as a last resort and prefer to sentence the defendants to drug rehabilitation centers so that they can end their addictions, followed by community service. How can we describe the program? (A) It treats addiction as a disease requiring treatment. (B) It focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishing defendants. (C) It is a creative solution to the problem of illegal drugs. (D) All of the above.

(D) All of the above.

Billy is driving down the street in his sedan. He is speeding, crosses the median into oncoming traffic, and hits a car traveling in the opposite direction. A passenger in that car is severely injured. Billy is not injured. Billy does not assist the passenger and does not call 911. There is a pedestrian walking nearby who sees the accident but refuses to render assistance or call 911. The prosecutor wants to charge someone for his or her failure to act. The state legislature recently passed a new statute that requires anyone witnessing an accident to call 911 if he or she can safely do so without personal risk. Who can the prosecutor charge? (A) Neither, because the statute is unconstitutional (B) Billy only, because he caused the accident (C) The pedestrian only, because the statute applies to him (D) Both, because Billy had a duty because he caused the accident and the pedestrian had a statutory duty

(D) Both, because Billy had a duty because he caused the accident and the pedestrian had a statutory duty

Mary is 30 years old and is at home with her two-year-old daughter Sasha. Mary's new boyfriend, George, is also at the house visiting for the day. George is not the father of Sasha and does not live in the house with them. Mary is a drug addict who frequently harms Sasha by physically assaulting her. One day, Mary is particularly enraged and hits Sasha so hard that the girl dies. George does nothing to stop the assault and does not call 911 when he realizes that the girl is injured. Mary is charged with murder. Can George be charged as well? (A) Yes, because he was in loco parentis (B) Yes, because his failure to call 911 was one cause of Sasha's death (C) No, because omissions are never punishable (D) No, because he had no legal duty to assist the girl

(D) No, because he had no legal duty to assist the girl

Manuel is the manager of a food processing plant. The plant manufactures, among other things, peanut butter. Manuel learns that some of the peanut butter produced in the facility may have been contaminated with dangerous bacteria. After the peanut butter is shipped to stores and sold, 12 people become seriously ill and one of them dies from eating the tainted peanut butter. The local prosecutor has launched a criminal case against Manuel in a jurisdiction that follows the Model Penal Code. Can Manuel be convicted of a crime of recklessness? (A) Yes, because he should have been aware of the substantial and unjustified risk associated with releasing the peanut butter (B) No, because it was not virtually or practically certain that someone would be harmed by the peanut butter (C) No, because Manuel did not intend for anyone to get hurt by the peanut butter (D) Yes, but only if he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk

(D) Yes, but only if he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk

True or False: The following fact was legally relevant to the court's conclusion in People v. Beardsley that Mr. Beardsley did not have a legal duty to act to save the life of Blanche Burns. Mr. Beardsley did not make all reasonable and proper effort to save Ms. Burns. A. True B. False

B. False

True or False: The following fact was legally relevant to the court's conclusion in People v. Beardsley that Mr. Beardsley did not have a legal duty to act to save the life of Blanche Burns. Mr. Beardsley worked as a bartender and clerk at a hotel. A. True B. False

B. False

Select ALL of the following statutory laws that impose a duty to act, such that a failure to act would satisfy the actus reus requirement. HINT: There is more than one answer on this list that you should select. A. A law that requires convicted sex offenders to register with authorities. B. A federal law that requires people to file taxes. C. A state law that requires people to register handguns they own. D. A state that that prohibits people from possessing certain deadly weapons. E. A state that that prohibits people from driving under the influence of alcohol.

A, B, and C

A hunter bought a new rifle and wanted to try it out by doing some target shooting. He went out into the country to an area where he had previously hunted. Much to his surprise, he noticed that the area beyond a clearing contained several newly constructed houses that had not been there before. Between the houses there was a small playground where several children were playing. Nevertheless, the hunter nailed a paper target to a tree and went to a point where the tree was between him and the playground. He then fired several shots at the target. One of the shots missed the target and the tree and hit and killed one of the children in the playground.The hunter was convicted of murder. He appealed, contending that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction of murder.How should the appellate court rule on the hunter's appeal? A. Affirm the conviction, as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of murder. B. Reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but will support a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. C. Reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but will support a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. D. Reverse the conviction and order the case dismissed, because the evidence is sufficient only for a finding of negligence and negligence alone cannot support a criminal conviction.

A. Affirm the conviction, as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of murder.

Anne was babysitting her neighbor's children one afternoon. There was a pool in the backyard of the home, and the parents had asked Anne to be particularly watchful to ensure the children didn't try to sneak into the pool as they had been asking to go swimming all day. Anne turned on a movie and made some popcorn for the children. Then, she went into another room where she called her boyfriend on FaceTime. She got caught up in her conversation and stopped paying attention to what the children were doing. The children snuck outside and decided to go for a swim in the pool. A few minutes later, Anne heard one of the children screaming for help. She ran outside and panicked. Rather than throw a flotation device that was hanging on the wall to the child, she did nothing. Sadly, the child died. Under the common law, if Anne were prosecuted for homicide, which of the following would be the prosecution's strongest argument & why? A. Anne can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because she had a duty to act to save the child, and she was grossly negligent. B. Anne can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter regardless of her mental state because strict liability applies to homicide cases where the victims are children. C. Anne can be convicted of second degree murder under the felony murder theory. D. Anne cannot be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because the actus reus requirement is not satisfied under these facts.

A. Anne can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because she had a duty to act to save the child, and she was grossly negligent.

The Beardsley court mentions the case of Regina v. Nicholls, where a penniless woman was prosecuted for failing to supply an infant grandchild left in her care sufficient food, leading to the infant's death. Why did the court find that this grandmother owed her infant grandchild a duty of care? A. Because the grandmother voluntarily assumed the care of the infant and was legally obligated to continue caring for the infant. B. Because the grandmother has a special relationship with the infant, like a parent to child. C. Because the grandmother had a statutory duty to care for the infant regardless of her financial status.

A. Because the grandmother voluntarily assumed the care of the infant and was legally obligated to continue caring for the infant.

A, B, C, and D are all adults who can swim. They are on vacation and are at a crowded hotel pool. A is the child's father, and B, C, and D are strangers to the father and child; none of them work at the hotel. As a practical joke, and reasonably believing that the child could swim, B deliberately caused the child to fall into the pool by pushing C against the child. They all knew the child was drowning and knew how to swim, but no one tried to save the child. The child drowned. If you were prosecuting this case, what would be the strongest argument for holding B responsible for failing to act in this case? A. Creation of risk B. Special relationship C. Contractual obligation D. Assumption of care

A. Creation of risk

Under current law, husbands have a duty to care for their wives, but wives do not have a duty to care for their husbands. A. True B. False

B. False

At 2 a.m., the defendant held up an all-night liquor store using an assault rifle. During the holdup, two police cars with flashing lights drove up in front of the store. In order to create a situation where the police would hesitate to come into the store (and thus give the defendant a chance to escape out the back), the defendant fired several rounds through the front window of the store. He did not intend for the bullet to hit anyone--he merely wanted to scare them away. One of the shots he fired while in the store struck and killed a pedestrian who was walking down the street. Based on the theories of homicide we have studied so far in this class, what is the most serious degree of criminal homicide of which the defendant is guilty? A. Second degree murder B. First degree murder C. Voluntary Manslaughter D. Involuntary Manslaughter

A. Second degree murder

What is the specific intent in larceny (theft)? A. The intent to permanently deprive or steal. B. The intent to take and carry away the personal property of another.

A. The intent to permanently deprive or steal.

Which is the best definition of a homicide? A. The unlawful killing of another human being. B. The negligent killing of another human being. C. The killing of another human being. D. The killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

A. The unlawful killing of another human being.

In your opinion, which of the following is the strongest argument that Mr. Beardsley did have a duty to act to save Blanche Burns? A. Their relationships was similar to a husband-wife relationship and should therefore be treated similarly. B. Beardsley created the risk that she might die by inviting her to his home, drinking with her, and not stopping her from using drugs. C. Beardsley voluntarily assumed the care of Blanche Burns by inviting her to his home. D. Mr. Beardsley's actions do not comport with fundamental concepts of morality.

A. Their relationships was similar to a husband-wife relationship and should therefore be treated similarly.

True or False: The following fact was legally relevant to the court's conclusion in People v. Beardsley that Mr. Beardsley did not have a legal duty to act to save the life of Blanche Burns. Beardsley and Burns were not married. A. True B. False

A. True

A mother and her daughter are evicted and have nowhere to stay. The mother and daughter have lived with Landlord for a month, and that the mother has entered a rehabilitation center. Landlord looks after the daughter for two months, at which point the mother returns to the home. Because the mother is constantly intoxicated and is unable to care for the child, Landlord continues to be the primary caregiver. Two weeks after her return, Mother beats the child repeatedly in Landlord's presence. The child later dies. Landlord is charged with manslaughter. Did the Landlord have a duty to act? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes

A, B, C, and D are all adults who can swim. They are on vacation and are at a crowded hotel pool. A is the child's father, and B, C, and D are strangers to the father and child; none of them work at the hotel. As a practical joke, and reasonably believing that the child could swim, B deliberately caused the child to fall into the pool by pushing C against the child. They all knew the child was drowning and knew how to swim, but no one tried to save the child. The child drowned. Has A committed a sufficient actus reus to be held criminally responsible for his child's death? A. Yes B. No

A. Yes

Assume you are in California. Adam and his girlfriend Eve had recently started living together in Adam's apartment. However, they had a very nasty split after Adam discovered that Eve was seeing her old boyfriend. Eve moved into her own apartment after the split. Unbeknownst to Adam, Eve's grandmother was living with Eve because she had been burglarized and was fearful of living alone. Adam missed Eve very much. One night, when he knew she would be at work, he decided to break into her apartment to take a few of her items that reminded him of her. He entered through an open window while Eve was out. Eve's grandmother was upstairs in her bedroom. She heard the noise from Adam, clutched her heart from fright and died immediately. Adam has been charged with the felony murder in the death of Eve's grandmother. Assume the jury believes Adam's version of events as to why he went to the apartment. Further assume that a medical expert testified that Eve's grandmother had suffered previously from congestive heart failure.On the charge of first degree felony murder, which statement is the best answer? Adam would be: A. convicted of first degree felony murder because all the elements are met. B. acquitted of first degree felony murder because he did not directly cause the grandmother's death. C. acquitted of first degree felony murder but convicted of second degree felony murder. D. acquitted of first degree felony murder because Adam lacked the mens rea for felony murder.

A. convicted of first degree felony murder because all the elements are met.

Ethan was charged with murder after shooting his wife. He will likely be convicted of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder if which of the following is true? A. Ethan had a very bad day and was upset when he saw his wife. B. Ethan had just discovered his wife committing adultery at the time he shot her. C. Ethan thought the safety was probably on when he pointed the loaded gun at his wife and pulled the trigger. D. Ethan did not want to harm his wife, but he didn't want to pay alimony after their divorce.

B. Ethan had just discovered his wife committing adultery at the time he shot her.

Although a first degree murder conviction under a theory of felony murder requires that the underlying felony be on a list of enumerated felonies (i.e. robbery, burglary, arson, rape, kidnapping), a defendant can be found guilty of second degree felony murder based on the commission of any underlying felony. A. True B. False

B. False

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the State of Wilshire passed a law in August 2020 requiring all people to wear masks when they are "in public." Some people have been arrested for not wearing masks while they are in front of their homes (in public view), but still technically on private property. What would be the best source for a court to consult to resolve what "in public" means in this statute & why? For a bonus point, explain how this question should be resolved if the meaning of "in public" is unclear from a review of the relevant sources. A. A policy paper published by a think-tank that argues that the failure to wear a mask should not be criminalized. B. A definition of "public" that was quoted in the legislative debates when the statute was being considered. C. A definition of "public" from a leading United States Supreme Court opinion that was published in October 2020. D. Guidelines issued by the CDC in November 2020 recommending that masks be required for all people in public view, even if they are on private property.

B. A definition of "public" that was quoted in the legislative debates when the statute was being considered.

Al got into an argument with his neighbor Bob one night. Bob watched Al and his family get into his wife's car and drive off after their argument. He assumed Al and his family had left for the night. Bob was so angry that he decided to set fire to Al's car, which was parked on the driveway right outside of the house. The car exploded and lit the house of fire. Although Bob didn't realize it, Al had returned to the home. He died due to the fire. Bob is charged with arson and murder. What would be the most likely theory for proving murder? A. First degree murder under a theory of premeditation and deliberation. B. Felony murder based on the underlying felony of arson. C. Involuntary manslaughter based on gross negligence. D. Second degree murder under a theory that Bob intended to cause serious bodily injury.

B. Felony murder based on the underlying felony of arson.

A mother and her daughter are evicted and have nowhere to stay. Landlord takes them into her home but does not otherwise care for the mother or daughter. Two days later, the mother becomes intoxicated and beats the child repeatedly in Landlord's presence. The child later dies. Landlord is charged with manslaughter. Is the actus reus requirement satisfied by the landlord's failure to act to protect the child? A. Yes B. No

B. No

A, B, C, and D are all adults who can swim. They are on vacation and are at a crowded hotel pool. A is the child's father, and B, C, and D are strangers to the father and child; none of them work at the hotel. As a practical joke, and reasonably believing that the child could swim, B deliberately caused the child to fall into the pool by pushing C against the child. They all knew the child was drowning and knew how to swim, but no one tried to save the child. The child drowned. Has D committed a sufficient actus reus to be held criminally responsible for his child's death? A. Yes B. No

B. No

Does a person suffering from epilepsy act voluntarily during an epileptic seizure? A. Yes B. No

B. No

A prosecutor is trying to determine whether to file a charge of murder based on a depraved heart murder theory, or whether to charge a defendant with involuntary manslaughter. The defendant killed the driver of another vehicle when he wasn't paying attention to the road because he was texting while driving. Which of the following facts would make it more likely for the prosecutor to decide to charge the defendant with murder? A. The defendant was driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. B. The defendant had gotten into an multiple traffic collisions due to texting while driving, and had been warned by a judge that he could kill someone if he didn't stop texting while driving. C. The defendant had recently obtained his driver's license.

B. The defendant had gotten into an multiple traffic collisions due to texting while driving, and had been warned by a judge that he could kill someone if he didn't stop texting while driving.

Assume you are in a common law jurisdiction that follows the majority approach to statutory rape, and where the age of consent is 18 years old for consensual sexual intercourse. David and Vivian had been dating a few months. David was 21 years old, and he believed that Vivian was at least 18 years of age because she was attending West Valley Junior College and she looked like she was over 18 years of age. Unbeknownst to David, Vivian was actually 16 years of age and had skipped two grades in school. Vivian never told David her true age. David and Vivian had sexual intercourse over the course of several months when Vivian was 16 years of age. Vivian's parents found out and complained to the police. Vivian was outraged by what her parents did because she loved David. Vivian testified on his behalf in court that the sexual encounters were consensual.If David were charged with statutory rape of Vivian, which statement is most accurate? David would be: A. acquitted because the alleged victim testified that the intercourse was consensual. B. convicted because David's honest and reasonable mistake of Vivian's age is irrelevant. C. convicted because David's belief that Vivian was sixteen was unreasonable under the circumstances. D. acquitted if the jury believed that David had an honest and reasonable belief that Vivian was at least 18 years of age.

B. convicted because David's honest and reasonable mistake of Vivian's age is irrelevant.

A and B got into an argument one afternoon, and B punched A. Although he could have run away safely, A pulled out a knife and stabbed B ten times, killing him. A is charged with murder but claims that he was acting in self defense. Which of the following would be the prosecution's best argument in a jurisdiction that follows the modern majority rules on self defense? A. Self defense does not apply here because A had a duty to retreat and could have done so safely. B. A cannot claim self defense because he was the initial aggressor. C. Stabbing B ten times was a disproportionate response under these circumstances, so self defense does not apply. D. Self defense does not apply because it was there was no imminent threat of the use of force.

C. Stabbing B ten times was a disproportionate response under these circumstances, so self defense does not apply.

Bob was driving his coworker Sue home from work one day. On the drive, Bob told Sue that he had started earning some supplemental income by selling small amounts of cocaine to friends and acquaintances. He asked if she would be interested in helping him to sell cocaine. Sue said, "yes," but she didn't really mean it—she just didn't want him to feel bad. The next day, Bob brought a few small bags of cocaine to work and gave them to Sue; she put them in her purse, although she wasn't planning to sell them. In a jurisdiction that follows the majority rule for conspiracy, could Bob and Sue be convicted of conspiracy to sell drugs? A. Bob could be convicted of conspiracy to sell drugs, but Sue could not because Bob agreed but Sue did not. B. Bob and Sue could both be convicted of conspiracy to sell drugs because there was an agreement and an overt act. C. Sue could be convicted of conspiracy, but Bob could not because he should be convicted of drug sales rather than conspiracy to sell drugs. D. Neither Bob nor Sue could be convicted of conspiracy to sell drugs because there was no agreement.

D. Neither Bob nor Sue could be convicted of conspiracy to sell drugs because there was no agreement.