FINAL: Criminal Law Multiple Choice Practice Questions

While drinking in a bar, Charles got angry at another patron's insults and tried to punch him. The man ducked, however, and Charles accidentally punched a woman standing behind him, breaking her nose. Charles is arrested for battery, which requires an "intentional act to injure another through physical contact." You are the prosecutor assigned the case and you decide to: (A) File battery charges because although Charles did not intend to hit the person injured, he did intend to hit another person. (B) File battery charges because the intent to hit is not needed for this charge. (C) Dismiss the case because Charles did not intend to hit the person injured. (D) Dismiss the case because Charles' intent to hit the man who insulted him was justified.

(A) File battery charges because although Charles did not intend to hit the person injured, he did intend to hit another person.

Tom was injured in a car accident. Bill is his lawyer and represents him. The other driver's insurance company agrees to settle the case and sends the settlement check to Bill for Tom. Instead of sending the money to Tom, Bill puts it in his client trust account and uses it for himself. What crime is Bill guilty of? (A)Embezzlement (B)Extortion (C)Larceny (D)No Crime

(A)Embezzlement

Bill & Paul are rivals at work. Bill is the new favorite of the boss. Bill has been bragging to friends and coworkers that Paul is on his way out and that Bill is better and smarter than Paul and that he will go to the top of the company. Paul tells a friend that Bill's days are numbered. The next day Paul shoots Bill in the head. Paul is charged with murder. He claims that he did not act with malice. He is likely to be found: (A)Guilty because he had the intent to kill Bill. (B)Guilty because he had a motive to kill Bill. (C)Not guilty because the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. (D)Not guilty because Paul did not act with malice.

(A)Guilty because he had the intent to kill Bill.

Veronica gave Mary a gun and instructed her to kill Paula. Mary shot and killed Paula with the gun. Mary was charged with murder and acquitted. Veronica is now charged with the murder of Paula. She will be able to assert a valid defense if Mary's acquittal was based on which of the following: 1. Not Guilty, by reason of insanity 2. Not Guilty, by reason of self-defense. (A) 1 only. (B) 2 only. (C) 1 and 2 (D) Neither

(B) 2 only

James and Ethel have been married for 45 years. James is very ill and caring for him has been a tremendous strain on Ethel. Ethel decides to substitute one of his pills for high blood pressure, for one designed for people suffering from low blood pressure. Ethel believes this drug will kill James. James, however, did not die and after a week Ethel discovered she was giving the wrong medication and what she gave was actually a harmless supplement, not a lethal drug. Ethel feels badly, and decides to just wait for James to die naturally. Is she guilty of attempted murder under the MPC? (A) Yes, because society has an interest in punishing people's evil thoughts. (B) Yes, because Ethel had the intent to kill and took a substantial act toward the commission of the crime. (C) No, because Ethel's decision to abandon her plan precludes prosecution for attempted murder. (D) No, because there was no way the drug Ethel actually gave James was lethal.

(B) Yes, because Ethel had the intent to kill and took a substantial act toward the commission of the crime.

Brad screamed obscenities at Jared. Jared turned and shoved Brad. The two exchanged shoves for a while. Brad then pulled a knife and made stabbing motions toward Jared, inflicting Jared with several minor cuts. Will Brad succeed in a self-defense for his use of the knife? (A)No, because Brad started the argument. (B)No, because Brad escalated the altercation. (C)Yes, because Jared started the fight. (D)Yes, because Jared was not hurt badly.

(B)No, because Brad escalated the altercation.

A worker was in the habit of carrying a lot of cash with him after payday. His good friend was worried that someday the worker might get robbed. To teach him to be more careful, and intending only to frighten him, the friend purchased a realistic-looking toy gun and a face mask and hid in the bushes one night after payday, waiting for the worker to come home. As the worker passed by, the friend jumped out of the bushes, pointed the toy gun at him, and took all of his money. The worker was badly frightened by the incident. Shortly thereafter, the friend returned the money to the worker and explained why he had staged the holdup. Which of the following crimes is the most serious crime of which the friend can be convicted? (A) Robbery (B) Armed robbery (C) Assault (D) Larceny

(C) Assault

Berry's life has been incredibly difficult because of a physical deformity. People make fun of him and call him "Elephant Man" or "Frankenstein." Some have even physically attacked him. Even after years of therapy he is rarely able to leave his home because of constant ridicule that tends to send him into an uncontrollable rage. One day Berry goes to the grocery store. While there a group of people start to point at him and laugh. Scared and furious, Berry explodes in anger and kills an innocent bystander. Under the Model Penal Code: (A) Berry has a full defense to murder because he was provoked by the group's laughter. (B) Berry is entitled to a manslaughter instruction because there was legally adequate provocation. (C) Berry is entitled to a manslaughter instruction because he suffers from an extreme emotional disturbance. (D) Berry is guilty of murder.

(C) Berry is entitled to a manslaughter instruction because he suffers from an extreme emotional disturbance.

Brian owns a pitbull named "Killer." Brian didn't name the dog and thinks it is a funny name for such a wonderful gentle pet. Killer has always been very tame with Brian. One day Brian takes Killer to his local playground and lets him run loose among the small children. When one of the children, Sammy, decides to pet Killer, the dog suddenly turns on Sammy and tears him to shreds. Brian is charged with murder. (A) Brian is guilty of murder because he should have known Killer was a dangerous dog. (B) Brian is guilty of murder because he knew his dog was likely to kill. (C) Brian is guilty of murder if he realized that Killer was a dangerous dog. (D) Brian is guilty of murder because he is strictly liable for the acts of his dog.

(C) Brian is guilty of murder if he realized that Killer was a dangerous dog.

Paula is kidnapped by fundamentalist terrorists. They hold her in a small dark room, by herself, with her hands and feet tied together for 60 days. During that time they lecture her about their view of Islam. After the 60 days Paula's kidnappers start encouraging her to pray with them, and to discuss political issues. They make it clear that if she agrees with them, they will give her privileges like letting her hands and feet be untied for periods of time, going out in an enclosed yard to walk, and better food. After months of this treatment Paula starts to believe in this radical fundamentalist terrorist agenda and tells her kidnappers that she wants to aid their cause. They tell her to prove it by robbing a bank. Paula is caught in the midst of the bank robbery, if she tries to mount a duress defense to the attempted robbery she will most likely: (A) Succeed, because she was brainwashed into helping with the robbery. (B) Succeed, because she honestly believed she needed to help with the robbery. (C) Fail, because she was not threated with serious bodily harm or death if she did not assist with the robbery. (D) Fail, because she acted with complete free will at the time of the robbery.

(C) Fail, because she was not threatened with serious bodily harm or death if she did not assist with the robbery.

Susie's cousin told her about his plan to rob a 7-11 with a friend. Although Susie expressed concerns about the plan, she didn't do anything to stop her cousin from carrying out the plan. Susie's cousin asked her to go to the café near the 7-11 and tell him if anything happened outside during the robbery. Susie agreed and did so. The robbery was interrupted and the actors were arrested and charged. Under common law rules can Susie be held responsible as a party to the robbery? (A) No, she cannot be held liable as a party to the crime because she was not directly involved in the criminal enterprise. (B) Yes, she can be held liable as a principal in the first degree. (C) Yes, she can be held liable as a principal in the second degree. (D) Yes she can be held responsible as an accessory before the fact.

(C) Yes, she can be held liable as a principal in the second degree.

Considering the facts in the last scenario Thompson would be criminally liable for _______ under the model penal code: (A)Felony murder (B)Manslaughter (C)Murder (D)Negligent Homicide

(C)Murder *Because he acted "recklessly, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life*

While watching TV at Lenny's house, Lenny & Carl get into a verbal argument. Lenny saw that the argument could escalate quickly and lead to a physical struggle. Lenny stayed stationery. Carl then approached Lenny, gently pushing him against a wall. Would Lenny be justified if he shoved Carl back? (A)No, because a little shove is not sufficient to make Carl an aggressor. (B)No, because Lenny has a duty to retreat (C)Yes, because Carl was the aggressor and Lenny had no duty to retreat. (D)Yes, because no one has to accept physical contact without responding in kind.

(C)Yes, because Carl was the aggressor and Lenny had no duty to retreat.

Tim has an extended warranty on his heating & air system at home which includes a free yearly maintenance. The service technician goes to Tim's neighbor's house instead. The neighbor, John, knowing that he didn't make the service call and knowing that the technician is at the wrong house, lets the technician service his heating and air system. Under traditional common law is John guilty of larceny? (A) Yes, because he did not pay for the service. (B) Yes, because his actions involved personal property. (C) No, because he was in mere custody of the heating & air system. (D) No, because he did not take the property of another.

(D) No, because he did not take the property of another.

Susan finds out that her husband is cheating on her. She decides that the only solution is to kill him, and the best way to do that is through poison. She decides to enroll in pharmacy school to learn everything she can about drugs and how to use them. Mid-way through pharmacy school her best friend figures out her plan and confronts her about it. Susan confesses. Can Susan be found guilty of attempted murder? (A) Yes. Susan had taken a substantial step towards her plan to kill by enrolling in pharmacy school. (B) Yes. Susan had a plan and took action by enrolling in pharmacy school. There is no evidence she would have aborted if not confronted by her best friend. (C) No. It is not clear that Susan really intended to murder her husband. (D) No. Susan had not yet completed pharmacy school and had plenty of time left to change her mind.

(D) No. Susan had not yet completed pharmacy school and had plenty of time left to change her mind. intent not relevant to attempt, going to pharm school was not a substantial act in furtherance of the crime.

Defendant an inmate in a state prison, solicited another inmate to help him murder three people who were not in prison. The other inmate, who was an undercover government agent, told defendant that he could arrange for "Joe" to do the killings for $5000. Defendant agreed to the price, but stipulated the time when the killings could be done, how he wanted the bodies disposed of, and stated that nothing was to be done in front of his son. Which of the following statements is true? (A) Defendant took a substantial step and should be charged with attempted murder in an MPC jurisdiction. (B) Defendant should be charged with attempted murder in a jurisdiction that follows the "Physical Proximity test." (C) Defendant should be charged with attempted murder in a jurisdiction that follows the "probable desistance" test. (D) None of the Above.

(D) None of the Above.

A woman's boyfriend came to her apartment with a mink coat in his arms and handed it to the woman. After the boyfriend told her that the coat was now hers, the woman asked him where he got the coat. The boyfriend answered, "from the Easter Bunny." After the boyfriend left, she tried on the coat and admired how good it looked on her in the mirror. The next day, the woman read in the newspaper that the home of a well-known socialite ha been burglarized the night before. Among the missing items, according to the paper, was a mink coat. The woman took the coat from the closet and rifled through the pockets. She found a handkerchief with the monogram matching the intials of the well-known socialite. The woman decided to keep the fur coat, thinking to herself that the socialite could probably afford to buy another coat. If you were a prosecutor what would you do: (A) Charge her with accessory after the fact to burglary. (B) Charge her with larceny and accessory after the fact to burglary. (C) Charge her with receipt of stolen property. (D) Not charge her with any crime.

(D) Not charge her with any crime.

Peter, an undercover drug agent, visited Jean's apartment, a reputed marijuana dealer. Jean agrees to sell Peter drugs; she divided his portion from the large amount that she had and bags it and gives it to Peter. Jean was convicted of distributing an illegal substance. Under the MPC, could her deal with Peter give rise to a conspiracy conviction for Jean? (A) No, because Peter's actions here constitute entrapment, providing Jean a complete defense. (B) No, because Peter was an undercover officer and therefore was not really intending to buy drugs. (C) No, because Jean has already been convicted of the substantive offense of distribution. (D) Yes, because the requirements of intent, agreement and action in furtherance of that agreement are satisfied.

(D) Yes, because the requirements of intent, agreement and action in furtherance of that agreement are satisfied.

Judy was returning home late one evening after dinner out with friends. As she approached her front door, Tony appeared with a gun and told her to open the door and let him in. Once inside he blindfolded Judy and tied her up in the dining room. He then stole jewelry from the bedroom, silver from the living room and cash from her home office. After Tony left, Judy struggling to free herself from the blindfold and she fell over, hit her head and died 2 days later from a head injury. Tony should be found guilty of: (A) Burglary (B) Robbery and burglary (C)Robbery and murder (D)Burglary, robbery and murder.

(D)Burglary, robbery and murder.

Thompson is stuck in traffic and late for his dialysis appointment. He realizes that if he drives on the sidewalk he can avoid the traffic jam and make it on time. He pulls onto the sidewalk and starts driving as quickly as he can. Pedestrians see what is happening and scatter to get out of his way. George trips and is hit by Thompson's car and killed. Which best describes Thompson's criminal liability? (A) Felony murder, because he was committing an assault with a deadly weapon. (B) Transferred intent because one is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts. (C)Intentional killing, because Thompson's conduct was a substantial factor in causing George's death. (D)Murder with malice aforethought.

(D)Murder with malice aforethought. *Because of his "extremely reckless disregard for human life aka depraved heart*

Penny walks out of her office late one night and as just before she gets to her car she sees a gold necklace that she recognizes as belonging to her boss. She picks it up and intends to give it to her boss the next day. But, the next day she realizes that necklace will match an outfit she is wearing to a party later in the week and decides to keep it. In a common law jurisdiction, Penny has committed: (A)Larceny only (B)Embezzlement only (C)Both Larceny and Embezzlement (D)Neither Larceny nor Embezzlement.

(D)Neither Larceny nor Embezzlement. Her intent *at the time* she picked up the necklace was to return it to her boss.

Peter decides to take his father's motorcycle for a joyride. He goes over to his father's house, sneaks the spare keys from the hiding place on the bike, and takes the bike out when his father is not home. While out driving the police pull him over on a traffic violation. Because the registration is not in Peter's name the officer arrests him for stealing the motorcycle. Is Peter guilty of larceny? (A) Yes, because he took the bike without permission. (B) Yes, because he intended to permanently deprive his father of the bike. (C)No, because the bike had an extra set of keys on it. (D)No, because he was only going for a joyride.

(D)No, because he was only going for a joyride.

Vladimir has a history of mental disease and a long criminal record for petty offenses. He goes into a local liquor store but decides to leave and come back later. Two hours later Vladimir returns, he waits until the clerk is distracted, and takes a few bottles of beer and puts them in his coat pocket. Vladimir said, "I just couldn't help myself, I wanted beer and I didn't have money." Vladimir's lawyer raises an insanity defense. Under which, if any, of the following standards is Vladimir likely to have an insanity defense? (A) Cognitive Incapacity (B) Moral incapacity (C)Irresistible - impulse (D)None of the above

(D)None of the above

Tom recently killed his boss when he threatened to fire him. Dick killed his wife's lover when he found them in bed on his return from a hard day of work. Which of the following is true? (A) Both Tom & Dick are guilty of murder because all intentional killings are murder (B) Neither Tom nor Dick is guilty of homicide because they were provoked to kill their victims. (C)Only Tom is guilty of murder because it is a full defense for Dick to kill his wife's lover. (D)None of the above.

(D)None of the above.

Donald and Mickey are rival gang members. One day Donald hears a fellow gang member, Daffy, say that he plans to kill Mickey at his first opportunity because he heard Mickey was planning to attack him. Donald knows that's not true but doesn't say anything to Daffy. The next day Daffy kills Mickey. If Donald is charged with murder for Mickey's death he is: (A) Guilty because he knew that Daffy was going to kill Mickey (B) Guilty because he could have prevented Mickey's stabbing.(C)Guilty because he is in the same gang as Daffy. (D)Not Guilty.

(D)Not Guilty.

Stan hates his neighbor Bill. Bill is constantly mowing his lawn and making noise. Stan decides that it would be funny to play a practical joke and see if Bill has a sense of humor. The next day that Bill is out mowing his lawn Stan decides to get in his pick-up truck and pretend to run into him. Stan used to be a stunt driver so he knows how to make it look real when there is no danger of an actual accident. Stan does his "joke" and Bill is startled and upset and scared as he sees Stan's big truck bearing down on him in his little rider-lawn mower. Is Stan guilty of assault? (A) Yes, because Stan acted recklessly (B) No because Stan never intended to hit Bill. (C)No because Bill didn't suffer any physical injury (D)Yes, because Stan intended to and did create a reasonable apprehension in Bill that he would be hit by the truck.

(D)Yes, because Stan intended to and did create a reasonable apprehension in Bill that he would be hit by the truck.

Harry was annoyed by his neighbor Dudley who played loud music day and night. Harry decided the way to deal with the problem, for one day at least, would be to cut the electrical connection to Dudley's house. Harry was a genius and figured out how to set it up in such a way that the electricity would turn off, and would automatically turn back on 12 hours later. It would not damage anything, and Harry did not intend for any lasting damage. However, when the electrical connection was cut it sent a surge which damaged Dudley's super cool sound system by blowing one of the connections. It cost Dudley $210 to repair it. The jurisdiction in which this occurred has a modern criminal code patterned after the Model Penal Code. One of its statutes makes it a criminal offense to "knowingly cause over $200 in damage to another's property." Can Harry be found guilty of violating the statute? A. No, because Harry did not intend to cause the damage to the super cool sound system. B. No, because Harry did not know that the electrical cut would cause damage to the super cool sound system. C. Yes, because Harry knew that he was cutting off the electricity. D. Yes, if Harry knew that in a very small percentage of cases the electrical cut could damage sound systems.

B. No, because Harry did not know that the electrical cut would cause damage to the super cool sound system.

Officers Brown and Smith were on foot patrol when they saw a women who had fallen into a river holding onto a tree branch that hung over the river and screaming for help. Officer Brown is in the U.S. Army reserve and has been certified to perform air and water rescues. A crowd had gathered to watch the woman struggle. Officers Brown and Smith did not go in the water to help the woman, but instead conducted crowd control. They did radio for help, but Officer Brown later stated that he knew, and discussed with Officer Smith, the fact that the branch would break before the rescue squad from the Fire Department would reach the location. The branch did break, and the woman was swept down the river where she drowned to death. Can the prosecutor charge both Officers Brown and Smith? A. No, they did not have adequate rescue equipment so they would be putting themselves in peril, thereby negating their duty to act. B. No, neither had a duty to act. C. Yes, as police officers both had voluntarily assumed the duty to act to protect and serve the public and therefore had a duty to act to save this woman. D. Yes, but only Officer Brown because his specialized training in water rescues meant that he had a status relationship and therefore a duty to act.

B. No, neither had a duty to act.

Trisha went out to bar with some friends and got extremely drunk. She and her companions shared a cab ride home. When Trisha arrived at her apartment, she was unable to get her front door open because her key kept getting jammed in the lock. As she had done on several previous occasions, she pried open the screen on the outside window and climbed inside. Once she was in the living room, a police officer arrived. Apparently, Trisha had mistakenly broken into her neighbor's apartment. She was arrested for attempted burglary. Can Trisha successfully defend by claiming she was just mistaken and thought that she was breaking into her own apartment? A. Yes, such a mistake of fact can act as a defense. B. Yes, mistake of fact can be offered to disprove that she had intended a burglary C. No, Trisha was mistaken only as to the apartment she entered, not as to her actions. D. No, because mistake of law is not a defense.

B. Yes, mistake of fact can be offered to disprove that she had intended a burglary

Peter, Paul, & Mary decide that they need additional money so they agree to rob a gas station. Peter gives Paul a gun to use in the robbery and stays home. Paul steals the getaway car and Mary actually robs the gas station. All three are arrested. What crimes can Peter be charged with? A. Conspiracy to rob a gas station. B. Conspiracy to rob a gas station and the robbery itself. C. Conspiracy to rob a gas station, car theft, and the robbery itself. D. None of the above.

C. Conspiracy to rob a gas station, car theft, and the robbery itself.

James and Martin are friends and business partners. Both of them realize that their business is in bad shape and they are about to lose their entire investment. James comes up with a plan. He tells Martin that they should burn the business and collect on their insurance policy. Martin loves the idea and agrees to set the fire. After Martin burns the business to the ground, James submits the insurance claim and collects the proceeds. They are both charged with insurance fraud. Which of the following is true? A. James is guilty of being an accomplice. B. Only Martin is guilty of insurance fraud. C. James and Martin are both guilty of insurance fraud. D. Martin is guilty of arson and James is guilty of being an accomplice.

C. James and Martin are both guilty of insurance fraud.

Responding to merchant complaints about addicts congregating by fancy stores, the legislature passed a new law making it a crime "to be addicted to the use of illegal narcotics." Walking on the public street, Dawn was seen by a police officer moving unsteadily. The officer approached Dawn and asked her, "Are you ok?" Dawn replied, "None of your business." The officer observed fresh needle marks on Dawn's arm while she said, "I really need my stuff, don't arrest me." Dawn was arrested and charged with violating the new law. Can she be successfully prosecuted? A. Yes, the officer's observations are enough evidence to convict Dawn. B. Yes, the officer's observations, coupled with Dawn's statements, are ample evidence to convict. C. No, a conviction would violate Dawn's constitutional rights. D. No, Dawn's statement cannot be used against her.

C. No, a conviction would violate Dawn's constitutional rights.

Holly often visited her ailing uncle in prison. She was having a drink one afternoon and told the bartender that on Sundays she visited her uncle in state prison. The bartender asked if, while she was visiting, she would visit his uncle and give him the weather report. Holly thought this was a bit odd, but the bartender assured her that his uncle used to travel a lot and just liked to hear about the weather in cities he knows. Holly agreed and gave the weather reports every week for months. Holly was charged with "knowingly assisting organized crime." The government asserts that the weather reports were actually coded messages about the activities of a local crime syndicate. Holly claimed she didn't know anything about it and prosecution doesn't challenge her claim on this point. Should Holly be convicted? A. Yes, because she knew that she was delivering information, which in fact assisted the syndicate. B. Yes, because the knowledge requirement includes an objective evaluation, and a reasonable person would have known that these messages were not innocuous. C. No, because Holy did not in fact know that the weather reports were assisting the criminal activity. D. No, because Holly should only be convicted if she intended to assist the syndicate.

C. No, because Holy did not in fact know that the weather reports were assisting the criminal activity.

Megan invited her friend Rachel hiking one weekend. Megan knew that Rachel was terrified of the wilderness. Believing she could help Rachel get over her fear, Megan purposefully became separated from Rachel and left her alone in the wilderness for several hours. Rachel became disoriented and decided to sit against a large tree until Megan could find her. While she was resting, a thick branch from the tree snapped off and landed on Rachel. The blow killed her instantly. Is Megan guilty of involuntary manslaughter? A. Yes, because Megan's behavior was negligent. B. Yes, because Megan's behavior was grossly reckless. C. No, because Rachel dying from a falling tree branch was not foreseeable. D. No, because Megan did not intend to kill Rachel.

C. No, because Rachel dying from a falling tree branch was not foreseeable.

Two police officers arrive at a downtown apartment in response to complaints from neighbors about a noisy party. Morgan answered the door, clearly inebriated. The officers told him to step outside to the sidewalk so that they could talk to him, insinuating that he would get into trouble if he did not do as told, so Morgan went outside to speak with the officers. When Morgan reached the sidewalk, the officers arrested him for being drunk in public. Can Morgan be convicted? A. Yes, because the statute does not require a voluntary act. B. Yes, because Morgan committed the voluntary act when he drank alcohol. C. No, because a voluntary act requirement will be implied, and Morgan did not act in such a manner as to violate the statute. D. No, because even if a voluntary act requirement is implied, Morgan did not violate the statute.

C. No, because a voluntary act requirement will be implied, and Morgan did not act in such a manner as to violate the statute.

Sally was out running with her dog in the early morning. Just as she was about to leave the running trail to return home, she saw a bicycle rider on the pavement, with his head bleeding (he wasn't wearing a helmet) and groaning. His bicycle was crushed against a nearby stone wall. Sally's dog wanted to investigate, but Sally pulled him away, and kept running. She was sure that there would be someone else running, walking, or biking by who would call 911 and get him help. So Sally did not stop and offer assistance. Unfortunately, it was several hours later before anyone came by and saw the bicycle rider and by then the bicycle rider had died from his head injury. If the police learn that Sally went by the accident scene, but did not intervene or call 911, can she be held criminally liable? A. Yes. Given the seriousness of the accident, the victim was clearly in grave danger and Sally owed a duty to help the bicycle rider. B. Yes. Because Sally may have been the last person able to call or intervene in time to prevent the bicycle rider from dying, she can be held liable for failing to do so. C. No. There is generally no duty for anyone to assist others. D. No. Only medical professionals can be required to help the bicycle rider.

C. No. There is generally no duty for anyone to assist others.

John, Mike, Sue, and Roger are at a pool party. During the party, a toddler falls into the pool and starts to drown. Everyone sees what is happening, but no one stops to help. John is the toddler's father, Mike is the hired lifeguard, Sue is an off-duty police officer, and Roger is a guest at the party. The prosecution files criminal charges against all four defendants for failing to help the child. Which of the following is correct? A. None of the defendants is guilty because there is no general duty to help another person. B. Only John is guilty because he is the only defendant related to the child. C. All of the defendants are guilty if they were capable of saving the child without putting themselves at risk. D. John & Mike are guilty if they are capable of saving the child without putting themselves at risk.

D. John & Mike are guilty if they are capable of saving the child without putting themselves at risk.

Ellie, a very petite woman, went to the unofficial office happy hour after work. Although she was not generally a drinker, she frequently attended the nightly happy hour to get to know other people in the firm. During the course of her 45 minute stay, Ellie had one glass of white wine. On her short drive home, a police officer lawfully pulled her over. Suspecting Ellie was drunk, the officer conducted a field sobriety test. Ellie's blood alcohol was just above the legal limit. Which of the following arguments might successfully be put forth in her defense? A. She did not know she was intoxicated. B. She did not intend to drive while intoxicated. C. Any reasonable person would have acted in the same manner, considering the circumstances. D. None of the above

D. None of the above- this is a strict liability crime.

William, a drunk driver, strikes and severely injures Ellis. When Ellis is taken to the hospital, he is mistakenly left in the corner of an overcrowded emergency room. Tragically, he dies of internal bleeding before doctors can treat him. According to the defense experts, if Ellis had been treated in a more timely manner, he could have been saved. Prosecutors charge William with murder. Is William the legal cause of Ellis' death? A. no, because the hospital officials were negligent in not treating Ellis sooner. B. No, because Ellis could have been saved if he had been treated in a timelier manner. C. Yes, because William started the chain of causation by striking and injuring Ellis. D. Yes, because the hospital staff's actions did not break the chain of causation.

D. Yes, because the hospital staff's actions did not break the chain of causation.

John Smith worked for a private company that went bankrupt and couldn't afford to pay his pension. So for the last 7 years (since he turned 62) he has been working part time delivering pizzas. One night he went to deliver pizzas at what turned out to be a vacant house. Three teenagers were there and demanded the pizzas. When Smith laughed, and refused to turn them over, they beat him with a baseball bat. Smith suffered a skull fracture and blood clot. While in the hospital he had a stroke. On his release he went to a nursing home. One year and one month after the attack he died at the age of 70. Using a dependent/independent intervening cause analysis should defendants be charged with a homicide?

Under common law, no. Year and a day rule.