Intro. to Criminal Law Quiz Questions

Beardsley's wife goes out of town. Beardsley carries on an affair with a woman who then goes on to drink poison and die—in Beardsley's presence. Beardsley knew what was happening and did nothing to stop her death. Beardsley committed no crime, because his jurisdiction followed the:

American Bystander rule

The ban on ex post facto laws pertains only to the definitions of crimes, not their punishments. For example, if someone committed a crime in 2015, and if the punishment for the crime increased in 2016, and if the offender was convicted in 2017, then the offender can be punished based on the 2016 law. True False

False

Based on pages 47-48 of Samaha: In order to be found "not guilty" in a criminal trial, defendants must always prove their innocence by a preponderance of the evidence. True False

False Response Feedback: Because of the presumption of innocence, criminal defendants don't have to prove anything. It is the prosecution's job to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if a defendant wants to mount an "affirmative defense"--to say, e.g., yes I killed that person but it was in self-defense--then in some jurisdictions (not all) they have to prove that justification defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

Attempt mens rea is the same across all jurisdictions.

False Response Feedback: Samaha does say this is true on page 278. However, Slide 8 uses Mapping American Criminal Law to correct this. It is almost always true; six jurisdictions depart from the general rule of requiring specific intent.

The insanity defense is available in all 50 states.

False Response Feedback: See the Mapping reading selection.

According to the map that appears in the lecture slides, in which of the following states would the mens rea for accomplice liability be satisfied in all four of the scenarios laid out in the previous question?

Ohio

Which type of defense to criminal liability is most like self-defense?

choice-of-evils

The doctrine of ________ refers to how the constitutional limits placed on the federal government became limits on the state governments as well

incorporation See slides 18-19. (Wk 3)

"We note that mere knowledge of a contemplated crime or failure to disclose such information without evidence of any further involvement in the crime does not make that person liable as a party to the crime under any state's statutes" (State v. Ulvinen). The above statement of law is MOST SIMILAR to what other aspect of criminal law?

the American Bystander rule Response Feedback: The quotation provides a statement of law that is basically the opposite of the third and fourth answers, and wholly unrelated to the first one. It's most like the American Bystander rule, because the statement of law says that one does not have responsibility to report or otherwise prevent the harm done by criminal action. The preceding sentence in the opinion is also helpful: "However morally reprehensible it may be to fail to warn someone of their impending death, our statutes do not make such an omission a criminal offense" (249).

Steve fired a gun into a neighborhood home, and he was eventually convicted. The judge sentenced him to 10 years in prison based on applying an existing law to facts that were not determined to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentence exceeded the statutory maximum by two years. The sentence imposed on Steve violates

the Apprendi rule You might have been tempted to choose "the ban on ex post facto laws." But notice that the judge used an existing law. The problem was that the judge based the sentence on facts that weren't found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the judge took into consideration facts that were not declared facts by the jury. See Samaha, page 84.

Which of the following is LEAST related to constitutional limitations on "how behavior can be criminalized"?

the fundamental right to privacy Yes. The right to privacy most directly limits what behavior can be criminalized (NOT behavior protected by the right to privacy), while the other three are all limits on how behavior can be criminalized

Suppose that Jimmy "drives 90 miles an hour on a crowded city street." We can easily say that he's "acting dangerously." However, legally speaking, he may or may not be "driving recklessly with regard to the risk of death or serious injury." It depends whether he "actually, subjectively recognized and shrugged off that risk." If Jimmy "did not consider the possibility of death" and then "kills someone in such a situation, it would be incorrect to say that" he "killed recklessly." In a jury trial, who would decide whether Jimmy considered the possibility that death could result from his actions?

the jury

Criminal omission is a failure to act when:

there is a legal duty to act.

An accomplice to murder is usually held criminally liable:

to the same degree as the person who committed the murder.

Which transfers the actus reus and mens rea of an employee to the employer?

vicarious liability

According to the "reality check" on the module slides, out of every 10,000 convictions in recent years, how many are the outcome of a trial where the prosecutor proves all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

500

Which of the following provides the required mens rea element for accomplice liability in jurisdictions where knowledge alone is NOT sufficient for such liability?

A farmer leases 200 acres of farmland to a renter knowing that she (the farmer) will get a share of the marijuana profits. Response Feedback: All answer choices use some form of "know," so it appears at first glance that none of the answer choices "provide the required mens rea element for accomplice liability in jurisdictions where knowledge alone" is insufficient for such liability. However, while the first three answer choices indicate knowledge of a crime only, the fourth answer choice indicates knowledge not just of a crime, but of benefits of the crime that will accrue to the person leasing the farmland (i.e., purpose, not just knowledge).

In Commonwealth v. Turner (2015), what is the significance of the words "Say no more" according to the judge who wrote the opinion?

As an accomplice to Davis, Turner said "Say no more" in order to prevent Davis from revealing that Davis had a gun, so that Davis could later shoot the victim when the victim wasn't looking.

Which is MOST ADVANTAGEOUS to the prosecutor, assuming the prosecutor wants to secure a guilty verdict?

Defendant has to prove elements of a defense by clear and convincing evidence.

In People v. Goetz (NY, 1986), the key legal issue addressed by the New York Court of Appeals was:

Do the words "reasonable" and "reasonably" in the self-defense statute require triers of fact (e.g., juries) to take into account anything more than what Goetz said he believed about the situation on the subway? Response Feedback: The first and fourth questions are the sort of issues that "triers of fact" (juries, or in bench trials, judges) decide, not appeals courts. The third answer is based on a misconception of what "objective" and "subjective" almost always mean in a criminal law context. And it is definitely not what these words mean in People v. Goetz. The second answer is correct. See the People v. Goetz lecture slides.

The principle of necessity says that one can use lethal force (kill someone) in self-defense only if the other person is trying to kill you. True False

False See Samaha, pages 170-171 ("serious" or "grievous" bodily injury is enough)

According to the Mapping American Criminal Law reading, all states in the USA adhere strictly to the principle of legality. True - False

False See the map on page 38 of Mapping American Criminal Law.

If the defendant had won his appeal in U.S. v. Haynes (1998), the appeals court would have declared Haynes "not guilty" and released him from all criminal liability for the conduct that lead to his conviction. True False

False Response Feedback: If he had won his appeal, Haynes would have been able to offer a "self-defense" defense in the lower (trial) court (see 169-170 of Samaha and/or the slides dedicated to this case in the lecture slides). That is all he was seeking, and under the circumstances, that is the most the appeals court could have given him. If he had won his appeal, the prosecutor might have decided not to try him for the assault. But it would have been the prosecutor's decision at the trial court level, not the judges at the appeals court level.

Bill is leaving work when a co-worker asks him to drop off a package at the post office on his way home. Bill barely knows the person, but he agrees, because the person said it was a gift for his grandmother. Bill stops at the post office to mail what he assumed was a perfectly legal gift. He is met by police officers with drug-sniffing canines who discover the package contains cocaine. TRUE or FALSE: In Pennsylvania and most jurisdictions, Bill could be convicted of drug possession on the basis of the facts just stated. True False

False See Slides 16-17 (wk4)

The void-for-overbreadth doctrine is based on the Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's

First Amendment

Which of the following is FALSE? Omissions can satisfy the actus reus requirement. For criminal liability, every act leading up to the committed crime must be voluntary. The general principle of actus reus includes a voluntary act. Failing to report child abuse may constitute a criminal omission.

For criminal liability, every act leading up to the committed crime must be voluntary.

In State v. King (2015) only one shell casing was found. Concerning the significance of this physical evidence, which of the following is TRUE?

Given other facts of the case, South Carolina Court of Appeals said that a single shot could lead a jury to decide that King did not have a specific intent to kill Brown.

Examine the reading selection Mapping American Criminal Law, pages 20-25. Which of the following is FALSE? Habitual offender statutes provide for various types of life sentences (discretionary, mandatory, life without parole) for repeat offenders. Every state has some sort of habitual offender law. In Pennsylvania, one of the repeat offenses must be a violent crime in order for someone to become subject to the habitual offender law. In most states, people can be sentenced under habitual offender statutes without committing violent crime.

In Pennsylvania, one of the repeat offenses must be a violent crime in order for someone to become subject to the habitual offender law. The map on page 22 of Mapping Am Crim Law is potentially confusing, because Pennsylvania is not in the "Only if violent crimes" category but it's also not in the "Violent crimes not required" category. Instead, it is in the "at least one specifically enumerated offense" category. It's always important to read the text that elaborates the map. Once you do, you learn that a "specifically enumerated offense" is NOT necessarily a violent crime. The key sentence appears in the middle of page 23: "Unlike crimes of violence, which necessarily involve the use or threat of physical force against another person, these specifically enumerated crimes often include burglary, arson, extortion, online enticement of a minor, or drug offenses."

Which of the following is FALSE? The Ignorance Maxim is the presumption that defendants knew the law they violated. Strict liability crimes have no mens rea element. In criminal law, intent and motive mean the same thing. Under the MPC, "purposely" is the level of culpability that is most blameworthy.

In criminal law, intent and motive mean the same thing.

Which of the following statements is TRUE regarding the MPC culpability levels of recklessness and negligence?

Recklessness is about consciously creating risks; negligence is about unconsciously creating risks

What is the topic of 18 C.S. § 301?

Requirement of voluntary act

Which insanity test is used in the most jurisdictions?

Right-wrong test (McNaughtan rule)

Which of the following best represents what is TRUE?

Sanity has to do with the defendant's state of mind at the time the crime was committed, while competence concerns the defendant's state of mind at the time of legal proceedings (e.g., the trial).

Which constitutional right was most recently applied to the states?

Second Amendment (right to bear arms)

When Terrance arrives at the bar, Joe is obviously drunk. Joe wants Terrance to give him a ride to let Joe's dog out. Terrance just arrived and doesn't want to leave, so he lets Joe borrow the car. Joe only lives a mile away. But Joe gets in an accident with another car, killing the driver and a passenger. Referring to the map in the lecture slides, in which state is Terrance MOST LIKELY to be charged and convicted as an accomplice to vehicular homicide?

South Carolina (SC) Response Feedback: For an explanation, see the slide "Understanding knowledge, purpose, and the NPC rule," which is two slides down from the map.

Which insanity test was used in the most jurisdictions at the time John Hinckley, Jr. was tried for shooting President Reagan and others?

Substantial capacity test (MPC) Response Feedback: See Slide 13 and page 212 of Samaha.

Regarding the following statements about the Kansas Supreme Court's majority opinion in State v. Stewart (179-186), which is TRUE?

The Court affirmed the doctrine that the danger met with deadly force must be imminent, even in the case of Battered Woman's Syndrome. Response Feedback: See the second and third lecture slides devoted to this case

The following are the usual four elements of an accessory liability statute. Which of the following includes the actus reus element but excludes any reference to the mens rea element?

The accessory personally aided the person who committed the crime. Response Feedback: The first choice is a mens rea element, the second is a circumstance element, and the fourth states the actus reus in the context of stating the mens rea. The third is the actus reus. See page 251 of Samaha. As noted in the lecture slides, the knowledge element (which is clear in answer choice 1) is basically implied by the "for the purpose of" mens rea element in answer choice 4: One cannot aid another for the purpose of avoiding prosecution unless one knows the person has done something that for which they can be prosecuted.

Which of the following is TRUE about the appeals court opinion in State v. Batie (pages 166-168)?

The appeals court said that the inclusion of the officer's testimony ("proved" statement) was an error but a "harmless" one. Response Feedback: See the lecture slide dedicated to this case

Federal courts have been inconsistent on the issue of whether accomplice mens rea requires purpose or only knowledge.

True

The word "voluntary" has a very different meaning in the "one-voluntary-act-is-enough rule" as compared to in the concept of "voluntary abandonment."

True Response Feedback: See "Defenses to attempt liability, 3" in the lecture slides.

In 17 jurisdictions, mental illness CANNOT be used in a failure-of-proof defense to negate one of the elements of the criminal offense.

True Response Feedback: See the Mapping reading selection.

Even though State v. Stewart the prosecution won the appeal in the case where Peggy Stewart shot her abusive husband while he slept, Peggy Stewart's "not guilty" verdict at trial was not overturned. True False

True Response Feedback: See the first lecture slide devoted to this case.

Which best represents a legal question that an appellate court would decide?

Was there sufficient evidence for a jury to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the offense?

In Commonwealth v. Pestinikas (1992) the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the conviction because it found that the Pestinikas had a legal duty to act based on?

a contract

Jimmy is showing Brian his gun collection. Brian has never handled a gun before, but he takes the gun from Jimmy and asks him if he is sure the gun is unloaded. Jimmy says, yes, that he never puts ammunition in his guns except at the gun range. Brian points the gun out the window of the house and pulls the trigger. The gun fires, and a woman walking by on the sidewalk is shot and killed.

a failure-of-proof defense based on mistake of fact Response Feedback: See Samaha, 151-154. (wk5)

A "three strikes" law is an example of:

a habitual offender statute Connect Ewing v. California (2003), the three-strikes law case in Samaha (80-83) to the Mapping American Criminal Law selection, "Habitual Offender Statutes" (pages 20-25)

Jury nullification is when:

a jury intentionally ignores the facts and/or law when making its decision. Response Feedback: See the lecture slide title: U.S. v. Haynes: a note on "jury nullification"

Participants after the commission of crimes that are carried out by others are known as:

accessories

Which common law term concerning crimes of complicity has the same meaning as the modern law concept of accessory?

accessory after the fact

In the eyes of the criminal law, which is least blameworthy?

accessory liability

Which of the following is NOT an inchoate offense?

accessory-after-the-fact

Participants before and during the commission of crimes that are carried out by others are known as:

accomplices

Review the "Elements of Crime" on page 96 of Samaha in light of the correction to this in the module slides and the Key Terms. Which of the following is present in ALL crimes?

actus reus

Freida has agreed to be a lookout for an after-hours bank heist. Based on that role, Freida could be prosecuted as:

an accomplice

The core element of a conspiracy offense is:

an agreement to commit an offense

Which type(s) of court can issue a "reverse and remand" decision?

any appeals (appellate) court Response Feedback: A module slide contains this question, and the answer

Defendants who receive a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict:

are often sent to mental institutions for many years.

Looking across U.S. jurisdictions, which of the following is most likely to require, for criminal liability, that the actor get close to completing the crime?

attempt

Which of the following is defined most clearly and consistently across jurisdictions?

attempt mens rea

In the 2002 movie starring Tom Cruise, Minority Report, government authorities used cyborgs to predict crime and arrest people before they carried out their intended crimes. That society's principles of criminal liability EXCLUDED which of the following?

both A and B were excluded from that society's principles of criminal liability

In strict liability cases, the prosecution has to prove only that defendants:

committed a voluntary criminal act.

Crimes that are not codified in statutes by state legislatures but rather are based on case law alone (also known as "judge-made law") are known as:

common law crimes

The following is partly a quotation from the Myers case, page 217: Unless otherwise stipulated in statute and case law, "it is within the trial court's discretion whether to order sentences be served concurrently or consecutively." All else being equal, which produces longer sentences?

consecutive sentences Response Feedback: See also Slide 6. (WK7)

"Since the drugs were not found on the appellant's person, the Commonwealth must prove _______ possession. Two elements are essential to such a finding: the power to control and the intent to exercise that control."

constructive Response Feedback: The opening words--"Since the drugs were not found on the appellant's person"--indicates that "actual possession" cannot be proven. Without actual possession, prosecutors must show constructive possession: The defendant (appellant in this case, because the convicted defendant is appealing his conviction) didn't have the drugs on his person, but he still controlled them. Remember that actual an constructive possession are opposites, as are mere and knowing possession.

What is the term for "conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests"?

criminal liability

Which course learning objective is the focus of the Final Paper?

describe and analyze the significance of mens rea elements in substantive criminal law, both in general and in relation to specific criminal offenses

Which defense to criminal liability MOST clearly has an "external" orientation as this term is used in the lecture slides?

duress

If undercover police officers offer enticements or inducements to get persons to commit crimes, this could lead to the defense of:

entrapment

Under which type of defense does the defendant admit that they were wrong but claim that they should not be held criminally responsible for their wrongdoing?

excuse defenses

Under which type of defense does the defendant admit that they were wrong?

excuse defenses

Which type of defense can be successful without the defendant's ever having put forth any evidence?

failure-of-proof defense Response Feedback: See Slide 9. Affirmative defenses require that the defendant put forth some evidence, while in failure-of-proof defenses, the burden rests entirely on the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt--though of course the defendant MAY, and usually does, put forth evidence to mount a failure-of-proof defense.

Illinois' first-degree murder statute begins by stating that "A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder ..." The inclusion of the words "without lawful justification" in this statute makes the defense of justification a(n):

failure-of-proof defense Response Feedback: See Slides 5 and 8

Which of the following is NOT an "affirmative defense"?

failure-of-proof defenses

Refer to [n2] under Slide 18. Using the link below, what is the topic of Section 2903? https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=1

false imprisonment

The void-for-vagueness doctrine places limits on

how behavior can be criminalized See slides, 4 and 10-12. (Week 3)

When applied by courts, the evolving standards test places limits on

how criminalized behavior can be punished See Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), pages 68-71 of Samaha (especially page 70, col. 2 and page 71, col. 1) "col." = column

In State v. King (2015) the South Carolina Court of Appeals had to decide whether "with intent to kill" in the attempted murder statute meant general intent or specific intent. In order to make this decision, the Court focused on:

how the South Carolina courts defined the intent requirement for attempted murder before the Legislature created the statute defining the crime.

In the lecture slides, the hypothetical scenario of an anti-war activist attempting to bomb a Marine recruiting office is used to illustrate:

how the attempt mens rea of specific intent (purposely) affects criminal liability for attempt

In Dabney v. State (2004) the Maryland Special Court of Appeals ruled that attempted fourth-degree burglary:

is an attempt to commit an attempt, which is a non-existent crime.

In general, merely being present at the scene of a crime:

is not sufficient to create accomplice liability.

Under which type of defense does the defendant admit that they did the act in question but not that the act itself was wrong?

justification defenses

According to State v. Burrell, the New Hampshire drinking-and-firing-guns-that-led-to-death-and-manslaughter-conviction case, in crimes that involve the firing of weapons, the voluntary act requirement for criminal liabiility:

need not include the firing of the gun

Different levels of blameworthiness are indicated by different types of intent. Which of the following intent type entails the LEAST amount of culpability?

negligently

Which of these is a defense to attempt liability?

none of the above

Which of the following is a defense to attempt liability that is based on the idea: "I'm not guilty, because extraneous factors interfered

none of the above Response Feedback: Extraneous factors do not provide a defense to attempt liability. A defense of voluntary abandonment will fail if it is shown that extraneous factors, not the defendant's independent desire to quit the criminal attempt, played a role. "General impossibility" is not a legal term for a criminal defense. I omitted "factual impossibility" from the list of choices so as to avoid confusion. But take note: Factual impossibility is not generally a defense at all. To be sure, extraneous factors can make completion of the crime factually impossible, but this is not generally a defense to attempt liability.

Which kind of fault requires no purposeful or conscious bad mind in the actor?

objective fault

In terms of Justice Holmes' kicker/stumbler analogy (discussed in the Samaha chapter and the lecture slides), which punishment philosophy is most likely to advocate punishment for those who truly stumbled?

preventionist slide 7 (WK5)

Specific intent and general intent are concepts from common law. Most attempt liability statutes and case law require specific intent to commit the attempted crime. Compared to the Model Penal Code's degrees of culpability, specific intent is closest in meaning to:

purposely

The "You Decide" on page 137 of Samaha provides an example of how important can be the difference between which two levels of MPC culpability?

purposely and knowingly

A pattern of illegal activity carried out in furtherance of an enterprise owned or controlled by those engaged in the activity is called:

racketeering

Most self-defense statutes require the belief in imminent danger to be honest and:

reasonable

Which of the following forms of MPC intent (levels of culpability) involve both objective and subjective fault?

recklessly

Under current law in all U.S. jurisdictions, which of the following NEVER justifies the use of force against another person?

retaliation

In Robinson v. California (1962), the Supreme Court held that Robinson's conviction must be:

reversed because a person cannot be punished for a status or condition

These words name a constitutional right that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution and that is discussed in detail in the Samaha chapter.

right to privacy

In chapter 3, Samaha gave this definition of elements of a crime: "to convict, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) a criminal act (in all crimes), (2) criminal intent (in some crimes), (3) concurrence (in all crimes), (4) attendant circumstances (in some crimes), and (5) that criminal conduct caused a criminal harm (in bad result crimes only)" (page 96). What did you learn about in chapter 4 that qualifies the "in all crimes" designation for concurrence?

strict liability See Slide 14. Strict liability crimes include no mens rea element. Concurrence means that the mens rea triggered the actus reus. If there are crimes for which there is no mens rea (strict liability crimes), then there must be crimes without "concurrence." See also elements of a crime in the "Key Terms" document for Week 4 (last week), where I covered this point using italics. (WK5)

Recklessness requires offender awareness of substantial and unjustifiable risks. Offender awareness is the _________ component.

subjective fault

When it comes to the beliefs required for justifiable self-defense, "Honest (_____) belief won't do. All statutes also include [a(n)] ______ element that requires that your beliefs are ________" (Samaha)

subjective, objective, reasonable

The following is a quotation from the Myers case, page 215: "It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the offense. ... A reviewing court will reverse only when the evidence is without conflict and leads only to the conclusion that the defendant was insane when the crime was committed." Which is a "trier of fact"?

trial court Response Feedback: Keep in mind that there are two possible triers of fact in a trial court, a jury and a judge. When the trier of fact is a judge, the trial is called a "bench trial"--as opposed to a jury trial. Triers of fact determine what happened and whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.