MBE Crim Missed Qs
What types of crimes is voluntary intoxication a defense to? What is the 2-element exception to even those kinds of crimes (i.e. under what 2-element circumstance is voluntary intox NEVER a defense)?
Specific Intent crimes (5 options) Exception to the defense: I) Specific Intent was formed prior to intoxication; and, II) Intoxication was done for the specific purpose of "working up the nerve to complete the crime" = Treat as if sober at the time of the crime/attempt.
When does the exclusionary rule not apply regarding criminal proceedings? (i.e. when is properly excluded evidence admissible?)
At the grand jury stage.
When does D act purposely, negligently, knowingly, and recklessly?
A person acts purposefully when it is his conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result. A person acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances. A person acts knowingly when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist. A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. Recklessness is one of the four categories into which the Model Penal Code classifies the mental component of a criminal offense (i.e., the element of fault).
The Wharton rule states that: A If the crime requires two or more parties to commit it, there can be no conspiracy to commit the crime unless more parties take part in the crime than are necessary for its commission B There can be no conviction for conspiracy if all parties with whom the defendant has conspired have been acquitted C A conspiracy requires two or more "guilty minds" D An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is required, but an act of mere preparation will suffice
Answer: A (Mine: B) Explanation: If two or more people are necessary for the commission of the substantive offense (e.g., adultery, dueling, sale of contraband), the "Wharton rule" states that there is no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement than are necessary for the crime. Traditionally, there can be no conviction for conspiracy if all parties with whom the defendant has conspired have been acquitted. However, this is not a statement of the Wharton rule. At common law, a conspiracy requires two or more "guilty minds." (The Model Penal Code and the modern trend is to follow a "unilateral approach" that requires only one guilty mind.) This is not, however, a statement of the Wharton rule. At common law, an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is not required; however, this is not the Wharton rule.
A man and a woman were traveling in the man's car when they were stopped by the police for running a red light. Before the police came up to the car, the man told the woman, "You owe me a favor. Keep this package for me," and gave the woman a small foil package. The woman put the package in her backpack, saying, "O.K., but don't tell me what's in it." Before the police even began to question the occupants, the man blurted out, "I'm clean, man, but she has a stash," pointing at the woman. The officers searched the backpack that the woman was holding and found the foil package, which contained heroin. The woman was arrested, but the man was not. Is the evidence found on the woman admissible? A Yes, under the automobile exception. B Yes, because due process imputes knowledge where there is willful ignorance. C No, because due process forbids granting of immunity to the more culpable defendant. D No, because the woman did not know that the package contained heroin.
Answer: A (Mine: B) Explanation: The evidence is admissible because the search was valid. Even though the police have validly stopped an automobile, they cannot search the vehicle without meeting the requirements of one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as the automobile exception (which requires probable cause) or consent. The automobile exception comes into play when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. Under the exception, the police may search anywhere in the vehicle in which the item for which they have cause to search may be hidden, ****including packages in the vehicle. The statement of the man to the police officers gave them probable cause to believe that the car contained evidence of a crime (i.e., that the woman had drugs somewhere in the car). Thus, the requirement for application of the automobile exception was present, providing validity for the warrantless search conducted by the police. Because the search was valid, the evidence found on the woman is admissible. Besides being an incorrect statement of law, (B) is incorrect because it focuses on the woman's knowledge of the contents of the package. Whether the woman knew that heroin (or some other illegal substance) was in the package is irrelevant to the admissibility of the heroin. Even assuming that the woman knew of the contents, the search would not be valid unless there was a ground for the warrantless search. (D) similarly links the woman's knowledge of the package's contents to the admissibility of the evidence. As noted above, the admissibility of the evidence is dependent on the validity of the search that produced the evidence, rather than on the knowledge of the defendant as to the existence of the evidence. (C) is incorrect for three reasons: First, due process does not prohibit granting of immunity to a more culpable defendant. Second, there is no indication that immunity was even granted here (immunity from prosecution may be granted to compel a witness to answer questions. The facts merely state that the man was not arrested; this does not necessarily mean that he was granted immunity). Third, the call of the question relates to the admissibility of the evidence, and a grant of immunity does not relate to the question of the admissibility of the evidence found on the woman; such admissibility is determined by the validity of the search of the woman by the officers.
A confession obtained in violation of Miranda may: A Be used at trial for impeachment purposes B Be used for any purpose at trial as long as the government can prove that the confession was otherwise voluntary C Never be used at trial
Answer: A (Mine: C) Explanation: A confession obtained in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach the defendant's testimony if (I) the defendant takes the stand at trial and (II) the confession was o/wise voluntary. Since the above is true, it is not true that a confession obtained in violation of Miranda may never be used at trial. A confession obtained in violation of Miranda is not admissible in the state's case in chief as evidence of guilt, even if the government can prove that the confession was otherwise voluntary. Note that in any case, a truly involuntary confession (e.g., one obtained through torture) is never admissible for any purpose.
A witness subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury has no right to: A Counsel in the courtroom, Miranda warnings, or warnings that she is a potential defendant B Warnings that she is a potential defendant, but she must be provided counsel in the courtroom and Miranda warnings C Counsel in the courtroom or Miranda warnings, but she must be warned if she is a potential defendant D Counsel in the courtroom, but she must be provided Miranda warnings and warned if she is a potential defendant
Answer: A (Mine: C) Explanation: A witness subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury has no right to receive Miranda warnings. A grand jury witness also has no right to have an attorney present, ****but she may consult with an attorney outside the grand jury room. A witness who is under investigation and may well become a defendant has no right to a warning that she is a "potential defendant" when called to testify before the grand jury.
Which of the following statements is true about the effect at trial of the Miranda rules? A A confession obtained in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach the defendant's testimony. B A question at trial about the defendant's silence during an interrogation results in a mistrial. C A defendant's silence after receiving Miranda warnings may be used to counter an insanity defense. D If the police intentionally fail to give Miranda warnings, any statement obtained directly from the violation cannot be used at trial, but other evidence derived from such statements may be used.
Answer: A (Mine: D) Explanation: A confession obtained in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach the defendant's testimony if the defendant takes the stand at trial and the confession was otherwise voluntary. However, the confession is not admissible in the state's case in chief as evidence of guilt, and a truly involuntary confession (e.g., one obtained through torture) is never admissible for any purpose. A question at trial about the defendant's silence during an interrogation might NOT result in a mistrial. A mistrial can be avoided if the admission was a harmless error. A single question may be harmless error if it is followed by an objection from the defense, sustained by the judge, and then the jury is instructed to disregard the question. A defendant's silence after receiving Miranda warnings may NOT be used to counter an insanity defense. (The prosecution's claim would be, how insane could the defendant have been? He understood well enough to remain silent after being told that anything he says can be used against him in court.) The warnings carry an implicit assurance that silence will carry no penalty. If the police intentionally fail to give Miranda warnings, the fruit of an interrogation may NOT be used at trial. Following an intentional failure by the police to give a detainee his Miranda warnings, if he gives the police information that leads to nontestimonial evidence, it will be suppressed. ****ONLY If the failure to warn was not intentional, however, the evidence will probably not be suppressed.
For the purposes of felony murder, the felony is deemed to terminate when: A the defendant reaches a place of temporary safety B the defendant leaves the scene of the felony C the victim dies D the last act required to complete the felony is committed
Answer: A (Mine: D) Explanation: Deaths caused while fleeing a felony may also give rise to felony murder liability. Such liability, however, is generally terminated when the defendant reaches a place of temporary safety. Although the death of the victim is obviously required for a charge of felony murder, the felony is deemed to continue as to a fleeing felon until the felon reaches a place of temporary safety. It is conceivable that the felon may kill other individuals and thus be liable for multiple counts of felony murder. The completion of the felony, and leaving the scene of the felony, do not terminate potential felony murder liability. The felon may also be liable for deaths resulting from flight from the felony.
With regard to the crime of robbery, which of the following statements is true? A The force or threats of force may be used to retain possession immediately after such possession has been accomplished. B If intimidation is used, a threat to destroy the victim's dwelling house is insufficient. C If threats of immediate death or serious physical injury are used, they must be threats only to the robbery victim. D The property must be taken from the victim's person.
Answer: A (Mine: D) Explanation: The force or threats must be used either to gain possession of the property or to retain possession immediately after such possession has been accomplished. If force is used, it must be sufficient to overcome the victim's resistance. If threats of immediate death or serious physical injury are used, they must be threats to the victim, a member of her family, a relative, or a person in her presence at the time. The property must be taken from the victim's person or presence. ****"Presence" means some location reasonably close to the victim, but it need not be taken from the victim's person. Property in other rooms of the house in which the victim is located is in her "presence." A threat to do damage to property will not suffice—with the exception of a threat to destroy the victim's dwelling house.
The fact that the defendant committed a particular act is sufficient for the jury to infer that he acted with: A Malice B General intent C Specific intent D Negligence
Answer: B (Mine: A) Explanation: A jury can infer the required general intent merely from the doing of the act. It is not necessary that evidence specifically proving the general intent be offered by the prosecution. However, a jury cannot infer that the defendant acted with specific intent by the doing of the act. (That said, the manner in which an act is done may provide circumstantial evidence that the defendant acted with specific intent.) Malice is established by showing that the defendant recklessly disregarded an obvious or high risk that a particular harmful result would occur. Negligence is established by showing that the defendant failed to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances existed or a result would follow, and such failure constituted a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances.
Which of the following are specific intent crimes? A False imprisonment, kidnapping, and battery B Solicitation, assault, and burglary C Assault, battery, and first degree murder D Larceny, robbery, and arson
Answer: B (Mine: A) Explanation: Solicitation, assault (attempted battery type) and burglary are specific intent crimes. Solicitation requires the intent to have the person solicited commit the crime. The attempted battery type of assault, like all attempt crimes, requires the specific intent to commit the crime attempted. Burglary requires the specific intent to commit a felony at the time of entry into the dwelling of another. Assault (attempted battery type) is a specific intent crime. First degree murder is a specific intent crime, in that it requires the intent to kill after premeditation and deliberation. However, battery is a general intent crime. False imprisonment, kidnapping, and battery are all general intent crimes. Larceny and robbery are both specific intent crimes that require the intent to permanently deprive another person of his interest in the property taken. However, arson is a malice crime.
A car was pulled over for speeding and the police officer ordered the driver to step out and move away from the car. The officer subsequently searched the glove compartment of the car and found an illegal handgun. Which of the following would NOT be a valid basis for the search of the glove compartment? A The officer had a reasonable suspicion that the driver was dangerous. B The officer properly placed the driver under arrest and secured him in the back of the squad car before conducting the search. C The officer properly placed the driver under arrest, impounded the vehicle, and then conducted a standard inventory search. D The officer had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal narcotics.
Answer: B (Mine: A) Explanation: The search of the glove compartment would not be valid if the officer had placed the driver under arrest and secured him in the back of the squad car. After arresting the occupant of a vehicle, the police may search the interior of the vehicle incident to the arrest if (a) the arrestee is unsecured and still may gain access to the interior of the vehicle, or (b) the police reasonably believe that evidence of the offense for which the person was arrested may be found in the vehicle. Here, if the officer secured the arrested driver in the back of the squad car, the first basis for permitting the search incident to arrest no longer applies (and there are no facts to support the second basis). Hence, there would be no grounds under (B) to support the search of the glove compartment. (A) is incorrect because, under the stop and frisk exception, an officer may order the occupant of a vehicle out of the car and search the passenger compartment if the officer reasonably believes that the occupant may be dangerous. (C) is incorrect because once a vehicle has been impounded, the police may conduct an inventory search as part of standard procedure. (D) is incorrect because, under the automobile exception, the police may search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to do so, and they may seize any contraband that they find.
Miranda warnings are required as a prerequisite to the admissibility of confessions resulting from custodial police interrogation. Which of the following statements is true about the custody requirement under Miranda? A In considering whether a person was in custody during an interrogation, a court will consider the person's experience with the criminal justice system. B For Miranda purposes, a person may be in custody in his own home. C For Miranda purposes, a voluntary detention may constitute custody. D Whether a person is in custody depends on the subjective views of the person and the interrogator.
Answer: B (Mine: A) Explanation: For Miranda purposes, a person may be in custody in his own home. Whether a person is in custody depends on whether his freedom of action is denied in a significant way. This is an objective test—whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would think that he is in custody. For example, if police officers handcuff a suspect in his own home, he is clearly in custody. Similarly, if they surround a person in the middle of the night in his own bedroom, awaken him, and begin questioning him, custody will be found. It is not true that custody depends on the subjective views of the person and the interrogator. As discussed above, the test is objective—what a reasonable person would think. Similarly, the courts will not consider a person's experience with the criminal justice system in determining custody. This is a subjective factor. Neither is it true that a voluntary detention may constitute custody. If a person consented to the detention, he has not been denied the requisite freedom of action; he is there by choice.
A conspirator can be convicted of a crime committed by another conspirator if: A The crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy. B The crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy, and the crimes were foreseeable. C The crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy, or the crimes were foreseeable. D The crimes were foreseeable.
Answer: B (Mine: C) Explanation: Foreseeability + furtherance
Some constitutional rights applicable in criminal cases are offense specific (i.e., when invoked, they apply only to the specific charge for which they were invoked), and some are not offense specific (i.e., once invoked, they apply to all charges against the defendant and not just the charge for which they were invoked). Which of the following statements is correct regarding whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are offense specific? A Neither the Fifth Amendment nor the Sixth Amendment is offense specific. B The Fifth Amendment is not offense specific, but the Sixth Amendment is offense specific. C The Fifth Amendment is offense specific, but the Sixth Amendment is not offense specific. D Both the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment are offense specific.
Answer: B (Mine: C) Explanation: The correct choice is that the Fifth Amendment is not offense specific, but the Sixth Amendment is offense specific. Thus, if a defendant invokes his right to counsel, under the Fifth Amendment the police cannot interrogate the defendant about any charge without counsel. But under the Sixth Amendment, the defendant can be interrogated regarding a different charge. The difference is significant when a defendant requests counsel after being charged and is put into a cell with an informer. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to any post-charge interrogation—whether or not the defendant knows he is being interrogated by a government agent. The Fifth Amendment right to counsel, on the other hand, applies only when the defendant knows that he is being interrogated by a government agent. Thus, an undercover informer in the defendant's cell can question the defendant about anything without violating his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, ****and under the Sixth Amendment, the informer can question the defendant about any crime but the one with which he is charged. *****Therefore, if the cellmate informer questions the defendant and obtains information regarding a crime different from the one with which the defendant was charged, the questioning violates neither the Fifth nor the Sixth Amendment.
Suspecting criminal activity, a police officer acting without a warrant peeked through a small opening in the shutters of an apartment. The officer observed the apartment's tenant and the defendant making methamphetamine. The officer immediately entered the apartment and arrested the tenant and the defendant, and he confiscated the ingredients for the methamphetamine, the tools used for methamphetamine production, and any completed methamphetamine for evidence. The search is later ruled invalid at a suppression hearing. May the defendant now claim that her Fourth Amendment rights have been violated by the seizure of the ingredients, tools, and methamphetamine from the apartment? A Yes, because the items will be used in evidence against her. B Yes, if she was an overnight guest of the tenant. C No, because she was not the owner or occupier of the apartment. D No, unless she admits to ownership of the items.
Answer: B (Mine: C) Explanation: B is the more complete statement of law as C misstates that she would have to be either the owner or occupier and forecloses on the possibility of overnight-guest standing.
Although government-required drug testing constitutes a search, the Supreme Court has upheld such testing without a warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion when justified by "special needs" beyond a general interest of law enforcement. In which of the following cases is a court least likely to find a special need justifying a warrantless drug test? A Railroad employees involved in accidents. B Politicians running for public office. C Public school students participating in extracurricular activities. D Drug interdiction agents who have access to large quantities of illegal drugs.
Answer: B (Mine: D) Explanation: The Supreme Court found no special interest justifying the warrantless drug testing of politicians running for public office. The Supreme Court has found a special interest justifying warrantless drug testing of public school students participating in extracurricular activities—the need being to assure the safety of students. The Court has also found a special interest for warrantless drug testing of railroad employees involved in accidents—the strong interest of assuring public safety. Finally, the Court has found a special interest justifying the warrantless drug testing of drug interdiction agents—their ready access to drugs. **Think comparatively high ready-access & public safety ONLY.
One night when a man was very drunk, he took one of his rifles, loaded it, and fired a bullet through his front door. Unbeknownst to him, at the time he fired the rifle, someone was driving by the house. The bullet went through the front door, through the window of the car, and killed the driver. The shooter was convicted of murder and appeals. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of murder. How should the court of appeals rule? A That the evidence is sufficient to prove that the killing was intentional. B That the evidence is sufficient to prove that the killing was done with malice aforethought. C That the evidence is insufficient, because the shooter did not know that the driver was driving by his house and therefore he could not have acted intentionally. D That the evidence is insufficient, because at most the shooter's conduct constituted gross negligence and involuntary manslaughter.
Answer: B (Mine: D) Explanation: The court of appeals should rule that the evidence is sufficient to prove that the killing was done with malice aforethought. Under the facts of this case, to support a finding of murder, the trial court would have to find that the shooter acted either intentionally or with malice aforethought. The facts clearly indicate that the shooter did not know of the car, so it cannot be said that he shot at it intentionally, and therefore (A) is not correct. "Malice aforethought" can mean that the defendant is acting with reckless indifference to ****an unjustifiably high risk to human life. There is little question that shooting a rifle through a front door shows reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. Thus, the question is whether the shooter's intoxication was sufficient to negate this state of mind. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to crimes requiring malice, recklessness, or negligence. In the case of recklessness, if a defendant's lack of awareness results from voluntary intoxication, his conduct will nevertheless be deemed reckless. (C) is not a correct analysis of the issue, because his intentional act was firing the rifle, not shooting at the car. (D) is not the best answer, because although there is the possibility that the prosecution might have been able to show only gross negligence, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of malice aforethought and murder.
While walking on patrol in a commercial district in the early evening, a police officer noticed that a light was on in the back window of a machine shop. Curious about what was going on inside, the officer went to the back of the building and tried to look through the window of the shop, but it had been painted on the inside so that only a strip about three inches at the top, eight feet above ground level, was still transparent. The officer quietly brought two trash cans from a neighboring business over to the window, stood on them and saw, through the strip of unpainted window, that the shop owner's son was inside with a friend, sucking white powder into his nose through a rolled-up tube of paper from off a small mirror. Recognizing that the shop owner's son was snorting cocaine, the officer knocked at the front door to the shop, and the son let him in. The officer immediately arrested the owner's son and his friend. In the back room of the shop through whose window he had peered, the officer found and seized several grams of cocaine, a razor blade, and a mirror. In the subsequent prosecution of the shop owner's son for possession of cocaine, the owner's son seeks to bar introduction of the cocaine, mirror, and razor blade into evidence. Will his motion be granted? A Yes, because the officer could not have known that the owner's son was snorting cocaine absent a chemical test of the substance being snorted. B Yes, because the officer violated the owner's son's reasonable expectation of privacy. C No, because the search was incident to a valid arrest. D No, because the owner's son consented to the officer's entry into the shop.
Answer: B (Mine: D) Explanation: The shop owner's son had a reasonable expectation of privacy, as evidenced by the obscuring of the window so that neighbors could not see into the shop. Hence, the officer's search would have to be based on a valid warrant or qualify under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. Putting trash cans next to a back window to climb upon and peering into the window through a narrow opening eight feet above the ground would be considered a violation of the owner's son's Fourth Amendment rights and not a "plain view" of criminal activity. Because the seizure of the cocaine, mirror, and razor was based on the illegal search, the evidence could not be used by the state. (A) is wrong; absolute certainty of illegal activity is not required for a valid search. A reasonable belief is required. (C) is wrong. The arrest itself is probably invalid, and in any event a search of the next room would not be an area within the immediate control of the defendant. ***(D) is wrong. Consent to enter the shop is not a consent to search the back room.
A man and woman agreed to burn down a neighbor's house in retribution for some wrong the neighbor allegedly committed against them. Both the man and woman were arrested shortly after they poured gasoline on the neighbor's front porch. The man revealed to the police that he participated in the plan to ensure that nothing bad would happen to the neighbor, and that he had made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime, which enabled the police to arrest him and the woman "in the act." The woman stated that she would not have participated if not for the man's encouragement. If the woman is charged with a conspiracy at common law to commit arson, how should she be found? A Not guilty, because she was not predisposed to commit the crime but for the man's encouragement. B Not guilty, because the man did not intend to commit arson. C Guilty, because there was an agreement, and pouring gasoline on the front porch was sufficient for the overt act. D Guilty, because arson is not a specific intent crime.
Answer: B (Mine: D) Explanation: The woman should be found not guilty of a conspiracy to commit arson. To be convicted of a conspiracy at common law, it must be shown that at least two persons agreed to achieve an unlawful objective. Having two or more persons is a necessary element of conspiracy under the traditional bilateral approach. Here, the facts indicate that the man did not intend to achieve the objective of the conspiracy—to burn the dwelling house of another. Thus, the woman cannot be guilty of conspiracy to commit arson. (C) is incorrect. The man feigned his agreement, making the answer factually inaccurate. (D) is also incorrect. Although it is true that arson is not a specific intent crime, conspiracy is a specific intent crime, in that the prosecution must show that the defendant intended to agree and intended to achieve the unlawful objective. Thus, the fact that the underlying crime is not a specific intent crime is irrelevant. (A) is incorrect. Even if the woman would not have committed the crime without the man's inducement, that is not a defense for the woman. A person cannot be entrapped by a private citizen.
A college student was the sole lifetime beneficiary under a large trust administered by a banker. The student received a large monthly distribution from the trust, and whenever he ran short, he simply called the banker for extra funds, because the trust provided that the student was to receive whatever he needed from income or principal. The student's roommate found out about the trust arrangement and decided to see if he could make it pay off for him. The roommate sent an e-mail to the banker, which appeared to be from the student, and which asked for several thousand dollars to cover medical expenses. The e-mail further stated that, since he was in the hospital, the student would send his roommate to pick up the cash. The next day, the roommate showed up at the banker's office and obtained the money on the promise that he would take it to the student. The roommate absconded with the funds. When the roommate obtained the cash from the banker, what crime did the roommate commit? A False pretenses. B Embezzlement. C Larceny by trick. D Larceny.
Answer: C (Mine: A) Explanation: The roommate committed larceny by trick because the banker's consent to the roommate's taking the money was induced by the misrepresentation that the roommate would take the money to the student/beneficiary. Larceny consists of a taking and carrying away of tangible personal property of another by trespass, with intent to permanently (or for an unreasonable time) deprive the person of his interest in the property. If the person in possession of property has not consented to the taking of it by the defendant, the taking is trespassory. However, if the victim consents to the defendant's taking possession of the property, but such consent has been induced by a misrepresentation, the consent is not valid. Under such circumstances, the larceny is called larceny by trick. Here, the roommate obtained the money from the banker on the promise that he would take it to the student/beneficiary. This misrepresentation induced the banker to give possession of the money to the roommate. The roommate then proceeded to take the money and carry it away, intending all the while to permanently deprive one who had a possessory interest superior to the roommate's of his interest in the money. Thus, all the elements of larceny are present. Because the original wrongful taking resulted from consent induced by misrepresentation, the specific larceny committed by the roommate is more precisely characterized as larceny by trick. Consequently, although the roommate has in fact committed larceny, (C) is a better answer than (D). Regarding (A), false pretenses consists of obtaining title to the property of another by an intentional (or knowing) false statement of past or existing fact, with intent to defraud the other. ****If a victim intends to convey only possession of the property to the defendant, the offense is larceny by trick. *****However, if the victim intends to convey title, the offense is false pretenses. Here, the banker intended to convey possession of the money to the roommate so that he could give the money to the student/beneficiary. The banker did not intend to convey title to the roommate. ****Because the roommate did not obtain title by means of his misrepresentation but simply obtained possession, the offense of false pretenses was not committed. (B) is incorrect because embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of property of another by a person in lawful possession of that property. In embezzlement, the misappropriation of the property occurs ****while the defendant has lawful possession of it. ****In larceny, the misappropriation occurs generally at the time the defendant obtains wrongful possession of the property. ****The roommate did not have lawful possession of the money because his possession of the money resulted from his misrepresentation to the banker. Thus, the roommate's taking of the money was wrongful from the outset. ****Because the roommate had wrongful, rather than lawful, possession of the money, there was no embezzlement.
Miranda warnings __________ need to be given before a suspect is interrogated by a civilian working for the police. A Never B Always C May
Answer: C (Mine: A) Explanation: If D knows employed by cops, then need to give Miranda warnings
Which of the following statements is correct regarding the ability of police officers to stop automobiles for investigatory purposes? A The police may stop an automobile for investigatory purposes without cause because automobiles are not areas protected by the Fourth Amendment. B The police may not stop an automobile for investigatory purposes unless they have probable cause to believe that the driver has broken a law. C The police may not stop an automobile for investigatory purposes unless they have reasonable suspicion that the driver has broken a law. D The police may stop automobiles for investigatory purposes even without reasonable suspicion if they make the stops on a neutral, articulable basis to investigate a problem closely related to the mobility of automobiles.
Answer: D (Mine: B) Explanation: It is true that the police may stop automobiles on a neutral, articulable basis to investigate a problem closely related to the mobility of automobiles. Generally, to make an investigatory stop of an automobile, the police must have at least reasonable suspicion that the driver or an occupant violated or was about to violate some law (i.e., the normal Terry standard). However, the Supreme Court has recognized that the mobility of automobiles can cause special problems, and allow the police to set up roadblocks to stop automobiles even without individualized suspicion to investigate these problems. A good example would be a roadblock that stops every car to determine whether the drivers are intoxicated. The police do not need to have probable cause to believe that the driver has broken the law to stop an automobile for investigatory purposes, because automobiles can be stopped on reasonable suspicion or even without any individualized suspicion, as discussed above. The police do not need to have even reasonable suspicion that the driver has broken the law to stop an automobile for investigatory purposes. First, the driver is not the only possible object of reasonable suspicion. And second, as discussed above, automobiles can be stopped even without any individualized suspicion, to investigate a problem closely related to automobiles and their mobility, as long as the stops are made on a neutral and articulable basis. The choice indicating that automobiles are not areas protected by the Fourth Amendment is incorrect. The Fourth Amendment protects people rather than places. And the courts have held that people do have a privacy interest (albeit a diminished one) when in their automobiles and are protected by the Fourth Amendment.
The defendant was at a bar with a couple of friends when he spotted a man who had gotten the defendant's friend fired from a job several weeks ago. Since that time, the defendant had been verbally harassing the man and calling him names. This particular night, the defendant went over to the man's table and flirted with his girlfriend. The man was infuriated after having taken the defendant's abuse for so long, so he jumped up and attacked the defendant with a knife. The defendant could have easily run away, but instead grabbed the man and slammed him backwards. The man went crashing through the front window and was severely cut by the broken glass. He died before he could be taken to the hospital. The defendant will most likely be guilty of what crime? A Voluntary manslaughter. B Involuntary manslaughter. C Murder D None of the above.
Answer: D (Mine: B) Explanation: The defendant would most likely be guilty of none of the listed crimes because the defense of self-defense makes his homicide excusable. A person may use deadly force in self-defense if (i) he is without fault, (ii) he is confronted with unlawful force, and (iii) he reasonably believes that he is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. In a majority of states, a person may use deadly force in self-defense even if this could be avoided by retreating. Here, the defendant's use of force was privileged because it reasonably appeared necessary to defend him from the man's unlawful attack, and the defendant had no duty to retreat under the majority view. Furthermore, the defendant can claim the privilege of self-defense even though his words triggered the fight—calling someone names would not be considered adequate provocation that would make the defendant the aggressor. Hence, because the defendant's use of force was privileged, he cannot be convicted of any of the listed crimes, making (A), (B), and (C) incorrect.
Assuming that a state statute modifies burglary to include any building at any time of day, why could an "attempted burglary" on a business during business hours NEVER be possible?
Bc burglary also requires B&E, B&E requires unlawful "breaking," unlawful breaking requires no implied consent, and a business that holds itself out to the public during business hours implicitly consents to public entry.
4 elements of FM?
I) BARRK II) Killing = During course of felony III) Killing = independent of felony IV) Death = foreseeable result of felony (D-spec)
Under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, what is required for the police to make a warrantless seizure?
To make a warrantless seizure, the police (i) must be legitimately on the premises where the item is found; (ii) the item must be evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime; (iii) the item must be in plain view; and (iv) it must be immediately apparent (i.e., probable cause) that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime.
True or false: A defendant meeting with a psychiatrist for a state-ordered psychiatric examination MUST be given Miranda warnings before being questioned.
True
When is a search acceptable by a public school principal w/in the confines of a public school environment (i.e. at school & acting in public capacity)?
When reasonable grounds for a search exist, then public school officials may conduct a search w/o a warrant & w/o probable cause. A school search will be reasonable if: I) offers a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing II) Measures adopted to carry out the search are reasonably related to the objectives of the search III) the search is not excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and the nature of the reasonably suspected nfraction. Ex: Several students complaining to the principal that D is selling drugs in the cafeteria out of her purse = reasonable grounds to grab & search the purse w/o warning, even if done after vehement denial by the student
After any lawful arrest, a SILA search is automatic, does this mean that SILA searches in violation of state law are okay?
Yep, lawful in this context means Federally Constitutional only.
What are the three exceptions to the 4A warrant requirement for searches?
a) Evanescent Exception (evid. destroy risk) b) hot pursuit of fleeing felon c) Community caretaker (emergency situation that threatens immediate health/safety)
What are the alternatives for first degree murder?
a) premeditation + deliberation; or, b) Felony Murder (BARRK)
What two exceptions transform a low altitude aerial sweep & photographing by police into a "search" under the 4A?
a) too low to be w/in legal airspace b) the lens used =/= general public use
