Criminal law MBE questions

One night, while waiting to cross an intersection, a cowboy suddenly felt someone grab his shoulder and turn him around. The accoster mistook the cowboy for a man who had bullied the accoster in high school. The accoster decided to scare the cowboy, and so he pulled a large hammer out of his tool belt and screamed that he was going to smash the cowboy's skull. The cowboy was terrified and reasonably believed that the accoster would kill him if the cowboy did not stop him. Not knowing what else to do, the cowboy took a gun out of one of his holsters and fatally shot the accoster.The cowboy is charged with murder. If the cowboy claims self-defense, is he likely to be acquitted? A Yes, because the cowboy had a reasonable belief that the accoster was going to kill him. B Yes, because the accoster sufficiently provoked the cowboy, justifying the killing. C No, because the cowboy was wrong in believing that the accoster intended to kill him. D No, because the cowboy did not attempt to retreat before shooting the accoster.

A Yes, because the cowboy had a reasonable belief that the accoster was going to kill him. Answer choice A is correct. Deadly force is justified in self-defense when the defendant reasonably believes danger of death or serious bodily harm is immediate. Here, the cowboy possessed both the actual and reasonable fear of immediate death or serious bodily harm necessary to justify his use of deadly force in self-defense. Answer choice B is incorrect because it references the standard for voluntary manslaughter, which is not a self-defense claim. Answer choice C is incorrect because a claim of self-defense requires only a reasonable belief of imminent harm. It does not require proof that the attacker had the actual intention to kill the defendant. Answer choice D is incorrect because no duty to retreat before using deadly force exists under the majority view.

A teenager walking down the sidewalk noticed that a car had been left unlocked with the engine running. The car's owner, a security guard, had parked the car beside the curb in front of his house in order to run in and get a pistol, which he was licensed to carry. As the owner came out his front door with the pistol, the teenager was opening the driver's door. The owner warned the teenager not to enter the car or he would shoot the teenager. The teenager ignored the warning. The owner shot and seriously injured the teenager. The owner has been charged with aggravated battery, which includes battery committed with a deadly weapon.Can the owner successfully assert defense of property as a justification for the shooting? A No, because the owner used deadly force. B No, because the owner was negligent in leaving the car running. C Yes, because the owner reasonably believed that the teenager was about to steal his car. D Yes, because the owner warned the teenager before using force against the teenager.

A, No, because the owner used deadly force. choice A is correct. Generally, deadly force may not be used in the defense of property. Here, the owner was not permitted to use deadly force to prevent the teenager from entering the car. Answer choice B is incorrect because the owner's right to use force to prevent the theft of his property is not lessened by his failure to take precautionary measures to prevent the theft. However, the owner's right to use force to protect his property generally does not extend to the use of deadly force. Answer choice C is incorrect. Although the property owner's belief that someone is stealing his property must be reasonable, the property owner generally may not use deadly force to prevent the theft of his property. Answer choice D is incorrect because a property owner generally is not justified in using deadly force to prevent the theft of his property, even though the property owner has warned the thief about the use of such force.

To test his new, high-powered cross-bow, the defendant went out into the woods behind his home, which bordered the backyard of a house where the defendant knew several children lived and played. The defendant posted a target on a tree and began firing arrows at the target. As he was testing his cross-bow, the defendant heard the children playing nearby, but took no action to warn them as to the danger. Even though the children began to run directly behind the target the defendant continued testing his cross-bow. The defendant accidentally misaimed and shot an arrow to the side of the tree with the target, striking and killing one of the children. The defendant was convicted of murder for the death of the child. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction of murder.What action should the appellate court take with regard to this appeal? A Vacate the conviction, because although the evidence would have been sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter, it was not sufficient for murder. B Vacate the conviction, because although the evidence would have been sufficient to support a conviction for voluntary manslaughter, it was not sufficient for murder. C Vacate the conviction, because the evidence showed no intent to kill by the defendant. D Affirm the conviction, as the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of murder.

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

A woman was moving out of state. As she was completing her packing one night, she realized that her neighbor had never returned a book that the woman had lent her. The woman walked over to her neighbor's house and knocked on the door. When she realized that no one was home, she let herself in through the unlocked garage, intending to take the book and return home. While she was in the neighbor's house, the woman remembered that the neighbor had a necklace that the woman had long admired. The woman decided to take the necklace, figuring that her neighbor probably would not notice it was missing until after the woman had moved. As the woman was heading toward the door, she heard her neighbor come in. The woman greeted her neighbor, and apologized for letting herself in to retrieve the book. The woman gave her neighbor a good-bye hug, and then left with the necklace in her pocket.The crimes below are listed ascending order of seriousness.What is the most serious crime for which the woman may be convicted? A Larceny. B Larceny by trick. C Robbery. D Burglary.

Answer choice A is correct. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property. In this case, the elements of larceny are satisfied. The woman took and carried away her neighbor's necklace with the intent to keep it. Answer choice B is incorrect because a defendant is guilty of larceny by trick if she obtains possession (but not title) to property owned by another through fraud or deceit, with the intent to permanently deprive the victim of that property, resulting in the conversion of the property. In this case, the defendant did not obtain possession by fraud. Answer choice C is incorrect because the woman did not employ force or intimidation in taking the necklace, as required for robbery. Answer choice D is incorrect because the woman did not have the intent to commit a felony in the neighbor's house when she entered. Burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with specific intent to commit a felony (e.g., larceny, robbery, rape, murder) inside the dwelling. Because the woman did not have the specific intent to commit a crime when she entered the home, just to obtain a book that was rightfully hers, she is not guilty of burglary.

A beautiful woman preyed upon lonely, desperate men looking for love on the Internet by getting a potential suitor to fall in love with her and then propose marriage to her. After a suitor would propose to her and give her an engagement ring, the woman would have a replica of the engagement ring made at a fraction of the cost of the real one. Shortly thereafter, the woman would break off the engagement, return the knock-off version of the engagement ring to the duped suitor, and then sell the real engagement ring for a sizeable profit. After scamming her most recent suitor, the suitor tried to return the knock-off ring to a high-end jewelry store the same day that he was dumped. The jewelry store marked all of their rings with a very specific insignia that could not be replicated. Once they realized that the ring was a knock-off, they called the police and the woman was arrested.If the woman is guilty of any crime, she is most likely guilty of: A Embezzlement B False pretenses C Larceny D Larceny by trick

Answer choice B is correct. False pretenses requires obtaining title to the property of another person through the reliance of that person on a known false representation of a material past or present fact, and the representation is made with the intent to defraud. Here, the suitor relied on the false representation that the woman loved him and intended to marry him, and the woman made this representation with the intent to defraud the suitor and obtain title to the engagement ring. Answer choice A is incorrect. Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person who is in lawful possession of the property. The woman had possession of the engagement ring because the suitor gave her the ring as a symbol of their agreement to marry. Additionally, the woman had the intent to defraud the suitor and convert the property because she returned a knock-off version of the engagement ring and sold the real one. However, because she obtained title to the ring through a false representation—that she loved the suitor and intended to marry him, the woman will more likely be convicted of false pretenses. Answer choice C is incorrect. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another (without his consent) with the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property at the time of the taking. Here, there was no trespassory taking and caring away of the engagement ring from the suitor without his consent, so there was no larceny. Answer choice D is incorrect. Larceny by trick occurs when the defendant fraudulently induces the victim to deliver possession of the property to the defendant. Here, the woman obtained title to the engagement ring, not just possession, so she is most likely guilty of false pretenses.

A wealthy bicycle aficionado loaned one of his bicycles to a cyclist for use in a race. After the race, the cyclist failed to return the bicycle despite repeated requests by the aficionado. Several months later, while walking through the park, the aficionado happened upon the cyclist riding another bicycle that was the same make, model, and color as the aficionado's bicycle. Believing it to be his bicycle, the aficionado, standing only inches away from the bicycle, verbally threatened to grab the bicycle out from under the cyclist if he did not hand it over immediately. The cyclist, fearful of such an attack, surrendered the bicycle to the aficionado.Of the following, what is likely the most serious offense of which the aficionado could be properly convicted? A Robbery B Larceny C Assault D No crime

Answer choice C is correct. Assault is (i) an attempt to commit a battery, or (ii) intentionally placing another in apprehension of imminent bodily harm. Battery is the (i) unlawful (ii) application of force (iii) to another person (iv) that causes bodily harm to that person or (v) constitutes an offensive touching. With regard to the "fear of harm" type of assault, although the cyclist was fearful of the aficionado carrying out his threat, the threat was not to inflict imminent bodily harm on the cyclist, but instead to recover the bicycle. By contrast, with regard to the attempted battery version of assault, the verbal threat made by the aficionado coupled with his proximity to the bicycle makes it likely that he took a substantial step towards committing a battery. Although the aficionado did not threaten to harm the cyclist, he did threaten an offensive touching of the bicycle which was attached to the cyclist's person. The cyclist's apprehension of this offensive touching occurring was likely reasonable, given the aficionado's verbal threat and proximity to the bicycle. Even though he made a reasonable and honest mistake of fact that the bicycle in question was his bicycle because both were the same make, model, and color, the aficionado has no right to recover his own bicycle by the use of force when he voluntarily relinquished possession of it to the cyclist initially. Consequently, although the aficionado did not commit the "fear of harm" type assault, he did commit the attempted battery type of assault. Answer choice B is incorrect. Larceny is the (i) trespassory (ii) taking and carrying away (iii) of the personal property of another (iv) with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property (i.e., intent to steal). A mistake of fact is a defense to a specific-intent crime, even if the mistake is unreasonable. Here, the aficionado had a reasonable and honest belief that the bicycle in question was his bicycle. Consequently, he did not have the specific intent to take the personal property of another and therefore did not commit larceny. Answer choice A is incorrect. Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or intimidation. Although the aficionado did gain possession of the bicycle through intimidation, because he did not commit larceny, he also cannot have committed robbery. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the aficionado did not commit robbery or larceny, he did commit assault.

One afternoon, a woman was walking down the street when a man walked up behind her, grabbed her purse, and ran away. That evening, as the woman and her husband dined at a restaurant, she recognized an identical purse hanging from the back of a chair upon which another woman was sitting at a table a few feet away. She pointed the purse out to her husband before going up to the table to confront the couple sitting there. The couple claimed that the purse was certainly not stolen and refused to give it to her, so the woman violently yanked it from the chair, knocking it and the woman sitting on it over, and returned to the table with her husband. Robbery charges were subsequently brought against her, and during trial, evidence indicated the purse did actually belong to her.Is the woman likely to be successfully convicted of robbery? A Yes, because she stole the property at night. B Yes, because she took the purse by force. C No, because the purse had been stolen from her earlier in the day. D No, because she took the purse from the chair, not the other woman.

Answer choice C is correct. Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or intimidation. The force used by the defendant must be more than the amount necessary to effectuate taking and carrying away the property. Here, the woman did use force to take the property from another, with the intent to permanently deprive her of that property, but because the property was hers to begin with, she did not take property that belonged to another. Answer choice A is incorrect because robbery need not occur at night. The answer alludes to the requirements for common law burglary. Answer choice B is incorrect because while the woman did use force to obtain the purse, that is only one element of robbery, not all of which are met here. Answer choice D is incorrect because, while the force need not be applied to the actual person if the other elements of robbery were met, those requirements were not met here.

A dog sitter customarily went into her clients' homes, with keys they provided to her, to care for their pets. Over the years, she grew to especially love one particular dog. She would regularly enter the home of her client on days she was not scheduled to watch the dog and would take the dog to the park. One afternoon, the dog she loved wandered into her yard as she was doing yard work. She did not immediately call her client, but instead decided to keep the dog for a few days. A week later when she returned him to the client, the client stated that she so enjoyed having the house to herself that she was going to sell him. The dog sitter immediately purchased him and brought him back to her home.Were the dog sitter's actions sufficient to meet the requirements of larceny? A No, because she had a key to enter the home. B No, because she was only going to keep the dog for a few days. C Yes, because she kept the dog despite knowing who owned it. D Yes, because she would enter the client's home regularly and take the dog to the park.

B No, because she was only going to keep the dog for a few days. Answer choice B is correct. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property (i.e., intent to steal). The property must be taken without the owner's consent. Although the dog sitter did retain the property of another with the intent to deprive the owner of the dog temporarily, she never intended to keep him permanently until the client sold him to her. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although she had permission to enter the home and watch the dog, that would not give her the authority to permanently deprive the client of the dog. Answer choice C is incorrect because she never had the intent to permanently deprive her client of the dog. While it is possible for a larceny to be committed even if the intent to steal is not formed until after the taking under the continuing trespass rule, here, the dog sitter did not intend to keep the dog permanently until after she was given permission to do so. Therefore, since the dog's owner consented to the dog sitter keeping the dog, there was no continuing trespass. Answer choice D is incorrect because the act, while problematic, was not larceny. She was certainly trespassing, and could likely be found guilty of some crime, as the key was given only to enter when she was dog-sitting, but she did not intend to permanently deprive the owner of the dog. Accordingly, she could not be found guilty of larceny.

One night, when no one was home, an individual broke into a residence to steal a painting by a particular artist. Not finding the painting, the individual instead stole a drawing by the same artist.Can the individual properly be charged with burglary? A Yes, because the individual stole the drawing while in the residence. B Yes, because the individual, when entering the residence, intended to steal the painting. C No, because the individual did not steal the painting. D No, because the individual did not use force or intimidation to steal the drawing.

B Yes, because the individual, when entering the residence, intended to steal the painting. Answer choice B is correct. Burglary is the (i) breaking and (ii) entering (iii) of the dwelling (iv) of another (v) at nighttime (vi) with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. Larceny is the (i) trespassory (ii) taking and carrying away (iii) of the personal property of another (iv) with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property (i.e., intent to steal). Here, the individual had the intent to commit larceny at the time the individual broke into the residence. Consequently, the individual can properly be charged with burglary. Answer choice A is incorrect. Because the crime of burglary is complete when a defendant breaks and enters a dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony therein, the defendant's subsequent commission of larceny with regard to a different item of personal property is irrelevant with regard to the burglary charge. Answer choice C is incorrect. Because the crime of burglary is complete when a defendant breaks and enters a dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony therein, it is no defense that the defendant is unable to successfully commit the intended felony. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although robbery requires the use of force or intimidation in the commission of larceny, burglary does not.

A bank teller confessed to his colleague that he was concerned about being fired. The colleague suggested that he had similar concerns himself and had been thinking of how he might acquire extra cash in case he lost his job. The teller suggested a plan to take several hundred dollars from their supervisor's cash drawer, because the supervisor often forgot to lock the drawer when he went to lunch. After the teller took the cash, he would hand it off to his colleague during his lunch break, and the colleague would bring the money to his car to avoid having money on his person at work. The next day, the teller noticed that his supervisor had neglected to lock his cash drawer at lunch, and he carried out the plan. The colleague waited outside the bank, and then took the cash from the teller on his lunch break. He then hid some of the money in a separate stash he intended to apportion to himself only, without the teller's knowledge, but he otherwise followed the plan exactly as he and the bank teller had discussed.In a case against the colleague, which of the following charges would most likely be successfully prosecuted? A Embezzlement and larceny. B Embezzlement only. C One charge of larceny only. D Two charges of larceny only.

D Two charges of larceny only. Answer choice D is correct. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property. Under the majority and MPC rule, an accomplice is a person who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, aids or abets a principal prior to or during the commission of the crime. The accomplice's assistance to the principal may be verbal encouragement, financial assistance, or physical assistance, provided that the accomplice has the requisite intent to encourage or assist in the commission of the crime. An accomplice is responsible for the crime to the same extent as the principal. In this case, although the colleague did not actually take the money from the supervisor, he aided and abetted the teller in larceny by transferring the money to the car, and thus would be guilty to the same extent as the teller. The colleague also committed larceny against the teller, as stolen property taken from a thief can constitute larceny. That is, a second thief is guilty of larceny when he steals the property from the first thief, unless the second thief had superior possessory interest in the property. Therefore, answer choice C is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect because the teller would not be guilty of embezzlement, which is the fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person who is in lawful possession of the property. Lower-level employees can generally not be guilty of embezzlement, as such an employee typically has custody, not possession, of the employer's property. In this case, the teller took the money from his supervisor, who was the one who had possession of the property. Accordingly, he would not be guilty of embezzlement, and thus his colleague would not either. Answer choice B is incorrect because it inaccurately states that the colleague would be guilty of embezzlement and fails to address that he aided in the commission of larceny.

A man broke into and entered a home at night with the intent of bludgeoning the homeowner to death with a baseball bat. Upon seeing the man raise the baseball bat to strike him, the homeowner pleaded for his life. The man decided not to strike or kill the homeowner and instead took personal property worth several thousand dollars from the home.Of the following, which are the most serious crimes for which the man can be convicted? A Robbery and larceny only B Burglary and larceny only C Burglary and robbery only D Burglary, robbery, and larceny

C Burglary and robbery only. Answer choice C is correct. Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or intimidation. Larceny merges into robbery. Thus, if a defendant has committed both robbery and larceny, the defendant can only be convicted of robbery. Burglary is the (i) breaking and (ii) entering (iii) of the dwelling (iv) of another (v) at nighttime (vi) with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. A defendant who fails to commit the underlying felony is nevertheless guilty of burglary. Consequently, the most serious crimes for which the man can be convicted are robbery and burglary. Answer choice A is incorrect because a defendant who has committed both robbery and larceny can only be punished for one of these crimes. Answer choice B is incorrect. A defendant can be convicted of both burglary and the underlying felony. However, the call of the question asks for the most serious crimes for which the man can be convicted. Thus, even though the man committed larceny, the man also committed robbery (larceny by force or intimidation) which is a more serious crime than larceny. Consequently, the most serious crimes for which the man can be convicted are robbery and burglary. Answer choice D is incorrect because the man cannot be punished for both larceny and robbery as larceny merges into robbery.

From across the street, a woman watched as a man exited a bank with a drawn gun and a bag. As she continued walking home, she realized that she knew the man. From subsequent news reports, she confirmed her suspicions that the man had robbed the bank and learned that the police were requesting that anyone with information about the robbery contact the police. The woman did not contact the police.Is the woman an accessory after the fact to the robbery? A Yes, because she witnessed the man leave the scene of the crime and was subsequently aware that the man had committed a felony. B Yes, because, by opting not to inform police of the man's identity, she effectively aided the man in avoiding apprehension. C No, because she did not help the man to escape arrest or conviction. D No, because she did not aid the man in the commission of the robbery.

C No, because she did not help the man to escape arrest or conviction.

Immediately after she arrived home from work, a woman found her husband engaged in sex with a female who worked in the husband's office. Enraged, the woman retrieved a handgun from her dresser drawer. She fired the gun, intending to shoot her husband's co-worker. Her shot missed the co-worker, and instead killed her husband. The woman was charged with common-law murder of her husband.Based on the foregoing facts, should she be convicted? A Yes, because the woman acted with reckless indifference with regards to her husband's life. B Yes, because of the doctrine of transferred intent. C No, because the act was provoked. D No, because the woman's extreme temporary distress completely excuses her actions.

C No, because the act was provoked.

A woman and a man were living together in a house owned by the man when they broke up. The man told the woman to leave and changed all the locks in his house. The woman, wanting to take the man's television to punish him, asked her friend to help her, telling her friend that the woman owned the television. One night, the friend helped the woman pick the lock on a back door while the boyfriend was away. Once inside, the woman pointed out the television. The friend carried the television out to the woman's car. She drove to her new apartment where her friend brought the television inside. When the man discovered the television was gone, he broke into the woman's new apartment one night, and retrieved the television.The jurisdiction continues to follow the common law with regard to the crime of burglary.Given these facts, which, if any, of these individuals is guilty of burglary? A None of them. B The friend and the woman. C Only the woman. D Only the man.

C Only the woman. Answer choice C is correct. Burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the specific intent to commit a felony therein (in this case, larceny). Persons taking back their own property or taking property in the honest but mistaken belief that the property belongs to someone who has authorized them to take it lack the intent to steal required for larceny. In this case, all of the elements of burglary are satisfied as to all three individuals, except for the specific intent requirement. The friend and the man lacked the requisite criminal intent for burglary. Only the woman had the requisite specific intent. The man's house was no longer her dwelling. Although she did not remove the television from the man's house, she entered the house with the specific intent to deprive the man of the television (i.e., to steal). Answer choice A is incorrect because the woman had the requisite criminal intent for burglary. Answer choice B is incorrect because the friend thought he was helping the woman retrieve her property, and therefore lacked the requisite intent for burglary. Answer choice D is incorrect because the man was retrieving his property, and therefore lacked the requisite intent for burglary.

A husband and his business partner owned a large technology company together. After a personally tumultuous but professionally successful decade working together, the husband discovered that the business partner had been fraudulently transferring company funds to the business partner's personal account for years. Before he confronted his business partner about this, he called his own wife to tell her what he had learned. His wife reminded him that the company had a $2 million life insurance policy on the business partner. The couple formed a plan to murder the business partner for the insurance proceeds when he was alone in the office building. On the day that they planned to carry out the murder, the husband told the business partner that he had to leave early and asked the business partner to stay late to finish up a presentation. He knew that by doing so, the business partner would be alone at the office. Later that night, the wife went in and shot the business partner. She then panicked and fled the country. The husband was later charged with the murder and conspiracy to commit the murder, but the wife was never apprehended. The jurisdiction recognizes the majority rule regarding conspirator liability.Is the husband likely to be found guilty of conspiracy and murder? A No, because the husband and wife were married. B No, because the wife was never convicted of the murder. C Yes, because the husband persuaded the business partner to stay late at the office. D Yes, because no overt act was required in furtherance of the crime.

C, Correct Answer: Yes, because the husband persuaded the business partner to stay late at the office. Answer choice C is correct. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose with the intent to accomplish that purpose. The majority rule requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, although the common law does not. A conspirator can be convicted of both the offense of conspiracy and all substantive crimes committed by any other co-conspirators acting in furtherance of the conspiracy. In this case, the husband and wife formed a plan to murder the business partner, and the husband committed an overt act when he asked the business partner to stay late one night to carry out the murder. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the common law did not consider husband and wife as co-conspirators, nearly every jurisdiction has abolished this common-law concept. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although a conspirator cannot be convicted of conspiracy if all other conspirators are acquitted at the same trial, a co-conspirator can be convicted if other co-conspirators are never tried or apprehended. Answer choice D is incorrect because the husband did commit an overt act when he persuaded the business partner to stay late at the office.

A defendant entered a convenience store wearing a Halloween mask and carrying a gun. He pointed the gun at the store clerk and told him to empty the cash register into a bag and hand it over. The clerk told the defendant that he needed a key from below the counter to unlock the cash drawer. He leaned over, pulled out a gun from behind the cash register, and quickly fired a shot. The defendant had seen the clerk reach for the gun, however, and jumped out of the way before the shot was fired. The bullet hit a customer, who later died from the injury.Is the defendant likely to be convicted of felony murder in a jurisdiction that follows the majority law? A No, because the clerk could not be considered the agent of the defendant. B No, because the defendant did not shoot the customer. C Yes, because the customer's death was a natural and probable consequence of the robbery. D Yes, because the defendant is strictly liable for any death that occurs during an inherently dangerous felony.

Correct Answer: A, No, because the clerk could not be considered the agent of the defendant. Answer choice A is correct. Felony murder is an unintended killing proximately caused by and during the commission or attempted commission of an inherently dangerous felony, including a robbery. Most states apply the agency theory when a bystander is killed by a police officer or due to resistance by the victim of the felony. Under this theory, the felon will not be liable for the death of a bystander caused by a felony victim or police officer because neither person is the felon's agent. In this case, the death of the customer (a bystander) was caused by the clerk, who was not the agent of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant will not be liable for the customer's death. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the defendant did not shoot the customer himself, the defendant could still have been liable for the customer's death if an agent of the defendant, such as a co-felon, had killed the customer. Answer choice C is incorrect because the proximate-cause theory, which holds that a bystander's death may fall within the felony murder rule because the death is a direct consequence of the felony, is not the majority rule. Answer choice D is incorrect because a defendant is not strictly liable for any death that occurs during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. Rather, the death must be a foreseeable result or a natural and probable consequence of the felony, caused by the defendant or a co-felon. Under the agency theory, a defendant is not liable for the death of a bystander caused by a felony victim, such as the clerk in this case.

A criminal told his girlfriend that he was planning to rob a local liquor store and would give her a third of the proceeds from the robbery if she agreed to drive the getaway car. The girlfriend agreed and following the robbery, drove the criminal away from the scene of the crime. Subsequently, the police arrested the criminal for the robbery and he made a constitutionally valid confession, implicating the girlfriend.With which of the following crimes may the girlfriend properly be charged? A Robbery only. B Conspiracy only. C Both robbery and conspiracy. D Neither robbery nor conspiracy.

Correct Answer: C, Both robbery and conspiracy. Answer choice C is correct. By driving the getaway car, the girlfriend is liable as an accomplice to the same extent as the criminal for the robbery. She can therefore properly be charged with robbery. The girlfriend also conspired with the criminal with regard to the robbery, in that they made an agreement to commit the crime. As a conspirator, she can be convicted of both the offense of conspiracy and the substantive crime of robbery. Accordingly, answer choices A, B, and D are incorrect.

While climbing a steep mountain, a woman's climbing rope failed, and she fell off the side of the mountain. She landed on a small ledge 30 feet below. Behind her, a man continued climbing. The woman shouted, "Hey! I'm here! Throw me a rope so I can get up!" The man, who did not know the woman but had all the gear that would be necessary to safely rescue her, looked down at her and said, "Sorry, I'd like to help, but I have to reach the summit before dark." He continued on to the summit. On the way back down, he looked down to see that the woman had fallen off the ledge to her death.What is the most serious crime for which the man can be convicted? A Murder. B Voluntary manslaughter. C Involuntary manslaughter. D No crime.

Correct Answer: D, No crime. Answer choice D is correct. A legal duty to act and the failure to do so results in criminal liability in certain instances, such as when there is a special relationship between the parties (e.g., a parent's duty to her child) or when a party fails to aid the victim after causing the victim's peril. When there is no duty to act, a defendant is not criminally liable just because he fails to help others in trouble. In this case, the woman and the man do not have a special relationship, as it appears they are strangers. Neither did the man cause the woman to fall down the side of the mountain onto the small ledge or voluntarily assume to render aid. Thus, the man had no legal duty to act. Although the woman died and the man could have prevented her death, he is not liable for her death. Answer choices A, B, and C are therefore incorrect.

While shopping in a department store, a man saw an expensive wallet on display, and slipped it into his girlfriend's purse without her knowledge as a practical joke to embarrass her. He intended for her to find it as she reached into her purse to pay for other items at the cashier's station and turn it over to the cashier. The couple shopped for the next hour, and the man forgot about the wallet. Before they could pay for their purchases, the couple got into an argument, abandoned their intended purchases, and headed toward an exit. When they attempted to leave the store, they were detained by a store security officer who found the wallet in the purse. Both parties were charged with larceny.Of the following, which would provide the man with his best defense to larceny? A The woman, and not the man, carried the wallet away from the display. B There was not a trespassory taking of the wallet since the man was on the store premises as a customer. C The wallet was never taken from the store. D The man lacked the necessary intent to steal the wallet.

D The man lacked the necessary intent to steal the wallet. Answer choice D is correct. Larceny requires the intent to permanently deprive another person with superior rights to the property of that property. In this case, the man did not intend to permanently deprive the department store of the wallet. Rather, he intended for the girlfriend to return the wallet when she found it at the cashier's station. Therefore, the man did not possess the specific intent required for the crime of larceny. Answer choice A is incorrect because larceny can occur if property is taken and carried away by an agent, even if the agent is unaware that she is doing so. Answer choice B is incorrect because a trespassory taking requires only that the taking occur without the owner's permission, and not that the defendant be a trespasser when the taking occurs. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the couple was detained before leaving the store and the wallet never left the premises, larceny requires only that the property be carried a short distance, provided the necessary intent exists at that time. Here, if the necessary intent had been present, a larceny would have been complete as soon as the wallet was carried away from the display case.

A man was asleep at table in a food court at a mall. While he slept, his hand rested on his wallet. A passerby, who was in the mall to shop, seized the opportunity to steal the man's wallet, slightly lifted the man's hand, and took the wallet. The man, waking up as the passerby turned to leave, noticed that the passerby had the wallet. The passerby ran and the man gave chase. The passerby threw the wallet down in front of an industrial floor cleaning machine that was being used to clean the floor. The machine destroyed the wallet. The passerby was arrested and charged with robbery.Of the following, which would constitute the passerby's best defense? A The passerby did not keep the wallet permanently. B The passerby did not act with premeditation. C The passerby did not harm the man. D The passerby did not use force or intimidation to gain possession of the wallet.

D The passerby did not use force or intimidation to gain possession of the wallet. Answer choice D is correct. Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or intimidation. Larceny is the (i) trespassory (ii) taking and carrying away (iii) of the personal property of another (iv) with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property (i.e., intent to steal). Here, because the passerby took the man's wallet from the man while he was asleep, the passerby did not gain possession of the wallet through intimidation. In addition, although even the use of slight force to gain possession of another's property is generally sufficient, the force used by the defendant must be more than the amount necessary to effectuate taking and carrying away the property. Here, the passerby only used the force necessary to take and carry away the wallet (i.e., lifting the man's hand). Answer choice A is incorrect. Although a defendant must have the intent to permanently deprive the victim of the property, there is no requirement that the defendant retain the property permanently. The passerby's discarding of the wallet moments after taking it does not negate the requisite intent. Answer choice B is incorrect. Although a defendant must usually have the necessary intent at the time of the taking and carrying away of the property, there is no requirement that the defendant have such an intent only after reflecting on the idea of stealing the property or planning to do so. Answer choice C is incorrect. Although one of the ways by which a larceny becomes a robbery is through the defendant's use of force, there is no requirement that the defendant harm the victim in exercising such force.

A runner was in the midst of his morning run when the defendant jumped out from behind a bush and tripped the runner, intending to steal the runner's wallet. The runner was not carrying a wallet, however. Frustrated, the defendant tore off the runner's hat. The runner tried to grab the hat back from the defendant, but the defendant pulled it away and ran off. The struggle caused the defendant to lose his balance, and he dropped the hat a few feet from the runner. The runner then picked up his hat and completed his run.What is the most serious crime, listed in order of increasing seriousness, for which the defendant may be convicted? A Attempted larceny. B Larceny. C Battery. D Robbery.

D, Battery. Answer choice D is correct. Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or intimidation. The force need not be great, but must be more than the amount necessary to effectuate taking and carrying away the property. The elements of larceny were met as soon as the defendant carried away the hat. Moreover, the force element was satisfied when the defendant tripped the runner and then struggled with the runner. Answer choices B and C are incorrect because battery and larceny are less serious than robbery. Although the elements of each of these crimes are satisfied, they would merge into the crime of robbery. Answer choice A is incorrect because larceny merely requires a taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal. These elements were satisfied as soon as the defendant took away the hat, so the defendant actually completed the crime of larceny.

Two women who shared an apartment in a high-crime neighborhood decided to buy a taser for protection. As permitted by applicable state law, the taser had been advertised as a form of "non-lethal self-defense" when used properly. After purchasing the taser but before receiving the formal training required to learn how to use it, one of the women jokingly put the taser against her roommate's chest and shocked her. The roommate went into cardiac arrest, and although the woman called 911 immediately, the roommate died. The jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as premeditated and deliberate murder, and gives second-degree murder the same elements as common-law murder.For which of the following crimes is the woman most likely to be found guilty? A Involuntary manslaughter B Voluntary manslaughter C Second-degree murder D First-degree murder

Involuntary manslaughter

One cold winter day, a senator was flying from one city to another in his home state to campaign for his reelection. On a commercial flight, he put his navy blue coat into the overhead bin. The flight was crowded, and many passengers also put their coats into the overhead bins. When he deplaned, the senator reached into the bin, took out a navy blue coat, and put it on. He then went to a campaign fundraising event, still wearing the coat. At the event, the senator was approached by the police and arrested for larceny. It turned out that the senator was wearing the wrong coat. The senator had taken a similar looking navy blue coat out of the bin, believing it to be his own. The true owner, a businessman, ended up with the senator's coat, which had the senator's business card in the inside pocket. The businessman disagreed with the senator's politics, so he reported him to the police for larceny.Will the senator be convicted of larceny? A Yes, because he intended to take the businessman's coat. B Yes, because he was wearing the coat when the police arrested him. C No, because he thought the coat was his when he took it out of the bin. D No, because the businessman was acting out of political motivation.

No, because he thought the coat was his when he took it out of the bin.

Two men and a woman plotted to burn down a building. Before the men and woman took any overt act towards completion of the arson, the police discovered the plot and arrested the three plotters on charges of conspiracy to commit arson. For evidentiary reasons, the prosecutor decided that he could only charge the woman for the conspiracy and decided not to charge the two men.The woman is convicted of conspiracy in a jurisdiction that follows the common law. On appeal, should the woman's conviction be overturned? A Yes, because only one of the three alleged conspirators was actually charged with conspiracy. B Yes, because there was no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. C No, because she and the men plotted to burn down a building. D No, because of the "Pinkerton Rule."

No, because she and the men plotted to burn down a building.

A woman who was pregnant with her first child was driving a car when she thought that she was going into labor. As a consequence, she began speeding towards the local hospital. As she approached a four-way intersection, she saw no cars and decided to run the red light. She failed to see a pedestrian who was crossing the street. The woman's car struck the pedestrian, causing him serious injuries.Could the woman be properly charged with attempted murder? A Yes, because her recklessness results in a presumption of the intent to inflict serious bodily harm. B Yes, because she intended to drive through the red light and is therefore presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of such action. C No, because she was justified in running the red light. D No, because she did not intend to kill the pedestrian.

No, because she did not intend to kill the pedestrian. Answer choice D is correct. Attempted murder is a specific intent crime; the intent to kill is a required element. Since the woman lacked the specific intent to kill the pedestrian, she should not be charged with attempted murder. Answer choice A is incorrect. There can be no presumption of the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm in order to find a defendant guilty of attempted murder. There must be actual intent, which is lacking here. Answer choice B is incorrect. The mere fact that the woman here intended to speed through the red light does not create an actual intent to kill, which is required for a finding of attempted murder. Answer choice C is incorrect because, even though the woman thought she was about to give birth, and may have been justified in running the red light, such justification does not excuse her behavior with respect to the pedestrian.

A man and a woman planned to rob a liquor store. The man entered the store while the woman stayed in the car to act as a lookout and getaway driver. As a police officer walked by the store, the woman turned on the car lights, which was the signal she had arranged to warn the man in the store if anyone was coming. Seeing the signal, the man ran out the door right into the police officer. Realizing that an armed robbery was in progress, the police officer shot and killed the man, after appropriate warnings.Should the woman be found guilty of felony murder of the man? A No, because the killing by the policeman was justifiable. B No, because the death of the man was not foreseeable. C Yes, because she was a co-conspirator in the robbery. D Yes, under the proximate cause theory.

No, because the killing by the policeman was justifiable.

A wife discovered that her husband had been having an affair with her best friend for many months. Enraged, the wife decided to invite her best friend over for poolside cocktails, spike her drinks with a strong sedative, and then push her into the pool to drown after she passed out. The best friend agreed to come over, but because the wife was extremely nervous, she took ten times the recommended amount of her prescribed anti-anxiety medication. The best friend arrived to find the wife acting erratically, clearly under the influence of the drugs. However, the wife managed to add the sedative to the best friend's cocktails, and when she passed out, the wife pushed her into the pool. The best friend drowned. The police eventually arrested and charged the wife with first-degree murder. The jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as a deliberate and premeditated unlawful killing of another human being.Does the wife have a valid intoxication defense to the first-degree murder charge? A Yes, because the wife's intoxication is a defense to specific-intent crimes. B Yes, because the wife's excessive level of intoxication brought on actual insanity. C No, because the wife was not intoxicated by alcohol or illegal drugs. D No, because the wife formed the intent to kill before she became intoxicated.

No, because the wife formed the intent to kill before she became intoxicated.

From a distance, an individual witnessed an altercation between a friend, who was a fan of a local sports team ("local fan"), and a stranger who was a supporter of a rival team ("rival fan"). The local fan, upset with his team's loss to the rival team that day, attempted to punch the rival fan and missed. The rival fan responded by landing a punch to the local fan's stomach. The two continued to engage in fisticuffs without inflicting serious injury on one another until the rival fan displayed what the individual reasonably, but wrongly, thought was a knife followed by a threat to kill the local fan. The individual withdrew a gun and intentionally shot and killed the rival fan. The rival fan had actually displayed a pen, not a knife, and had offered to stop the altercation, rather than threatening to kill the local fan. The individual has been charged with the murder of the rival fan.Can the individual successfully defend against his conviction for murder? A No, because the local fan was the initial agressor. B No, because the rival fan displayed only a pen and offered to withdraw from the altercation. C Yes, because the local fan was a friend of the individual. D Yes, because the individual reasonably thought that the rival fan threatened the local fan with deadly force.

Yes, because the individual reasonably thought that the rival fan threatened the local fan with deadly force. Answer choice D is correct. A person has the right to defend others under the same circumstances in which self-defense would be acceptable. Here, the local fan was not entitled to act in self-defense because he was the initial aggressor, and he was not entitled to use deadly force because he was aware that the rival fan was not threatening to use deadly force. However, when a defendant is factually mistaken, the defendant may generally rely on a defense if the mistake is a reasonable one. Here, the individual was mistaken that the rival fan was using deadly force, but the individual's mistake was a reasonable one. Consequently, because the local fan could have used self-defense if the rival fan had escalated the altercation with the use of deadly force and could have used deadly force to respond to the use of deadly force, the individual who reasonably thought that the rival fan had done so could rely on the defense of others to justify killing the rival fan. Answer choice A is incorrect. Although generally a person who is the initial aggressor does not have a right to use self-defense, the person can gain this right when he is met with deadly force. Here, although the local fan did not have this right because he knew that the rival fan was not threatening him with deadly force, the individual reasonably thought that the rival fan was doing so. Therefore, the individual was entitled to use deadly force in the defense of the local fan. Answer choice B is incorrect. The local fan could not have used deadly force against the rival fan because the local fan was aware that the rival fan was not threatening him with deadly force. However, when a defendant is factually mistaken, the defendant may generally rely on a defense if the mistake is a reasonable one. Here, the individual was mistaken that the rival fan was using deadly force, but the individual's mistake was a reasonable one. Accordingly, the individual could rely on the defense of others. Answer choice C is incorrect because defense of others is not limited to defending family members and friends, but extends to anyone the defendant reasonably believes has the right of self-defense.

5 of 15 A man who suffered from a mental illness shot and killed his neighbor after making plans to do so. The man was arrested and charged with murder. At trial, the man admitted that he intended to kill the neighbor, and that he appreciated that what he was doing was illegal. However, he also testified that he performed the killing under orders from his pet goldfish, who was possessed by a demonic spirit, and that he was unable to resist the goldfish's constant urging to kill the neighbor.The Model Penal Code test of criminal responsibility applies in the applicable jurisdiction.If the man timely and properly pleads that he was not criminally responsible, can he be found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity? A Yes, because the man was unable to resist the goldfish's constant urging. B Yes, because the man suffered from a mental illness. C No, because the man understood that killing his neighbor was illegal. D No, because the man planned to kill his neighbor.

Yes, because the man was unable to resist the goldfish's constant urging.

A daughter babysat her neighbor's children every Thursday night. Her mother had coveted the neighbor's antique vase for many years. The mother bought a cheap replica of the vase, broke it, and gave the pieces to her daughter Thursday morning. The mother told the daughter to leave the broken pieces in the neighbor's trash, steal the antique vase, and claim that the children had broken it. The daughter reluctantly agreed. While she was babysitting that evening, the daughter put the pieces of the cheap replica in the garbage. However, before she actually stole the vase, her mother called her. The mother had changed her mind and told the daughter not to steal the vase. The daughter did not steal the vase, but forgot to take the pieces of the cheap replica out of the garbage. When the neighbor discovered the pieces of the replica in the garbage, she confronted the daughter, and the daughter confessed the whole plan. The neighbor called the police, who arrested the mother; she was subsequently charged with solicitation.Is the mother guilty of solicitation under the common law? A No, because the daughter did not actually steal the vase. B No, because the mother renounced the crime by calling the daughter and telling her not to steal the vase. C Yes, because the mother encouraged her daughter to steal the antique vase. D Yes, because the mother took a substantial step towards committing the crime by buying a cheap replica of the vase.

Yes, because the mother encouraged her daughter to steal the antique vase.