Crim Law- MBE Questions
Question 115 - In which of the following situations is the defendant most likely to be guilty of common law murder? A: Angered because his neighbor is having a noisy party, the defendant fires a rifle into the neighbor's house. The bullet strikes and kills a guest at the party. B: During an argument, a man slaps the defendant. Angered, the defendant responds by shooting and killing the man. C: The defendant drives his car through a red light and strikes and kills a pedestrian who is crossing the street. D: Using his fist, the defendant punches a man in the face. As a result of the blow, the man falls and hits his head on a concrete curb, suffers a concussion and dies.
The answer is A.
Question 763 - Criminal Law A statute in the jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as knowingly killing another person after deliberation. Deliberation is defined as "cool reflection for any length of time no matter how brief." Murder in the second degree is defined as "all other murder at common law except felony murder." Felony-murder is murder in the third degree. Manslaughter is defined by the common law. 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. The defendant then ran out the back, but upon discovering another police car there, surrendered quietly. One of the shots he fired while in the store struck and killed a burglar who was stealing items from a closed store across the street. The most serious degree of criminal homicide the defendant is guilty of is: A: murder in first degree. B: murder in the second degree. C: murder in the third degree. D: manslaughter.
The answer is B.
Question 942 - Unprepared for a final examination, a student asked his girlfriend to set off the fire alarms in the university building 15 minutes after the test commenced. The girlfriend did so. Several students were injured in the panic that followed as people were trying to get out of the building. The student and the girlfriend are prosecuted for battery and for conspiracy to commit battery. They are A: guilty of both crimes. B: guilty of battery but not guilty of conspiracy. C: not guilty of battery but guilty of conspiracy. D: not guilty of either crime.
The answer is B.
Question 1269 - In a criminal trial, the evidence has shown that the defendant's neighbor entered the defendant's house with a knife and told the defendant that she was going to kill him. The defendant ran to his bedroom, picked up a gun, and told the neighbor to back off. The neighbor did not stop and stabbed the defendant in the arm. The defendant then shot the neighbor twice. The neighbor fell to the floor and lay quietly moaning. After a few seconds, the defendant fired a third shot into the neighbor. The case has gone to the jury, which has thus far found that the neighbor died instantly from the third shot and that the defendant was no longer in fear of being attacked by her when he fired the third shot. Of which of the following degrees of criminal homicide, if any, can the jury properly convict the defendant? A: Attempted murder only. B: Manslaughter only. C: Murder or manslaughter. D: No degree of criminal homicide.
The answer is C.
Question 694 - A defendant entered the county museum at a time when it was open to the public, intending to steal a Picasso etching. Once inside, he took what he thought was the etching from an unlocked display case and concealed it under his coat. However, the etching was a photocopy of an original that had been loaned to another museum. A sign over the display case containing the photocopy said that similar photocopies were available free at the entrance. The defendant did not see the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as "entering a building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime." The defendant is guilty of A: burglary and larceny. B: burglary and attempted larceny. C: larceny. D: attempted larceny.
The answer is C.
Question 505 - During the night, the defendant broke into a house with the intention of stealing a typewriter. On not finding a typewriter, she became angry, poured lighter fluid onto a couch, and set it on fire. The flames destroyed the couch and also burned a portion of the ceiling in the room. In a common-law jurisdiction, the defendant is guilty of A: burglary only. B: arson only. C: burglary and attempted arson. D: burglary and arson.
The answer is D.
Question 2013 - 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. In a jurisdiction that follows the common law of homicide, could the man properly 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.
The correct answer is B
Question 28 - . A state statute divides murder into degrees. First degree murder is defined as murder with premeditation and deliberation or a homicide in the commission of arson, rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping. Second degree murder is all other murder at common law. In which of the following situations is the defendant most likely to be guilty of first degree murder? A: Immediately after being insulted by the victim, the defendant takes a knife and stabs and kills him. B: Angered over having been struck by the victim, the defendant buys rat poison and puts it in the victim's coffee. The victim drinks the coffee and dies as a result C: Intending to injure the victim, the defendant lies in wait and, as the victim comes by, the defendant strikes him with a broom handle. As a result of the blow, the victim dies. D: The defendant, highly intoxicated, discovers a revolver on a table. He picks it up, points it at the victim, and pulls the trigger. The gun discharges, and the victim is killed.
The correct answer is B
Question 1033 - The legislature of a state is debating reforms in the law governing insanity. Two reforms have been proposed. Proposal A would eliminate the insanity defense altogether. Proposal B would retain the defense but place on the defendant the burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Opponents of the reforms argue that the proposals would be unconstitutional under the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Which of the following proposed reforms would be unconstitutional? A: Both proposals. B: Neither proposal. C: Proposal A only. D: Proposal B only.
The correct answer is B.
Question 616 - After waiting until all the customers had left, a man entered a small grocery store just before closing time. He went up to the lone clerk in the store and said, "Hand over all the money in the cash register or you will get hurt." The clerk fainted and struck his head on the edge of the counter. As the man went behind the counter to open the cash register, two customers entered the store. The man ran out before he was able to open the register drawer. On this evidence the man could be convicted of A: robbery. B: assault and robbery. C: attempted robbery. D: assault and attempted robbery.
The correct answer is C.
Question 1159 - On May 1, a car driven by the defendant struck a pedestrian. On July 1, with regard to this incident, the defendant pleaded guilty to reckless driving (a misdemeanor) and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a fine of $1,000. She served the sentence and paid the fine. The following year, on April 1, the pedestrian died as a result of the injuries she suffered in the accident. There is a three-year statue of limitations for manslaughter in this jurisdiction. Two years and 11 months after the pedestrian's death, on March 1, a grand jury indicted the defendant on a charge of manslaughter of the pedestrian. On May 15, trial had not begun and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy in that her conviction of reckless driving arose out of the same incident, and that the statute of limitations for manslaughter had run. The defendant's motion should be: A: granted only on double jeopardy grounds. B: granted only on statute of limitations grounds. C: granted on either double jeopardy grounds or statute of limitations grounds. D: denied on both grounds.
The correct answer is D.
Question 2020 - The question is: A man was charged with first-degree murder. Two lawyers were appointed to represent him because the prosecution planned to seek the death penalty. On the first day of trial, the air-conditioning malfunctioned in the courtroom, so the judge directed that the selection of the jurors take place in his chambers. Because of the large number of potential jurors, the judge directed that only one lawyer for the prosecution and one for the defense participate in the jury selection process. The defendant remained in the courtroom during the questioning of the jurors. Once the jury was selected, the trial was postponed until the next day, when the air-conditioning was again working. Did the court's jury selection process violate the defendant's federal constitutional rights? A: No, because a defendant's confrontation rights are limited to witnesses rather than jurors. B: No, because there was good cause to conduct jury selection outside the defendant's presence. C: Yes, because excluding the defendant undercut the presumption of innocence. D: Yes, because jury selection is a critical stage at which a defendant is entitled to be present.
The correct answer is D.
Question 46 - In which of the following cases is a conviction for robbery LEAST likely to be upheld? A: A defendant forced his way into a woman's home, bound her, and compelled her to tell him that her jewelry was in an adjoining room. The defendant went to the room, took the jewelry and fled. B: A confederate of the defendant pushed a man in order to cause him to lose his balance and drop his briefcase. The defendant picked up the briefcase and ran off with it. C: Having induced a woman to enter his hotel room, the defendant forced her to telephone her maid to tell the maid to bring certain jewelry to the hotel. The defendant locked the woman in the bathroom while he accepted the jewelry from the maid when she arrived. D: The defendant unbuttoned the vest of a man too drunk to notice and removed his wallet. A minute later, the victim missed his wallet and accused the defendant of taking it. The defendant pretended to be insulted, slapped the victim, and went off with the wallet.
The correct answer is D.
Question 883 - The owner of a house told his neighbor that he was going away for two weeks and asked the neighbor to keep an eye on his house. The neighbor agreed. The owner gave the neighbor a key to use to enter the house. The neighbor decided to have a party in the owner's house. He invited a number of friends. One friend, a pickpocket, went into the owner's bedroom, took some of the owner's rings, and put them in his pocket. Which of the following is true? A: The neighbor and the pickpocket are guilty of burglary. B: The neighbor is guilty of burglary and the pickpocket is guilty of larceny. C: The neighbor is guilty of trespass and the pickpocket is guilty of larceny. D: The pickpocket is guilty of larceny and the neighbor is not guilty of any crime.
The correct answer is D.
Question 924 - The police suspected that a 16-year-old high school student had committed a series of burglaries. Two officers went to the student's high school and asked the principal to call the student out of class and to search his backpack. While the officers waited, the principal took the student into the hall where she asked to look in his backpack. When the student refused, the principal grabbed it from him, injuring the student's shoulder in the process. In the backpack, she found jewelry that she turned over to the officers. The officers believed that the jewelry had been taken in one of the burglaries. They arrested the student, took him to the station, and gave him Miranda warnings. The student asked to see a lawyer. The police called the student's parents to the station. When the student's parents arrived, the police asked them to speak with the student. They put him in a room and secretly recorded their conversation with a concealed electronic device. The student broke down and confessed to his parents that he had committed the burglaries. The student was charged with the burglaries. The student moves to suppress the use of the jewelry. The court should A: deny the motion on the ground that the search was incident to a lawful arrest. B: deny the motion on the ground that school searches are reasonable if conducted by school personnel on school grounds on the basis of reasonable suspicion. C: grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted with excessive force. D: grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted without probable cause or a warran
The correct answer is D.
Question 924 - The police suspected that a 16-year-old high school student had committed a series of burglaries. Two officers went to the student's high school and asked the principal to call the student out of class and to search his backpack. While the officers waited, the principal took the student into the hall where she asked to look in his backpack. When the student refused, the principal grabbed it from him, injuring the student's shoulder in the process. In the backpack, she found jewelry that she turned over to the officers. The officers believed that the jewelry had been taken in one of the burglaries. They arrested the student, took him to the station, and gave him Miranda warnings. The student asked to see a lawyer. The police called the student's parents to the station. When the student's parents arrived, the police asked them to speak with the student. They put him in a room and secretly recorded their conversation with a concealed electronic device. The student broke down and confessed to his parents that he had committed the burglaries. The student was charged with the burglaries. The student moves to suppress the use of the jewelry. The court should A: deny the motion on the ground that the search was incident to a lawful arrest. B: deny the motion on the ground that school searches are reasonable if conducted by school personnel on school grounds on the basis of reasonable suspicion. C: grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted with excessive force. D: grant the motion on the ground that the search was conducted without probable cause or a warran
The correct answer is D.
Question 975 - A defendant was prosecuted for selling cocaine to an undercover police agent. At his trial, he testified that he only sold the drugs to the agent, whom the defendant knew as "Speedy," because Speedy had told him that he (Speedy) would be killed by fellow gang members unless he supplied them with cocaine. The prosecution did not cross-examine the defendant. As rebuttal evidence, however, the prosecutor introduced records, over the defendant's objection, showing that he had two prior convictions for narcotics-related offenses. The court instructed the jury concerning the defense of entrapment and added, also over the defendant's objection but in accord with state law, that it should acquit on the ground of entrapment only if it found that the defendant had established the elements of the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant was convicted. On appeal, the defendant's conviction should be A: reversed, because it was an error for the court to admit the evidence of his prior convictions as substantive evidence. B: reversed, because it was a violation of due process to impose on the defense a burden of persuasion concerning entrapment. C: reversed, for both of the above reasons. D: affirmed, because neither of the above reasons constitutes a ground for reversal
The correct answer is D.
Question 539 - A building owner decided to destroy his dilapidated building in order to collect the insurance money. He hired a friend to burn down the building. The friend broke into the building and carefully searched it to make sure no one was inside. He failed, however, to see a vagrant asleep in an office closet. He started a fire. The building was destroyed, and the vagrant died from burns a week later. Two days after the fire, the building owner filed an insurance claim in which he stated that he had no information about the cause of the fire. If the building owner is guilty of a felony-murder, it is because the vagrant's death occurred in connection with the felony of A: Arson. B: Fraud. C: Conspiracy. D: Burglary.
Answer A.
Question 1 - The defendant decided to kill his neighbor. He set out for the neighbor's house. Before he got there he saw a man who resembled the neighbor. Thinking the man was his neighbor, the defendant shot at the man. The shot missed the man but wounded a child, who was some distance away. The defendant had not seen the child. In a prosecution under a statute that proscribes attempt to commit murder, the district attorney should list the intended victim(s) as A: the neighbor only. B: the man only. C: the child only. D: the neighbor and the man.
Answer B.
Question 1003 - In which of the following situations would the defendant's mistake most likely constitute a defense to the crime charged? A: A local ordinance forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 18 years of age. Relying on false identification, the defendant sells champagne to a 16-year-old high school student. The defendant is charged with illegal sale of alcoholic beverages. B: Mistaking the defendant for a narcotics suspect, an undercover police officer attempts to arrest him. The defendant, unaware that the person who has grabbed him is an officer, hits him and knocks him unconscious. The defendant is charged with assault. C: The defendant, aged 23, has sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old prostitute who tells the defendant that she is 18. The defendant is charged with the felony of statutory rape under a statute that makes sexual relations with a child under 16 a felony. D: Relying on erroneous advice from his attorney that, if his wife has abandoned him for more than a year, he is free to remarry. The defendant remarries and is subsequently charged with bigamy.
Answer B.
Question 1042 - At a party, the defendant and the victim agreed to play a game they called "spin the barrel." The victim took an unloaded revolver, placed one bullet in the barrel, and spun the barrel. The victim then pointed the gun at the defendant's head and pulled the trigger once. The gun did not fire. The defendant then took the gun, pointed it at the victim, spun the barrel, and pulled the trigger once. The gun fired, and the victim fell over dead. A statute in the jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as an intentional and premeditated killing or one occurring during the commission of a common-law felony, and murder in the second degree as all other murder at common law. Manslaughter is defined as a killing in the heat of passion upon an adequate legal provocation or a killing caused by gross negligence. The most serious crime for which the defendant can properly be convicted is A: murder in the first degree, because the killing was intentional and premeditated and, in any event, occurred during commission of the felony of assault with a deadly weapon. B: murder in the second degree, because the defendant's act posed a great threat of serious bodily harm. C: manslaughter, because the defendant's act was grossly negligent and reckless. D: no crime, because the victim and the defendant voluntarily agreed to play a game and each assumed the risk of death.
Answer B.
Question 1291 - Four men are being tried for conspiracy to commit a series of bank robberies. Nine successful bank robberies took place during the period of the charged conspiracy. Because the robbers wore masks and gloves and stole the bank surveillance tapes, no witnesses have been able to directly identify the robbers. Some circumstantial evidence ties each of the men to the overall conspiracy. During cross-examination, a prosecution witness testified that one of the men was in jail on other charges during the last six robberies. That man's lawyer has moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case. Should the motion be granted? A: No, because a conspirator is not required to agree to all of the objects of the conspiracy. B: No, because a conspirator need not be present at the commission of each crime conspired upon. C: Yes, provided the defendant has complied with the rule requiring pretrial notice of alibi. D: Yes, regardless of compliance with the alibi rule, because the government is bound by exculpatory evidence elicited during its case in-chief.
Answer B.
Question 2013 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. In a jurisdiction that follows the common law of homicide, could the man properly 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.
Answer B.
Question 236 - The defendant visited a fellow college student in the student's dormitory room. They drank some beer. The student produced a box containing marijuana cigarettes and asked if the defendant wanted one. The defendant, afraid of being caught, declined and urged the student to get rid of the marijuana. The student refused. Shortly thereafter, both went out to get more beer, leaving the door to the student's room standing open. Making an excuse about having dropped his pen, the defendant went back into the student's room. Still apprehensive about their being caught with the marijuana cigarettes, he took the cigarettes and flushed them down the toilet. He was sure the student was too drunk to notice that the cigarettes were missing. The defendant is charged with larceny and burglary (defined in the jurisdiction as breaking and entering the dwelling of another with intent to commit any felony or theft). He should be found guilty of A: burglary only. B: larceny only. C: both burglary and larceny D: neither burglary nor larceny.
Answer B.
Question 451 - The defendant and her friend went into a drugstore, where the defendant reached into the cash register and took out $200. The store owner came out of a back room, saw what had happened, and told the defendant to put the money back. The friend then took a revolver from under his coat and shot and killed the store owner. The defendant claims that the store owner owed her $200 and that she went to the drugstore to try to collect the debt. She said that she asked her friend to come along just in case the store owner made trouble but that she did not plan on using any force and did not know that her friend was armed. If the defendant is prosecuted for murder on the basis of being an accessory to her friend in committing a murder and the jury believes her claim, she should be found A: guilty, because in firing the shot her friend was trying to help her. B: guilty, because she and her friend were acting in concert in a dangerous undertaking. C: not guilty, because she had no idea that her friend was armed and she did not plan to use force. D: not guilty, because she was exercising self-help and did not intend to steal.
Answer C.
Question 441 - The defendant was an alcoholic who frequently experienced auditory hallucinations that commanded him to engage in bizarre and sometimes violent behavior. He generally obeyed their commands. The hallucinations appeared more frequently when he was intoxicated, but he sometimes experienced them when he had not been drinking. After the defendant 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. The defendant believed that he was being unmercifully attacked and heard the hallucinatory voice telling him to strangle his assailant. He did so, and she died. If the defendant is charged with second degree murder, the defendant's best chance of acquittal would be to rely on a defense of A: intoxication. B: lack of malice aforethought. C: self-defense. D: insanity.
Answer D.
Question 700 - A girl told a man she would like to have sexual intercourse with him and that he should come to her apartment that night at 7 p.m. After the man arrived, he and the girl went into the bedroom. As the man started to remove the girl's blouse, the girl said she had changed her mind. The man tried to convince her to have intercourse with him but after ten minutes of her sustained refusals, the man left the apartment. Unknown to the man, the girl was 15 years old. Because she appeared to be older, the man believed her to be about 18 years old. A statute in the jurisdiction provides: "A person commits rape in the second degree if he has sexual intercourse with a girl, not his wife, who is under the age of 16 years." If the man is charged with attempting to violate this statute, he is A: guilty, because no mental state is required as to the element of age. B: guilty, because he persisted after she told him she had changed her mind. C: not guilty, because he reasonably believed she had consented and voluntarily withdrew after she told him she had changed her mind. D: not guilty, because he did not intend to have intercourse with a girl under the age of 16.
Answer D.
Question 437 - An inventor, believing that a woman suffered from arthritis, told her that for $100 he could cure her with a device he had invented. The device was a large box with a series of electric light bulbs along the sides. The woman, after examining the device, agreed to take the treatment, which consisted of placing her hands inside the box for several ten-minute periods. The woman gave the inventor $100 and went through the treatment. The inventor is charged with obtaining money by false pretenses. Each of the following, if true, will absolve the inventor of guilt for obtaining money by false pretenses EXCEPT: A: The inventor honestly believed that the device would cure arthritis, but his belief was unreasonable. B: The woman honestly believed that the device would cure arthritis, but her belief was unreasonable. C: The inventor was playing a practical joke on the woman and intended to return the money. D: The woman was an undercover police officer and did not believe that the device would cure arthritis.
The correct answer is B.
Question 355 - A state statute makes it a felony for any teacher at a state institution of higher education to accept anything of value from a student at the same institution. A student at the state university offered his English teacher $50 in exchange for a good grade in his English course. The teacher agreed and took the money. The teacher and the student are tried jointly for violation of the state statute. The teacher is charged with violating the statute and the student with aiding and abetting him. The student's best argument for a dismissal of the charge against him is that A: a principal and an accessory cannot be tried together, since the principal must be convicted first. B: he cannot be an accessory, since he is the victim of the crime. C: the legislature did not intend to punish the person giving the thing of value. D: he did not assist the teacher in violating the statute.
The correct answer is C.
Question 398 - A defendant held up a gasoline station. During the robbery he shot and killed a customer who attempted to apprehend him. The defendant was prosecuted for premeditated murder and convicted. Thereafter, he was indicted for armed robbery of the station. Before the trial, his attorney moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that further proceedings were unconstitutional because of the defendant's prior conviction. The motion to dismiss should be A: granted, because once the defendant was convicted on any of the charges arising out of the robbery, the prosecution was constitutionally estopped from proceeding against the defendant on any charge stemming from the same transaction. B: granted, because the double jeopardy clause prohibits a subsequent trial on what is essentially a lesser included offense. C: denied, because there is no constitutional requirement that all known charges against the defendant be brought in the same prosecution. D: denied, because estoppel does not apply when the defendant is charged with violating two different statutes.
The correct answer is C.
Question 874 - A defendant was charged with murder. Several witnesses testified that the crime was committed by a person of the defendant's general description who walked with a severe limp. The defendant in fact walks with a severe limp. He objected to a prosecution request that the court order him to walk across the courtroom in order to display his limp to the jury to assist it in determining whether the defendant was the person that the witnesses had seen. The defendant's objection will most likely be A: sustained, because the order sought by the prosecution would violate the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. B: sustained, because the order sought by the prosecution would constitute an illegal search and seizure. C: denied, because the order sought by the prosecution is a legitimate part of a proper courtroom identification process. D: denied, because a criminal defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy.
The correct answer is C.
Question 1051 - A teenager and two of his friends were members of a teenage street gang. While they were returning from a dance late one evening, their car collided with a car driven by an elderly woman. After an argument, the teenager attacked the elderly woman with his fists and beat her to death. The teenager's two friends watched, and when they saw the woman fall to the ground they urged the teenager to flee. The teenager was eventually apprehended and tried for manslaughter, but the jury could not decide on a verdict. If the teenager's companions are subsequently tried as accomplices to manslaughter, they should be A: acquitted, because the teenager was not convicted of the offense. B: acquitted, because they did not assist or encourage the teenager to commit the crime. C: convicted, because they urged him to flee. D: convicted, because they made no effort to intervene.
The correct answer is B.
Question 1277 - A customer asked to see an expensive watch in a jewelry store. In conversation with the clerk, the customer falsely claimed to be the son of the mayor. When handed the watch, he asked if he could put it on, walk around a bit so he could see how it felt on his wrist, and then briefly step outside to observe it in natural light. The clerk agreed, saying, "I know I can trust someone like you with the merchandise." The customer walked out of the store wearing the watch and never returned. A week later, the clerk was at a gathering when she spotted the customer wearing the watch. She told him that he must either pay for the watch or give it back. He hissed, "You'll be sorry if you mess with me." Intimidated, the clerk backed off. The following list of crimes is in descending order of seriousness. What is the most serious crime the customer committed? A: Robbery. B: Larceny. C: False pretenses. D: Embezzlement.
The correct answer is B.
Question 1549 - A state statute divides murder into degrees and defines murder in the first-degree as murder committed willfully with premeditation and deliberation. The statute defines murder in the second-degree as all other murder at common law and defines voluntary manslaughter as at common law. A man hated one of his coworkers. Upon learning that the coworker was at a neighbor's house, the man grabbed his gun and went to the neighbor's house hoping to provoke the coworker into attacking him so that he could then shoot the coworker. After arriving at the house, the man insulted the coworker and bragged that he had had sexual relations with the coworker's wife two weeks earlier. This statement was not true, but it enraged the coworker, who grabbed a knife from the kitchen table and ran toward the man. The man then shot and killed the coworker. What is the most serious homicide offense of which the man could properly be convicted? A: Murder in the first-degree. B: Murder in the second-degree. C: Voluntary manslaughter, because he provoked the coworker. D: No form of criminal homicide, because he acted in self-defense
The answer is A.
Question 696 - A bank teller was fired by the president of a bank. The teller wanted to take revenge against the president, but decided against attempting it personally, because he knew the president was protected around the clock by bank security guards. The teller knew a man who had a violent temper and was very jealous. The teller falsely told the man that the man's wife was having an affair with the bank president. Enraged, the man said, "What am I going to do?" The teller said, "If it were my wife, I'd just march into his office and blow his brains out." The man grabbed a revolver and rushed to the bank. He walked into the bank, carrying the gun in his hand. One of the security guards, believing a holdup was about to occur, shot and killed the man. If charged with murder of the man, the teller should be found A: guilty, based upon extreme recklessness. B: guilty, based upon transferred intent. C: not guilty, because he did not intend for the man to be shot by the security guard. D: not guilty, because he did not shoot the man, and he was not acting in concert with the security guard.
The answer is A.
Question 937 - A defendant was upset because he was going to have to close his liquor store due to competition from a discount store in a new shopping mall nearby. In desperation, he decided to set fire to his store to collect the insurance. While looking through the basement for flammable material, he lit a match to read the label on a can. The match burned his finger and, in a reflex action, he dropped the match. It fell into a barrel and ignited some paper. The defendant could have put out the fire, but instead left the building because he wanted the building destroyed. The fire spread and the store was destroyed by fire. The defendant was eventually arrested and indicted for arson. The defendant is A: guilty, because he could have put out the fire before it spread and did not do so because he wanted the building destroyed. B: guilty, because he was negligent in starting the fire. C: not guilty, because even if he wanted to burn the building there was no concurrence between his mens rea and the act of starting the fire. D: not guilty, because his starting the fire was the result of a reflex action and not a voluntary act.
The answer is A.
Question 361 - A grand jury was investigating a bank robbery. The only information known to the prosecutor was a rumor that the defendant might have been involved. The grand jury subpoenaed the defendant. He refused to answer questions about the robbery and was granted use immunity. He then testified that he and his friend had robbed the bank. The grand jury indicted both the defendant and his friend for the bank robbery. The prosecutor permitted the friend to enter a plea to a lesser offense in exchange for the friend's agreement to testify against the defendant. The prosecutor had no evidence as to the identity of the robbers except the testimony of the friend and the defendant. At the defendant's trial, his objection to the friend being permitted to testify should be A: sustained, because the prosecutor may not bargain away the rights of one codefendant in a deal with another. B: sustained, because the friend's testimony was acquired as a result of the defendant's grand jury testimony. C: overruled, because the police suspected the defendant even before he testified in the grand jury hearing. D: overruled, because a witness cannot be precluded from testifying if his testimony is given voluntarily.
The correct answer is B.
Question 946 - In which of the following situations is the defendant most likely to be convicted, even though he did not intend to bring about the harm that the statute defining the offense is designed to prevent? A: The defendant was the president of an aspirin manufacturing company. A federal inspector discovered that a large number of aspirin tablets randomly scattered through several bottles in a carton ready for shipment were laced with arsenic. The defendant is charged with attempted introduction of adulterated drugs into interstate commerce. B: The defendant struck the victim in the face with a baseball bat, intending to inflict a serious injury. The victim died after being hospitalized for three days. The defendant is charged with murder. C: The defendant burglarized a jewelry store, intending to steal some diamonds. As he entered the store, he short-circuited the store's burglar alarm system, thereby preventing a warning of his entry to police. The smoldering wires eventually caused a fire that destroyed the store. The defendant is charged with arson. D: The defendant wanted to frighten the victim's friend by placing a plastic rattlesnake in his lunch box. When the victim mistakenly took the lunch box and opened it, believing it to be his own, the plastic rattlesnake popped out. As a result of the fright, the victim suffered a heart attack and died. The defendant is charged with manslaughter.
The answer is B
Question 1510 -: A woman charged with murder has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. At her trial, in which the questions of guilt and sanity are being tried together, the evidence shows that the woman stalked the victim for several hours before following him to an isolated hiking trail where she shot and killed him. Expert witnesses for the defense have testified that the woman knew that killing was illegal and wrong, but that she suffered from a serious mental illness that left her in the grip of a powerful and irresistible compulsion to kill the victim. If the jury believes the testimony of the defense experts, under what circumstances could the jury properly acquit the woman of murder? A: Only if the jurisdiction follows the M'Naghten test for insanity. B: Only if the jurisdiction follows the Model Penal Code test for insanity. C: If the jurisdiction follows either the M'Naghten or the Model Penal Code test for insanity. D: Even if the jurisdiction has abolished the insanity defense.
The answer is B.
Question 336 - A man suffered from the delusion that he was a special agent of God. He frequently experienced hallucinations in the form of hearing divine commands. The man believed God told him several times that the local Roman Catholic bishop was corrupting the diocese into heresy, and that the bishop should be "done away with." The man, a devout Catholic, conceived of himself as a religious martyr. He knew that shooting bishops for heresy is against the criminal law. He nevertheless carefully planned how he might kill the bishop. One evening the man shot the bishop, who was taken to the hospital where he died two weeks later. The man told the police he assumed the institutions of society would support the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and he expected to be persecuted for his God-inspired actions. A psychiatrist examined the man and found that the man suffered from schizophrenic psychosis, that in the absence of this psychosis he would not have shot the bishop, and that because of the psychosis the man found it extremely difficult to determine whether he should obey the specific command that he do away with the bishop or the general commandment "Thou shalt not kill." The man was charged with murder. If the man interposes an insanity defense, and the jurisdiction in which he is tried has adopted only the M'Naughten test of insanity, then the strongest argument for the defense under that test is that A: the man did not know the nature of the act he was performing. B: the man did not know that his act was morally wrong. C: the man did not know the quality of the act he was performing. D: the man's acts were the product of a mental disease.
The answer is B.
Question 656 In which of the following cases is the defendant most likely to be convicted if she is charged with receiving stolen property? A: The defendant bought a car from a man, who operates a used car lot. Before the purchase, the man told the defendant that the car had been stolen, which was true. Unknown to the defendant, the man is an undercover police agent who is operating the lot in cooperation with the police in exchange for leniency in connection with criminal charges pending against him. B: The defendant bought a car from a man. Before the purchase, the man told the defendant that the car was stolen. The man had stolen the car with the help of his friend, who, unknown to the defendant or the man, was an undercover police agent who feigned cooperation with the man in the theft of the car. C: The defendant bought a car from a man. Before the purchase, the man told the defendant that the car was stolen. Unknown to the defendant, the man had stolen the car from a parking lot and had been caught by the police as he was driving it away. He agreed to cooperate with the police and carry through with his prearranged sale of the car to the defendant. D: The defendant bought a car from a man. Before the purchase, the man told the defendant that the car was stolen. Unknown to the defendant, the man was in fact the owner of the car but had reported it as stolen and had collected on a fraudulent claim of its theft from his insurance company.
The answer is B.
Question 138 - The defendant became intoxicated at a bar. He got into his car and drove away. Within a few blocks, craving another drink, he stopped his car in the middle of the street, picked up a brick, and broke the display window of a liquor store. As he was reaching for a bottle, the night watchman arrived. Startled, the defendant turned and struck the watchman on the head with the bottle, killing him. Only vaguely aware of what was happening, the defendant returned to his car, consumed more liquor, and then drove off at a high speed. He ran a red light and struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the street. Relevant statutes define burglary to include "breaking and entering a building not used as a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein." Manslaughter is defined as the "killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." Criminal recklessness is defined as "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." Murder is defined as the "the premeditated and intentional killing of another or the killing of another during the commission of a rape, robbery, burglary, or arson." Another statute provides that intoxication is not a defense to a crime unless it negates an element of the offense. The defendant was charged with the murder of the watchman and manslaughter of the pedestrian. Assume that he is tried separately on each charge. The state's best argument to counter the defendant's argument that he was too intoxicated to realize he was creating a substantial risk in the way that he drove his car is that A: intoxication is no defense to the crime charged, because manslaughter is historically a general intent crime. B: intoxication is a defense only to a specific intent crime, and no specific intent is involved in the definition of the crime of manslaughter. C: conscious risk-taking refers to the defendant's entire course of conduct, including drinking with the knowledge that he might become intoxicated and seriously injure or kill someone while driving. D: whether the defendant was intoxicated or not is not the crucial issue here; the real issue is whether the manner in which the defendant was operating his car can be characterized under the facts as criminally reckless.
The answer is C.
Question 182 - A man and a woman planned to break into a federal government office to steal food stamps. The man telephoned an associate one night and asked whether the associate wanted to buy some "hot" food stamps. The associate, who understood that "hot" meant stolen, said, "Sure, bring them right over." The man and the woman then successfully executed their scheme. That same night they delivered the food stamps to the associate, who bought them for $500. The associate did not ask when or by whom the stamps were stolen. All three were arrested. The man and the woman entered guilty pleas in federal court to a charge of larceny in connection with the theft. The associate was brought to trial in the state court on a charge of conspiracy to steal food stamps. On the evidence stated, the associate should be found A: guilty, because when a new confederate enters a conspiracy already in progress, he becomes a party to it. B: guilty, because he knowingly and willingly aided and abetted the conspiracy and is chargeable as a principal. C: not guilty, because, although the associate knew the stamps were stolen, he neither helped to plan nor participated or assisted in the theft. D: not guilty, because the man and woman had not been convicted of or charged with conspiracy, and the associate cannot be guilty of conspiracy by himself.
The answer is C.
Question 50 - A homeowner met a man, who was known to him to be a burglar, in a bar. The homeowner told the man that he needed money. He promised to pay the man $500 if the man would go to the homeowner's house the following night and take some silverware. The homeowner explained to the man that, although the silverware was legally his, his wife would object to his selling it. The homeowner pointed out his home, one of a group of similar tract houses. He drew a floor plan of the house that showed the location of the silverware. The homeowner said that his wife usually took several sleeping pills before retiring, and that he would make sure that she took them the next night. He promised to leave a window unlocked. Everything went according to the plan except that the man, deceived by the similarity of the tract houses, went to the wrong house. He found a window unlocked, climbed in and found silver where the homeowner had indicated. He took the silver to the cocktail lounge where the payoff was to take place. At that point, police arrested the two men. The man's best argument for acquittal of burglary is that he A: acted under a mistake of law. B: had the consent of the owner. C: reasonably thought he was in the homeowner's house. D: found the window unlocked.
The answer is C.
Question 519: The defendant was charged with the murder of his wife. In his defense, he testified that at the time he killed her he believed that his wife was planning to destroy the world by detonating a massive explosive device that she had developed and built in the basement of their home. He further testified that he had tried many times to dissuade his wife from her plan and had tried to destroy devices that she stored in the basement. She had, he testified, foiled his efforts by, on two occasions, signing papers for his hospitalization, which lasted for a brief period each time. He said that he had concluded that the only way to prevent her scheme was to kill her and that he had become so obsessed with the importance of doing so that he could think of nothing else. One day when he saw her open the door to the basement he lunged at her and pushed her down the steps to her death. The best defense raised by the defendant's testimony is A: lack of the requisite mental element. B: lack of the requisite act element. C: insanity. D: belief that the situation justified his actions.
The answer is C.
Question 2011 - The owner of a meatpacking company was charged under a state criminal code prohibiting the sale of contaminated meat. The state's highest court has construed the code as imposing strict and vicarious liability to the extent allowed by the federal Constitution. The evidence at trial established that the owner's company had sold contaminated meat that had sickened hundreds of consumers. It further showed, however, that the owner had been out of the country when the meat was sold and had no reason to know that any of the meat was contaminated. The jury convicted the owner, and the court sentenced him to a large fine and probation. On appeal, the owner has challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence. Should the appellate court uphold the conviction? A: No, because there was insufficient proof of the owner's actus reus. B: No, because there was insufficient proof of the owner's mens rea. C: Yes, because an appellate court cannot second-guess a jury's verdict. D: Yes, because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The answer is D.
Question 497 - A statute in a jurisdiction makes it a crime to sell ammunition to a minor (defined as a person under the age of eighteen). The courts have interpreted this statute as creating a strict liability offense that does not require knowledge of the age of the purchaser and as creating vicarious liability. A minor, who was sixteen years old, but looked four or five years older, entered a store and asked a clerk for a box of .22 caliber shells. The store owner had instructed her employees not to sell ammunition to minors. The clerk asked the minor his age. The minor said he was twenty. The clerk then placed a box of shells on the counter and asked, "Anything else?" The minor said that was all he wanted but then discovered he did not have enough money to pay for the shells, so the clerk put the box back onto the shelf. If the owner of the store is charged with attempting to violate the statute, her best argument would be that A: it was impossible for the sale to have occurred. B: she had strictly instructed her employees not to sell ammunition to minors. C: the minor lied about his age. D: the clerk did not have the mental state needed for attempt.
The answer is D.
Question 903 - A defendant, in desperate need of money, decided to hold up a local convenience store. Determined not to harm anyone, he carried a toy gun that resembled a real gun. In the store, he pointed the toy gun at the clerk and demanded money. A customer who entered the store and saw the robbery in progress pulled his own gun and fired at the defendant. The bullet missed the defendant but struck and killed the clerk. The defendant was charged with felony murder. His best argument for being found NOT guilty is that he A: did not intend to kill. B: did not commit the robbery because he never acquired any money from the clerk. C: did not intend to create any risk of harm. D: is not responsible for the acts of the customer.
The answer is D.
Question 1133 - A teenager's high school teacher told her that she was going to receive a failing grade in history, which would prevent her from graduating. Furious, she reported to the principal that the teacher had fondled her, and the teacher was fired. A year later, still unable to get work because of the scandal, the teacher committed suicide. The teenager, remorseful, confessed that her accusation had been false. If the teenager is charged with manslaughter, her best defense would be that she A: committed no act that proximately caused the teacher's death. B: did not intend to cause the teacher's death. C: did not act with malice. D: acted under extreme emotional distress.
The correct answer is A.
Question 1242 - State troopers lawfully stopped a car driver on a turnpike for exceeding the speed limit by four miles per hour. One trooper approached the car to warn the driver to drive within the speed limit. The other trooper remained in the patrol car and ran a computer check of the car's license number. The computer check indicated that there was an outstanding warrant for the driver's arrest for unpaid traffic tickets. The troopers then arrested the driver based on the warrant, and they proceeded to search the driver. During the search, they discovered a package of heroin in one of the driver's pockets. Later, it was learned that the driver had paid the outstanding traffic tickets 10 days earlier and that the warrant had been quashed, but the clerk of the court had failed to update the computer, which continued to list the warrant as outstanding. The driver was charged with unlawful possession of heroin. Her attorney has filed a motion to suppress the use of the heroin as evidence. Should the motion be granted? A: No, because the troopers could reasonably rely on the computer report and the search was incident to arrest. B: No, because troopers may lawfully search a driver incident to a valid traffic stop. C: Yes, because there was no arrest for the traffic violation and no lawful arrest could be made on the basis of the warrant. D: Yes, because there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver possessed drugs.
The correct answer is A.
Question 1600 - A police officer had a hunch, not amounting to probable cause or reasonable suspicion, that a man was a drug dealer. One day while the officer was on highway patrol, her radar gun clocked the man's car at 68 mph in an area where the maximum posted speed limit was 65 mph. The officer's usual practice was not to stop a car unless it was going at least 5 mph over the posted limit, but contrary to her usual practice, she decided to stop the man's car in the hope that she might discover evidence of drug dealing. After she stopped the car and announced that she would be writing a speeding ticket, the officer ordered the man and his passenger to step out of the car. When the passenger stepped out, the officer saw that the passenger had been sitting on a clear bag of what the officer immediately recognized as marijuana. The officer arrested both the man and the passenger for possession of marijuana. At their joint trial, the man and the passenger claim that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the officer improperly (1) stopped the car for speeding as a pretext for investigating a hunch rather than for the stated purpose of issuing a traffic ticket and (2) ordered the passenger to step out of the car even though there was no reason to believe that the passenger was a criminal or dangerous. Are the man and the passenger correct? A: No, as to both the stop of the car and the officer's order that the passenger step out of the car. B: No as to the stop of the car, but yes as to the officer's order that the passenger step out of the car. C: Yes as to the stop of the car, but no as to the officer's order that the passenger step out of the car. D: Yes, as to both the stop of the car and the officer's order that the passenger step out of the car.
The correct answer is A.
Question 365 - A defendant was driving through an apartment building area plagued with an unusually high incidence of burglaries and assaults. Acting pursuant to a police department plan to combat crime by randomly stopping automobiles in the area between midnight and 6:00 a.m., a police officer stopped the defendant and asked him for identification. As the defendant handed the officer his license, the officer directed a flashlight into the automobile and saw what appeared to be the barrel of a shotgun protruding from under the front seat on the passenger side of the car. The officer ordered the defendant from the car, searched him, and discovered marijuana cigarettes and a shotgun. At the defendant's trial for unlawful possession of narcotics, his motion to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence should be A: sustained, because the marijuana was discovered as a result of the unlawful stopping of the defendant's automobile. B: sustained, because the use of the flashlight constituted a search of the interior of the defendant's automobile without probable cause. C: denied, because the officer's conduct was consistent with the established police plan. D: denied, because the discovery of the gun in plain view created the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the arrest and search of the defendant.
The correct answer is A.
Question 787 - A defendant was charged with the murder of a man who had been strangled and whose body was found in some woods near his home. The defendant suffers from a neurological problem that makes it impossible for him to remember an occurrence for longer than 48 hours. After the defendant was charged, the police visited him and asked if they might search his home. The defendant consented. The police found a diary written by the defendant. An entry dated the same day as the victim's disappearance read, "Indescribable excitement. Why did no one ever tell me that killing gave such pleasure to the master?" The defendant was charged with murder. His attorney has moved to exclude the diary from evidence on the ground that its admission would violate the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. Counsel has also argued that the defendant could not give informed consent to the search because more than 48 hours had passed since the making of the entry and hence he could not remember the existence of the incriminating entry at the time he gave his consent. There is no evidence that the police officers who secured the defendant's consent to the search were aware of his memory impairment. With regard to the diary, the court should A: admit it, because the defendant's consent was not obtained by intentional police misconduct and the defendant was not compelled to make the diary entry. B: admit it, pursuant to the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. C: exclude it, because the defendant was not competent to consent to a search. D: exclude it, because use of the diary as evidence would violate the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination
The correct answer is A.
Question 1033 - The legislature of a state is debating reforms in the law governing insanity. Two reforms have been proposed. Proposal A would eliminate the insanity defense altogether. Proposal B would retain the defense but place on the defendant the burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Opponents of the reforms argue that the proposals would be unconstitutional under the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Which of the following proposed reforms would be unconstitutional? A: Both proposals. B: Neither proposal. C: Proposal A only. D: Proposal B only
The correct answer is B.
Question 749 - A statute provides: A person commits the crime of rape if he has sexual intercourse with a female, not his wife, without her consent. A man is charged with the rape of a woman. At trial, the woman testifies to facts sufficient for a jury to find that the man had sexual intercourse with her, that she did not consent, and that the two were not married. The man testifies in his own defense that he believed she consented to sexual intercourse and that she was his common-law wife. At the conclusion of the case, the court instructed the jury that in order to find the man guilty of rape, it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he had sexual intercourse with the woman without her consent. The court also instructed the jury that it should find the defendant not guilty if it found either that the woman was the man's wife or that the man reasonably believed that the woman had consented to the sexual intercourse, but that the burden of persuasion as to these issues was on the defendant. The jury found the man guilty, and the man appealed, contending that the court's instructions on the issues of whether the woman was his wife and whether he reasonably believed she had consented violated his constitutional rights. The man's constitutional rights were A: violated by the instructions as to both issues. B: violated by the instruction as to whether the woman was his wife, but not violated by the instruction on belief as to consent. C: violated by the instruction on belief as to consent, but not violated by the instruction as to whether the woman was his wife. D: not violated by either part of the instructions.
The correct answer is B.
Question 909 - An employee worked at a day-care center run by the Happy Faced Day Care Corporation. At the center, one of the young children often arrived with bruises and welts on his back and legs. A statute in the jurisdiction requires all day-care workers to report to the police cases where there is probable cause to suspect child abuse and provides for immediate removal from the home of any suspected child abuse victims. The employee was not aware of this statute. Nevertheless, he did report the child's condition to his supervisor, who advised him to keep quiet about it so the day-care center would not get into trouble for defaming a parent. About two weeks after the employee first noticed the child's condition, the child was beaten to death by his father. The employee has been charged with murder in the death of the child. The evidence at trial disclosed, in addition to the above, that the child had been the victim of beatings by the father for some time, and that these earlier beatings had been responsible for the marks that the employee had seen. The child's mother had been aware of the beatings but had not stopped them because she was herself afraid of the child's father. The employee's best argument that he is NOT guilty of murder is A: he was not aware of the duty-to-report statute. B: he lacked the mental state necessary to the commission of the crime. C: his omission was not the proximate cause of death. D: the day-care corporation, rather than the employee, was guilty of the omission, which was sanctioned by its supervisory-level agent.
The correct answer is B.
Question 1479 - A defendant was tried for armed robbery. The state introduced evidence that a man, identified by witnesses as the defendant, entered a convenience store at 11 p.m. on March 5, threatened the clerk with a gun, and took $75 from the cash register. The defendant did not testify, but his sister did. She testified that on March 5, at the time of the robbery, the defendant was with her in a city 300 miles away. On cross-examination, the sister admitted having given a statement to the police in which she had said that the defendant was not with her on March 5, but she claimed that the earlier statement was mistaken. The court instructed the jury that in order to convict the defendant, they had to find all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the defendant's claim of alibi, which of the following additional instructions would be proper? A: Alibi is a matter of defense and so must be established by the defendant; however, the burden of persuasion is by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. B: Before you may consider the defendant's claim of alibi, you must decide whether he has produced sufficient evidence to raise the issue. C: If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the convenience store at about 11 p.m. on March 5, you must find him not guilty. D: If the defendant's evidence has caused you to have a reasonable doubt as to whether he was the robber, you must find him not guilty.
The correct answer is C
Question 1028 - An executive director of an equal housing opportunity organization was the leader of a sit-in at the offices of a real estate management company. The protest was designed to call attention to the company's racially discriminatory rental practices. When police demanded that the executive director desist from trespassing on the company's property, she refused and was arrested. In the executive director's trial for trespass, the prosecution peremptorily excused all non-whites from the jury, arguing to the court that even though the executive director was white, minority groups would automatically support her because of her fight against racism in housing accommodations. If the executive director is convicted of trespass by an all-white jury and appeals, claiming a violation of her constitutional rights, the court should A: affirm the conviction, because the executive director was not a member of the class discriminated against. B: affirm the conviction, because peremptory challenge of the non-whites did not deny the executive director the right to an impartial jury. C: reverse the conviction, because racially based peremptory challenges violate equal protection of the law. D: reverse the conviction, because the executive director was denied the right to have her case heard by a fair cross section of the community.
The correct answer is C.
Question 1426 - A defendant was charged with attempted murder. At the preliminary hearing, the presiding judge heard the testimony of four prosecution witnesses and found that the prosecution had failed to establish probable cause that the defendant had committed any offense. Accordingly, he dismissed the charge. The prosecutor then called the same four witnesses before a grand jury. The grand jury indicted the same defendant for attempted murder. The defendant has moved to quash the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy. How should the court proceed? A: Grant the motion, because the dismissal of the first charge on the merits, whether correct or incorrect, bars any further prosecution. B: Grant the motion, unless the prosecution has evidence that was not presented in the first case. C: Deny the motion, because the defendant has not yet been in jeopardy of conviction on the attempted murder charge. D: Deny the motion, because the protection of the double jeopardy clause does not come into play until there has been a conviction or an acquittal.
The correct answer is C.
Question 92 - Suspecting that students were using narcotics, the president of a private college arranged for local police to place concealed microphones in several suites of the dormitory. Using these microphones, the college security officers recorded a conversation in which the defendant, a student, offered to sell marijuana to another student. The tape was turned over to the local police, who played it for a local judge. The judge issued a warrant to search the defendant's room. The room was searched by police, and marijuana was discovered. The defendant is charged with unlawful possession of narcotics. At trial, the defendant's motion to prevent the introduction of the marijuana into evidence will most probably be A: denied, because the college president, in loco parentis, had the responsibility of preventing unlawful activity by students under the president's supervision. B: denied, because there was probable cause to make the search and police obtained a warrant before commencing the search. C: granted, because the defendant's privacy was unreasonably invaded. D: granted, because the electronic surveillance was "fundamentally unfair."
The correct answer is C.
Question 619 - Police received information from an undercover police officer that she had just seen two men (whom she described) in a red pickup truck selling marijuana to schoolchildren near the city's largest high school. A few minutes later, two police officers saw a pickup truck fitting the description a half block from the high school. The driver of the truck matched the description of one of the men described by the undercover officer. The only passenger was a young woman who was in the back of the truck. The police saw her get out and stand at a nearby bus stop. They stopped the truck and searched the driver. In the pocket of the driver's jacket, the police found a small bottle of pills that they recognized as narcotics. They then broke open a locked toolbox attached to the flatbed of the truck and found a small sealed envelope inside. They opened it and found marijuana. They also found a quantity of cocaine in the glove compartment. After completing their search of the driver and the truck, the police went over to the young woman and searched her purse. In her purse, they found a small quantity of heroin. Both the driver and the young woman were arrested and charged with unlawful possession of narcotics. If the driver moves to suppress the use as evidence of the marijuana and cocaine found in the search of the truck, the court should A: grant the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine. B: grant the motion as to the marijuana but deny it as to the cocaine. C: deny the motion as to the marijuana but grant it as to the cocaine. D: deny the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine.
The correct answer is D
Question 1072 - In a jurisdiction that has abolished the felony-murder rule, but otherwise follows the common law of murder, a man and woman, both armed with automatic weapons, went into a bank to rob it. The man ordered all the persons in the bank to lie on the floor. When some were slow to obey, the woman, not intending to hit anyone, fired about 15 rounds into the air. One of these ricocheted off a stone column and struck and killed a customer in the bank. The man and woman were charged with murder of the customer. Which of the following is correct? A: The woman can be convicted of murder, because she did the act of killing, but the man cannot be convicted of either murder or manslaughter. B: Neither can be guilty of murder, but both can be convicted of manslaughter based upon an unintentional homicide. C: The woman can be convicted only of manslaughter, but the man cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter. D: Both can be convicted of murder.
The correct answer is D.
Question 1164 - FBI agents, without a warrant and without permission of Mexican law enforcement or judicial officers, entered Mexico, kidnapped an American citizen wanted in the United States for drug smuggling violations, and forcibly drove him back to Texas. Thereafter, the agents, again without a warrant, broke into the Texas home of a woman wanted as a confederate of the kidnapped person, and arrested her. The kidnapped person and the woman were both indicted for narcotics violations. Both moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that their arrests violated the Fourth Amendment. The court should A: grant the motions of both the kidnapped person and the woman. B: grant the motion of the kidnapped person and deny the motion of the woman. C: grant the motion of the woman and deny the motion of the kidnapped person. D: deny the motions of both the kidnapped person and the woman.
The correct answer is D.
Question 259 - The question is: While the defendant was in jail on a pending charge, his landlord called the police because rent had not been paid and because he detected a disagreeable odor coming from the defendant's apartment into the hallways. The police officer who responded to the call knew that the defendant was in jail. He recognized the stench coming from the defendant's apartment as that of decomposing flesh and, without waiting to obtain a warrant and using the landlord's passkey, entered the apartment with the landlord's consent. The lease to these premises gave the landlord a right of entry, at any reasonable hour, for the purpose of making repairs. The police officer found a large trunk in the bedroom which seemed to be the source of the odor. Upon breaking it open, he found the remains of the defendant's former mistress. The landlord's consent to the police officer's search of the defendant's apartment is A: a waiver of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, because a landlord has implied consent to enter a tenant's apartment. B: a waiver of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, because the lease gave the landlord express authority to enter the premises. C: not a waiver of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, because the landlord lacked probable cause to believe a crime was then in the process of commission. D: not a waiver of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, because the landlord had neither actual nor apparent authority to permit the entry.
The correct answer is D.
Question 1416 - A store owner whose jewelry store had recently been robbed was shown by a police detective a photograph of the defendant, who previously had committed other similar crimes. The store owner examined the photograph and then asked the detective whether the police believed that the man pictured was the robber. After the detective said, "We're pretty sure," the store owner stated that the man in the photograph was the one who had robbed her. The defendant was indicted for the robbery. His counsel moved to suppress any trial testimony by the store owner identifying the defendant as the robber. Should the court grant the motion and suppress the store owner's trial testimony identifying the defendant as the robber? A: No, because suppression of in-court testimony is not a proper remedy, even though the out-of-court identification was improper. B: No, because the out-of-court identification was not improper. C: Yes, because the improper out-of-court identification has necessarily tainted any in-court identification. D: Yes, unless the prosecution demonstrates that the in-court identification is reliable
The correct answer is D. T
