Crim Final

how much money worth of crab legs did Jameis Winston steal?

$32

How much money did Jason Brown ultimately escape with?

$56,000

how many degrees of Grand Larceny exist according to the NY Penal code?

4

Nick Dub has since been a law-abiding and upstanding citizen (T/F)

false

why was Sammons charged with Larceny and not Embezzlement?

he was just facilitating and just had to take from point A to point B

So, D is accused of rape in a common law jurisdiction, can she introduce evidence of voluntary intoxication?

no

are all felonies under the common law (i.e., MR & MRS LAMB) general intent crimes?

no

absent a specified mens rea this is the default mens rea suggest by the MPC

recklessly

in a jurisdiction that follows the MPC in regards to mental state, what is the default mens rea or mental state if the statute is silent?

recklessly

under the MPC voluntary intoxication is considered both of these mental states

recklessly and negligently

Evil Doer 1 and Evil Doer 2 agree to break into Rapunzel's tower that night and steal her jewelry. Evil Doer 1 goes out and purchases an 80-foot ladder. In a jurisdiction that follows the MPC are they guilty of conspiracy? In that same jurisdiction, are they guilty of attempted burglary (where burglary is defined as the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a crime therein)?

yes. yes/maybe

A father lived with is son, who was an alcoholic. When drunk, the son often became violent and physically abused his father. As a result, the father always lived in fear. One night, the father heard his son on the front stoop making loud obscure remarks. The father was certain that his son was drunk and was terrified that he would be physically beaten again. In his fear, he bolted the front door and took out a revolver. When the son discovered that the door was bolted, he kicked it down. As the son burst through the front door, his father shot him four times in the chest, killing him. In fact, the son was not under the influence of alcohol or any drug and did not intend to harm his father. At trial, the father presented the above facts and asked the judge to instruct the jury on self-defense. How should the judge instruct the jury with respect to self defense? (a) give the self-defense instruction, because it expresses the defense's theory of the case. (b) give the self defense instruction, because the evidence is sufficient to raise the defense (c) deny the self-defense instruction, because the father was not in imminent danger from his son (d) deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive force

(b) give the self defense instruction, because the evidence is sufficient to raise the defense

The president of a pharmaceutical firm received a report from his testing bureau that a manufactured lot of the firm's anti-cancer prescription medication was well below strength. Concerned about being able to fulfill contractual commitments, the president instructed his staff to deliver the defective lot. A cancer patient who had been maintained on the drug died shortly after beginning to take the defective pills. Medical evidence established that the patient would have lived longer had the drug been at full strength, but would have died before long in any event. The president was convicted of murder. On appeal, he argues that his conviction should be reversed. Should the conviction be reversed? - No, because the intentional delivery of adulterated or mislabeled drugs gives rise to strict criminal liability. - Yes, because distribution of the defective lot was only a regulatory offense. - Yes, because the cancer, not the president's conduct, was the proximate cause of death of the patient. - No, because the jury could have found that the president's conduct was sufficiently reckless to constitute murder.

- No, because the jury could have found that the president's conduct was sufficiently reckless to constitute murder.

Reflection Question: How effective do you think shows like Dateline are in helping reignite unsolved cases?

....

food for thought: what was the purpose of the punishment? If the purpose was deterrence, then did the law do its job? should the punishment be greater to deter Nick Dub and other repeat offenders?

....

Reflection Question: Do you feel positively or negatively toward the influx of "true crime" content being produced for our entertainment? Do you think the more gruesome the crime, the more compelling the program? How does that impact our sensitivity towards crime in general?

.....

How many pieces of art were named in the case?

18

with what pick in the NFL Draft was Jameis Winston drafted after his larceny?

1st pick

Under federal law a seditious conspiracy is a. A conspiracy where at least two individuals believe that the purpose of the agreement is to overthrow or to destroy by force the Government. b. A conspiracy where at least one individual believes that the purpose of the agreement is to overthrow or to destroy by force the Government. c. A misnomer because a seditious conspiracy does not involve the act of conspiring. d. A tool used by the Government to positively increase the media coverage.

A conspiracy where at least two individuals believe that the purpose of the agreement is to overthrow or to destroy by force the Government.

A.R.A. 13-1904 A person commits _____ _______ if, in the course of committing _______ as proscribed in section 13-1902, the person or an accomplice does any of the following: (1) is armed with a ______ weapon or a simulated deadly weapon (2) uses or _________ to use a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or a simulated deadly weapon (3) takes possession of or attempts to take possession of a deadly weapon

A.R.A. 13-1904 A person commits armed robbery if, in the course of committing robbery as proscribed in section 13-1902, the person or an accomplice does any of the following: (1) is armed with a deadly weapon or a simulated deadly weapon (2) uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or a simulated deadly weapon (3) takes possession of or attempts to take possession of a deadly weapon

what is the name of the Movie made based on the events?

American Murderer

The defendant and two other men met while in prison and decided that when they were released, they were going to rob a bank together. Soon after their release, they planned the robbery, agreeing that defendant would drive the getaway car. The defendant brought the getaway car over to one of the men's house, but the next day when the robbery was supposed to be committed, the defendant was arrested for violating his parole and was returned to prison. The two men still went through with the plan, entering the bank and threatening to shoot the cashiers if they did not hand over the money. The teller pushed a button that alerted the police, and the two men were arrested before leaving the bank. Of which of the following crimes is the defendant guilty? a.Attempted robbery. b. Conspiracy to commit robbery. c. Attempted robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. d. No crime.

Attempted robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery.

In which one of the following situations is defendant LEAST likely to be guilty of murder where murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human being where the actor possesses the intent to kill, intent to cause great bodily harm, the intent to commit a felony, or acting with a wanton disregard for human life?" a. Having been hired by a third person to beat the victim severely enough to "put her in the hospital," the defendant struck the victim repeatedly with a baseball bat in the knees. Although the defendant intended only to break the victim's legs, she died of shock. b. Because he suffers from mental disease, the defendant believed the victim to be a serial killer - the victim was not. Intending to kill the victim, the defendant shot him to death. C.Believing the victim to be asleep, the defendant shot 10 bullets into his head. In fact, the victim had died of a brain aneurism moments before the defendant entered the room and was already dead when the defendant shot him. d. The defendant stole a check from a mailbox and attempted to cash it in a bank by masquerading as the victim. Suspecting forgery, the bank teller signaled to the bank guard. As the guard approached, the defendant shot at him. When the guard returned the defendant's fire, one of the guard's bullets ricocheted off a wall and struck a customer, killing him.

Believing the victim to be asleep, the defendant shot 10 bullets into his head. In fact, the victim had died of a brain aneurism moments before the defendant entered the room and was already dead when the defendant shot him.

What elements of common law burglary has Minnesota left out of its statute?

Breaking at night with intent to commit a felony

Who is the editor-in-chief of Black Law Dictionary

Bryan Gardner

Which of the following 'fact situations is the defendant's claim of intoxication MOST likely to be an effective defense? a. Charged with rape, the defendant asserts that immediately before the act he drank a great deal of liquor and that as a result he was so intoxicated that he believed the victim to be his wife. b. Charged with murder, the defendant asserts that before she shot the victim, an unknown person put alcohol in her orange juice without her knowledge, and that as a result she was so intoxicated that she believed the gun to be a harmless toy. C. Charged with attempted robbery, the defendant asserts that at the time she pointed her pistol at the victim and demanded money, she was so intoxicated that she thought the victim was a friend of hers and would know she was joking. D. Charged with larceny of an automobile, the D asserts that after injecting heroin into his bloodstream, he was so intoxicated that he believed the automobile to be his own

Charged with murder, the defendant asserts that before she shot the victim, an unknown person put alcohol in her orange juice without her knowledge, and that as a result she was so intoxicated that she believed the gun to be a harmless toy.

what social media website did Nick Dub log into?

Facebook

Four men are stranded on a ship. They have been without food and fresh water for over 20 days. They decide to kill one of the other men to survive. They succeed in killing the one man and drank his blood and ate his flesh to survive for the next several days. When they were rescued soon thereafter, they immediately confess to their killing. Prior to this event, they were all law-abiding citizens. They never plan on going on a ship again. If the State decides to punish these men, which of the following common justifications for the criminal justice system most strongly supports the imposition of the punishment: a. Specific Deterrence b. General Deterrence c. Restraint d. Rehabilitation

General Deterrence

The defendant called her attorney and asked whether it would be a crime to burn down her own home. The attorney said that arson was defined as the intentional burning of any dwelling and that arson was a serious crime. In fact, the defendant's attorney was incorrect. The applicable statute in the jurisdiction defines arson as "the intentional burning of the dwelling of another." Believing what the attorney told her, however, the defendant burned down her own home for the purpose of collecting the proceeds of her fire insurance policy. If the Defendant is charged with attempted arson and tries to argue mistake of law she will likely be found a. Guilty, because a mistake of law will not relieve an actor of attempt once he or she has taken a substantial step in preparation to commit the underlying crime. b. Guilty, because her mistake of law resulted from reasonable reliance on the advice of an attorney. c. Not guilty, because her mistake of law resulted from reasonable reliance on the advice of an attorney. d. Not guilty, because the defendant did not intend to burn down the house of another and so she failed to meet the requisite intent to commit the underlying crime of arson.

Guilty, because a mistake of law will not relieve an actor of attempt once he or she has taken a substantial step in preparation to commit the underlying crime.

The D and his ex-girlfriend have hated each other for years. One day, the D waited outside his ex-girlfriend's office building with a loaded pistol, planning to kill his ex-girlfriend. The D saw the V leave the building and he believed the V was his ex-girlfriend. He shot at her, aiming to kill her. The V was struck by the bullet and died of the bullet wound. If the D is charged with the V's murder where murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human being where the actor possesses the intent to kill, intent to cause great bodily harm, the intent to commit a felony, or acting with a wanton disregard for human life" the D should be found a. Guilty, because it is always unlawful to take the life of another human being b. Guilty, because the D intended to bring about the death of the person he shot c. Guilty, because the D acted with a wanton disregard for the life of his ex-girlfriend d. not guilty

Guilty, because the D intended to bring about the death of the person he shot

One day when his parents were away, a boy and a girl who were students at the same high school, cut class to go to the boy's home to play videogames. The boy was 17 of age; the girl was 15. While there, the girl kissed the boy and then they had intercourse. The boy believed that it was lawful to have intercourse with a female over the age of 14. A statute in the jurisdiction provides that "A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when, being 17 years of age or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years." If the boy is charged with committing rape in the third degree by having intercourse with the girl, the court should find him a. Guilty, because the boy was over the age of 17 and the girl was under the age of 16 b. Guilty, because he knew that the girl under the age of 16. c. Not guilty, because the girl instituted the conduct that led to sexual intercourse between them. d. Not guilty, because the boy believed that it was lawful to have sexual intercourse with a female over the age of 14.

Guilty, because the boy was over the age of 17 and the girl was under the age of 16

Defendant hired a hitman to kill a business rival. When the defendant was out of town, the hitman went to the business rival's home. The hitman looked through the window and saw the business rival sleeping in a chair. The hitman fired five shots into the business rival's chest and ran away. Unbeknownst to the hitman, the business rival had died of a heart attack five minutes earlier. His shots would have been fatal if the business rival was alive. Two minutes after fleeing the scene the hitman checked his cellphone and found an earlier message from the defendant stating that he was thinking of calling off the hitman's contract. The defendant is arrested and charged with conspiracy and attempted murder. The defendant should be found a. Guilty, because the defendant hired the hitman to kill the business rival. b. Not guilty, because the defendant was out of town. c.Not guilty, because the defendant attempted to withdraw from the conspiracy. d. Not guilty, because it was factually impossible to murder the business rival.

Guilty, because the defendant hired the hitman to kill the business rival.

In which of the following situations is the defendant's claim of intoxication MOST likely to result in his or her being found not guilty? a. In a jurisdiction that applies the common law definition, the defendant is charged with involuntary manslaughter for the death of a pedestrian whom she struck while I driving an automobile. The defendant asserts that at the time of the accident, she was so drunk that she did not see the pedestrian in the roadway. b. In a jurisdiction in which the statutory age of consent is 18, the defendant is charged with statutory rape after having sexual intercourse with a female who was 17 years of age. He thought the female was 27 years of age since that was what she told him as they shared a bottle of wine at the bar. c. In a jurisdiction that applies the common law definition, the defendant is charged with murder for the death of person whom she struck with her automobile. The defendant asserts that, without her knowledge, an unknown person put alcohol in her fruit juice, as a result, she became so intoxicated that she all of a sudden could not see clearly or control the movements of her hands and feet. She further asserts unaware that she was drunk, she believed the visual and physical difficulties to be the result of illness and was attempting to pull over when the accident occurred. d. The defendant is charged with voluntary manslaughter after killing his wife. In this jurisdiction, voluntary manslaughter is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being because of extenuating circumstances such as adequate provocation." He asserts that he was so drunk that he imagined that he saw another man in bed with her, and that he killed her in the drunken rage that resulted.

In a jurisdiction that applies the common law definition, the defendant is charged with murder for the death of person whom she struck with her automobile. The defendant asserts that, without her knowledge, an unknown person put alcohol in her fruit juice, as a result, she became so intoxicated that she all of a sudden could not see clearly or control the movements of her hands and feet. She further asserts unaware that she was drunk, she believed the visual and physical difficulties to be the result of illness and was attempting to pull over when the accident occurred.

When trying to ascertain proximate cause you should ask yourself this question: a. But for the defendant's actions would the crime have occurred? b. Is the connection between the act and the harm so stretched that it is unfair to hold the defendant liable for that harm? C. Was the defendant's act a substantial factor in causing the criminal result? d. Was the defendant culpable?

Is the connection between the act and the harm so stretched that it is unfair to hold the defendant liable for that harm?

The defendant was about to go to his sister's wedding when he remembered that he had inadvertently left his camera at his friend's house. Although he knew that his friend was out of town, the defendant went to his friend's house in the hope of finding some way to get the camera so that he could pictures at the wedding. The door was locked but when the defendant shook the door vigorously with his hand, the door opened. The defendant entered and searched for his camera, but he could not find it. As he was leaving, he saw a silver candy dish on a shelf with several other items and took it to give his sister as a wedding present. He subsequently changed his mind, however, and returned it to his friend. In a jurisdiction that defines burglary as "[t]he unlawful entry into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a felony therein" and larceny as "[t]he unlawful and nonconsensual taking and carrying away of someone else's tangible personal property with the intent to deprive the possessor of it permanently," which of the following crimes may the defendant properly be convicted? a. Larceny b. Burglary. c. Attempted burglary. d. No crime.

Larceny

The defendant had lost her job and needed to make some money quickly. While visiting a local tavern, she ran into an old friend. When defendant told the friend about her financial problems, the friend pointed to an expensive coat that was hanging on a coat rack and said, "Why don't you steal that coat? It looks like you should be able to sell it for at least $100." Because the defendant said that she was afraid the owner of the coat would see her, the friend agreed to sing in a loud voice to create a diversion so that the defendant could take the coat while everyone was watching. The defendant took the coat from the coat rack and from the tavern. In fact, the coat actually belonged to the friend, who had been amusing himself when he told the defendant to steal it. In a jurisdiction that follows the bilateral approach to conspiracy and defines larceny as "[t]he unlawful and nonconsensual taking and carrying away of someone else's tangible personal property with the intent to deprive the possessor of it permanently," of which of the following crimes may the defendant be properly convicted? a. Larceny only. b. Conspiracy only. c. Larceny and conspiracy. d. Neither larceny nor conspiracy.

Larceny only.???

What did Judge Alison J. Nathan observe after she imposed the prison term and $750,000 fine upon Ghislaine Maxwell? a. Maxwell showed no remorse b. Maxwell showed remorse C.Maxwell revealed that Jeffrey Epstein was in fact still alive, but refused to disclose his location d. Maxwell threatened to sue the judge and the prosecutor for defamation

Maxwell showed no remorse

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor's house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor's house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door. The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted? - No crime - burglary - Conspiracy and larceny - conspiracy

No crime

Evil Doer 1 and Evil Doer 2 agree to break into Rapunzel's tower that night and steal her jewelry. Except Evil Doer 2 does not intend to commit the crime. He is in love with Rapubzel and wants to break in and save her (assume in this jurisdiction is not a crime to break into a dwelling or tower with the intent to rescue a damsel in distress). Evil Doer 1 goes out and purchases an 80-foot-ladder . That night they place the ladder up against the tower and begin to climb it. In a bilateral jurisdiction can Evil Doer 1 be convicted of conspiracy?

No.

In a state that follows the common law approach to the crime of attempt, there is also a statue that states, "It is unlawful to sell liquor between the hours of midnight and 8 A.M." When a customer came into the defendant's store and asked to buy a bottle of liquor the defendant looked at the clock and saw that it said five minutes past eleven, so he rang up the liquor and placed it in a bag for the customer. The defendant believed that the clock was correct and did not realize that the previous day the State had changed from standard time to daylight saving time. In fact, the correct time was five minutes past midnight. The customer realized that she did not have her wallet and left the store without purchasing the liquor. If the defendant is charged with attempt to violate the statute, he should be found a. Guilty, because he was willing to sell liquor between midnight and 8 A.M. b. Guilty, because he should have known the actual time. c. Guilty, because the statute does not require specific intent. d. Not guilty, because he believed that the time was five minutes past eleven and did not intend to sell liquor between midnight and 8 A.M..

Not guilty, because he believed that the time was five minutes past eleven and did not intend to sell liquor between midnight and 8 A.M..

When he was 19 years old, the defendant pleaded guilty to petty larceny. Because of his age, he was not sentenced to prison, but he was required to report to a Youth Supervision Officer every month for one year. At the end of that period, he was discharged from supervision. At the time, his attorney advised him that he was pleading guilty to a "Youthful Offense" rather than to a crime, and that because he was assigned to a Youth Supervision Officer, he would have no criminal record as a result of the proceeding. The defendant believed this advice, but it was in fact false, and that the charge to which he pleaded guilty was a criminal one. Twenty years later, the defendant applied for employment with the state. In his application, he stated under oath that he had never been convicted of a crime. The state statute reads as follows: "Perjury in the second degree consists of making any statement under oath with the knowledge that such statement is false. Perjury in the second degree is a felony punishable by a term not to exceed five years in the state prison." If the defendant is charged with perjury in the second degree, the court should find him a.Not guilty, because he lacked the mental state required by the statute. b.Not guilty, because reliance on the advice of counsel is a complete defense. C. Not guilty, because he did not serve any jail time. d. Guilty.

Not guilty, because he lacked the mental state required by the statute.

In a jurisdiction that follows the common law approach to conspiracy, two undercover police officers received an anonymous tip that the defendant was engaged in buying and selling stolen cars. The two officers got a car from the police impound lot and then met with the defendant. After the officers told the defendant that the car was stolen, the defendant offered to buy it. When the defendant handed the officers the money, they placed him under arrest. The defendant is charged with conspiracy to receive stolen property. The court should find him a. Guilty, because he had the requisite intent to receive stolen property. b. Guilty, because the officers told him the car was stolen and he believed them. c. Not guilty, because neither officer intended to participate in the purchase or sale of a stolen vehicle. d. Not guilty, because the car that he agreed to purchase from the officers was not actually stolen.

Not guilty, because neither officer intended to participate in the purchase or sale of a stolen vehicle.

which of the following is not an artist I named in this presentation?

Pablo Picasso

what degree of burglary was Nick Dub charged with?

Second

In which of the following circumstances is the defendant MOST likely to be classified as a party to a crime (i.e., an accomplice or an accessory)? The Defendant loaned Walter a hammer, not knowing that Walter planned to use the hammer to break into his ex-girlfriend's car. The Defendant knew that Walter planned to steal a box of candy bars and although the Defendant told him not to and did not go into the store with Walter, the Defendant did eat some of the candy bars with Walter later that afternoon when Walter told him that he paid for it - even though Walter was lying and he really did steal the candy bars. The Defendant knew that Walter had just committed murder. Walter asked the Defendant if he could hide at his house. The Defendant said no and gave Walter for a plane ticket to get out of the country. Walter didn't use the money to buy a plane ticket and was subsequently arrested. The Defendant was watering his lawn with a hose when he saw a man he had never seen before running down the street screaming, with his clothes on fire. Walter who the Defendant had also never met - had set the man's clothes on fire just moments early. The Defendant did not offer the water from the hose to the man.

The Defendant knew that Walter had just committed murder. Walter asked the Defendant if he could hide at his house. The Defendant said no and gave Walter for a plane ticket to get out of the country. Walter didn't use the money to buy a plane ticket and was subsequently arrested.

A nine-year-old girl fell into a public pool, striking her head against the edge and drowned. The defendant watched the girl fall in and did not attempt to save her. In which of the following situations would the defendant be MOST LIKELY to be found guilty for failure to act? a. The defendant recognized the girl because the girl was friends with the D's daughter bThe defendant is an excellent swimmer and was about to jump in the pool anyway. c. The defendant hoped the girl would drown. d. The defendant pushed the girl into the pool.

The defendant pushed the girl into the pool.

The defendant fired her pistol through the ceiling of her apartment because the neighbors had refused several requests to stop making the bullet, but she hoped that the shot would frighten the neighbors. After passing through the floor of the apartment above the defendant, the bullet struck a piece of furniture and it ricocheted. The bullet struck the victim, lodging into his shoulder and injuring him. An ambulance was called to transport the victim to a hospital for treatment. Because the ambulance driver was driving negligently, the ambulance was involved in a collision that resulted in the victim's death. If the Defendant is acquitted on a charge of murdering the victim, (in a jurisdiction that defines murder as "the unlawful killing of another human being where the actor possesses the intent to kill, intent to cause great bodily harm, the intent to commit a felony, or acting with a wanton disregard for human life") it will most likely be because the court finds that: a. The Defendant did not intend to strike anyone with a bullet. b. The victim's death was proximately caused by the negligence of the ambulance driver. C.The Defendant was privileged to stop a nuisance by self-help. d. The Defendant's conduct did not show a wanton disregard for human life.

The victim's death was proximately caused by the negligence of the ambulance driver.

T/F. Jason Brown took shooting lessons prior to his commission of the crime?

True

How do we prove someone's intent?

We can believe intent if someone confesses, which is easy. We can also infer intent through circumstantial evidence.

Boris and Natasha agree to kill Bullwinkle. They draw elaborate diagrams of their proposed murder and plan the act to the last detail. To ensure that they both remain silent they enter a blood oath. In the end, they never actually act on their plans because Bullwinkle moves away and they do not know where he moved. Are Boris and Natasha guilty of conspiracy to commit murder under the CL? Under the MPC?

Yes yes

The defendant met a girl in a bar where they were drinking. Because the defendant was too drunk to drive, the girl offered him a ride home. In the girl's car, the girl consented to intercourse. A statutory rape statute provided that "it is unlawful to engage in sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18 years", and the girl was 17 years old. If the defendant believed that the girl was over age of 18 years, is he guilty of statutory rape? No, because he believed the girl to be over the age of 18 years. No, if a reasonable person who was intoxicated would have believed the girl to be over the age of 18 years. Yes, unless the girl assured him that she was over the age of 18 years. Yes, because the defendant engaged in the act of intercourse with the girl.

Yes, because the defendant engaged in the act of intercourse with the girl.

The Defendant noticed a gold plated pen on her professor's desk and put it in her pocket. She did so with the intent of returning the pen in a week or two. The following day however, the pen was stolen from the Defendant's securely locked briefcase that she stores in a safe. The jurisdiction defines larceny as "[t]he unlawful and nonconsensual taking and carrying away of someone else's tangible personal property with the intent to deprive the possessor of it permanently." If the Defendant is charged with larceny as a result of her taking the gold plated pen, she should be a. acquitted, because the theft of the pen from her briefcase was a superseding cause. b. acquitted, because she intended to return the pen in a week or two. c. convicted, because the professor was permanently deprived of the pen. d. convicted, because the theft of the pen from her briefcase was foreseeable.

acquitted, because she intended to return the pen in a week or two.

What type of questions can you expect to see on the criminal law section of the bar exam? Questions that ask a. whether, under the facts given, the defendant should be found guilty b. what's the prosecutor or defendant's best argument C. you to evaluate four cases which one is the BEST one for the facts given or the LEAST likely to meet with success d. what's the most serious crime of which the defendant can be convicted e.all of the above

all of the above

although it is true that _______ __________ NEVER excuses wrongdoing, the condition that condition causes (e.g., unconsciousness) it MAY serve as an exculpatory (i.e., Evidence tending to establish a criminal defendant's innocence) basis in VERY _______ CIRCUMSTANCES. Under the common law, and overwhelmingly today, voluntary intoxication is ______ a defense to ______ ______ crimes.

although it is true that voluntary intoxication NEVER excuses wrongdoing, the condition that condition causes (e.g., unconsciousness) it MAY serve as an exculpatory (i.e., Evidence tending to establish a criminal defendant's innocence) basis in VERY Limited CIRCUMSTANCES. Under the common law, and overwhelmingly today, voluntary intoxication is NOT a defense to general intent crimes.

Dennis overheard Connie and Chris conspiring to kill Vicky by hiding her asthma medicine. Dennis hoped that Connie and Chris' plan would succeed. Dennis decided to help them without saying anything, so he snuck into Vicky's apartment and he searched until he found the medicine. Then he placed it right on her nightstand so Connie and Chris could find it easily. Chris decided not to go through with it. However, Connie went into the room and threw away the medicine. Vicky came home later and had an asthma attack and died. Before you answer ask yourself what is a basic requirement for the crime of conspiracy? If Dennis is charged with conspiracy, a court will probably find him guilty or not guilty? Why?

another person/ agreement No because he has not conspired

Fulcher should probably stop drinking whiskey -- at least for his future cellmates sake because the court did not buy his attempt to use this defense

automatism

The D and a student were college students who needed money. The student suggested that they hold up a convenience store. The D told the student that she was afraid to get involved, so the student offered to go into the store if the D would wait outside in a car with the engine running so that they could make a getaway after the robbery. The D agreed so long as they would split the money. The following day they went together to a store to go buy a gun, and the student purchased the gun. That night, the D drove the student to the convenience store and waited in the parking lot with the engine running. The student went into the convenience store and pointed the gun at the clerk and made him give her the contents of the cash register. Then she ran out to the car. When the D saw the student running toward the car she panicked and drove away without waiting for the student. The defendant is guilty of a. conspiracy only b. robbery only. C.conspiracy and robbery. d. either conspiracy or robbery, but not both. Before you answer, what are the requirements for a conspiracy? When will you be held liable for the actions of your co-conspirators? When is the defense of renunciation or withdrawal available? Were any of those facts present here?

before not after

actual cause is sometimes referred to by these two levels

but fore or substantial factor

in a common law jurisdiction, for a general intent crime, the D MUST: (a) intent to commit the social harm with their voluntary act (b) commit a voluntary act that causes a social harm (c) intent to commit the actus reus and intend a result beyond the actus reus (d) engage in immoral behavior

commit a voluntary act that causes a social harm

Stephenson would likely have been guilty if the court had adopted the this approach (i.e. CL or MPC) to the interpretation of the word "intent" when she obstructed traffic

common law

A defendant became intoxicated at a bar. He got into his car and drove away. Within a few blocks, craving another drink, he stopped his car in the middle of the street picked up a brick and threw it through a liquor store window. He grabbed a bottle of liquor, which he immediately began consuming and then drove off at a high speed. He ran a red light and struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the street. Relevant statutes define manslaughter as the "the killing of a human being in a criminally reckless manner." A criminally recklessness manner is defined as "consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk resulting from the actor's conduct." Another statute provides that "intoxication is not a defense to a crime unless it negates an element of the offense." The defendant was charged with manslaughter in the death of the defendant. The defendant pleads intoxication as a defense. The state's best argument to counter the intoxication issue in the manslaughter death of the pedestrian is that a. conscious risk-taking refers to the defendant's entire course of conduct, including drinking with the knowledge that he might become intoxicated and seriously injure or kill someone while driving. b. Intoxication is no defense to the crime charged, because manslaughter is historically a general intent crime. C.whether the defendant was intoxicated or not is not the crucial issue here; the real issue is whether the manner in which the defendant as operating his car can be characterized under the facts as criminally reckless. d. Intoxication is a defense only to specific intent crimes, and no specific intent is involved in the definition of the crime of manslaughter.

conscious risk-taking refers to the defendant's entire course of conduct, including drinking with the knowledge that he might become intoxicated and seriously injure or kill someone while driving.

a man and a women were partners in an automobile leasing agency. for some time, the man had been embezzling money from the agency. the woman became suspicious and told the man that she wanted to engage in accounting firm to audit the agency's books. In a panic to prevent the audit and avoid being discovered, the man decided to have the women killed. He contacted a professional killer and hired him to kill the women for $10,000. A short time later, the woman died in a car crash arranged by the killer. In addition to embezzlement, of what crime or crimes may the man properly be convicted? (a) conspiracy and murder (b) murder (c) solicitation and conspiracy (d) solicitation, conspiracy, and murder

conspiracy and murder

A bank robber asked the D to join him in robbing a bank. The D refused, stating that he did not want to go to prison. The bank robber said he wouldn't use deadly force, and then said that he would just rob the bank himself if the D would provide a place for him to hide afterwards. The D agreed that the bank robber could hide in the D's apartment following the robbery in return for one-fourth of the proceeds of the robbery. The following day, the bank robber robbed the bank. While he was attempting to leave the bank a security guard began shooting at him. The bank robber fired back and killed a bystander. One week later, the bank robber was arrested at the D's apartment, where he had been hiding, and was charged with robbery and felony murder. The D was subsequently charged with felony murder on the ground that he was an accomplice to the robbery committed by the bank robber that resulted in the death of the bystander. The court should find the D (a) not guilty because he was an accessory after (b) not guilty because he did not know that the robber was going to use deadly force to accomplish the robbery (C) guilty, only if it was reasonably foreseeable someone would be shot during the course of the robbery (D) guilty, because an accomplice is responsible for all crimes committed in furtherance of the crime to which he or she is an accomplice.

guilty, only if it was reasonably foreseeable someone would be shot during the course of the robbery

why did Winston not want to claim he was given the crab legs?

he knew this was an NCAA violation

a man was paroled after serving five years in prison for forgery. Three weeks later, he found a handgun in a high school parking lot. Fearing that students from the school might find the gun and get into trouble using it, the man put it in his trunk of his car. the man drove off, was lawfully stopped by a police officer for speeding, and allowed the officer to search his car and the trunk. During the search the officer discovered the gun. the man was charged under a federal statute prohibiting the knowing possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Which of the following additional facts, if established, would be most helpful to the man's defense? (a) he did not intend to use the gun for an unlawful purpose (b) he did not know about the federal statute (c)he was driving to the police station to give the gun to the authorities when the officer stopped his car (d) his previous conviction did not involve the use of a gun or other weapon

he was driving to the police station to give the gun to the authorities when the officer stopped his car

According to the MPC what are the four categories of mental states

knowingly, purposely, negligently, recklessly

proximate cause is sometimes referred to as this type of cause

legal cause

A man became ill while a work and decided to go home early. When he entered his bedroom, the man saw his wife engaged in sexual intercourse with a neighbor. The man grabbed a gun from a dresser drawer and shot and killed the neighbor. he was later charged and prosecuted. In this jurisdiction that follows the common law for homicide offenses, which crimes should the court instruct the jury on? (a) murder and involuntary manslaughter (b) murder and voluntary manslaughter (c) murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter (d) voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter

murder and voluntary manslaughter

a man was angry at a coworker who had received a promotion. the man believed that the coworker had taken credit for the man's work and had bad-mouthed him to their boss. One day, as the man was leaving the company parking lot in his car, he saw the coworker walking through the lot. On a sudden impulse, the man pushed the accelerator pedal hard and veered toward the coworker with the intention of scaring him. The coworker tried to jump out of the way but slipped and fell and was run over. Although the coworker suffered life-threatening injuries, he survived. In a jurisdiction that follows the common law of homicide, could the man properly be convicted of attempted murder? (a) no, because the coworker's slip and fall broke the chain of proximate causation (b) no, because he man lacked the requisite intent (c) yes, because the coworker suffered life-threatening injuries (d) yes, because the man acted with reckless disregard for human life

no, because he man lacked the requisite intent

a man allowed his friend to borrow a debit card to buy a computer. When the friend refused to return the card during a later conversation in a bar, the man pointed a handgun at the friend, held his finder on the trigger, and said, "Give it back!" A bystander screamed and threw a beer bottle at the man. The bottle struck the man's hand and caused the gun to discharge, killing the friend instantly. The man was convicted of murder in a jurisdiction that follows the common law of homicide. On appeal, the argues that the evidence, which essentially set out the facts above, was insufficient to support a verdict of murder. Should the man's conviction be reversed? (a) no, because the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of depraved-heart murder (b) no, because the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of felony murder (c) yes, because the evidence showed that the man did not intentionally pull the trigger (d) yes, because the evidence showed that the man's intent was not to kill the friend, but to take property from him under a claim of right.

no, because the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of depraved-heart murder

A man who believed that his wife was cheating on him with her gym trainer decided to kill the trainer. He loaded his handgun and set off for the trainer's house. Because he was anxious about committing the crime, the man first stopped at a bar, drank eight shots of hard liquor, and became intoxicated. He then left the bar and went to the trainer's house. when the trainer answered the door, the man shot and killed him. The man then passed out on the trainer's porch. The man has been charged with murder in a jurisdiction that follows the common law. Can the man raise an intoxication defense? (a) no, because drinking at the bar was the proximate cause of the killing (b) no, because the man intended to commit the murder and drank to strengthen his nerve. (c) yes, because drinking at the bar was a foreseeable intervening cause of the killing (d) Yes, because the man's intoxication negated the specific intent required for murder

no, because the man intended to commit the murder and drank to strengthen his nerve.

this is the mens rea required for strict liability crimes

none

what is the mens rea required under a strict liability offense

none

under the MPC if an actor acts purposely they are said to desire the outcome. If he or she acts knowingly it is said that he or she is this two-word phrase regarding the likelihood of the outcome

practically/reasonably certain

the law requires both actual cause and this before a D may be held to have caused a crime

proximate cause

the defense of automatism or unconsciousness is different from insanity in that after an acquittal these will differ

punishment

under the CL the use of the word intentional implies these two levels of mental state used by the MPC

purposely knowingly

a new gang member, hoping to impress the gang's leader, pointed a gun at a pedestrian and ordered her to give him her expensive watch, which she did. The gang member then tossed the watch to the gang leader, who was standing nearby. Although totally surprised by this act, the gang leader put the watch in his pocket. The pedestrian ran away. What crime did the gang leader commit? (a) accessory after the fact to robbery (b) accomplice to robbery (c) conspiracy to commit robbery (d) receiving stolen property

receiving stolen property

in America, when a D is charged with a crime the case will be the state, the people, etc. against a D. In the United Kingdom these two terms refer to the prosecutor

regina or rex

some crimes proscribe conduct other crimes proscribe this

result

a woman was standing in the aisle of a subway car and put her purse on the seat next to her. A man approached the women from behind and grabbed the purse off the seat. He then pushed the woman out of the way and ran out of the subway car while carrying the purse. The man was apprehended on the subway platform while in possession of the purse. In a jurisdiction that follows the common law with respect to criminal offenses, of what can the man properly be convicted? (a) larceny, because force was not used until after he took the purse (b) larceny, because he made no threat to use force (c) robbery, because he physically took the purse from the woman's presence (d) robbery, because he used force in leaving with the purse.

robbery, because he used force in leaving with the purse.

it is not enough to be buzzed. if you are trying to introduce voluntary intoxication when allowed you better be this to hope to negate an act or mens rea requirement

sloshed

to fulfill the actus reus requirement there must be an act that causes this two-word phrase

social harm

a man decided to steal a valuable coin collection from a collector's house while the collector was away. Knowing that the house had an alarm system, the man contacted the pool cleaner who worked at the house twice a week. the man offered the pool cleaner part of the proceeds from selling the coin collection if she would disarm the alarm and leave a side door unlocked so that the man could enter the house. The pool cleaner pretended to agree but then contacted the police, who immediately arrested the man. In a jurisdiction that follows the common law and has adopted the bilateral requirement for conspiracy, what crime has the man committed? (a) attempted burglary (b) attempted larceny (c) conspiracy (d) solicitation

solicitation

under the CL voluntary intoxication may be introduced to negate the mens rea in these offenses

specific intent

under the CL, a D may escape the necessary mens rea regardless of whether their mistake of fact was resonable in this type of crime

specific intent

under the common law this type of crime requires the actor to go beyond the actus reus

specific intent

under these 4 circumstances a D has a duty to act

statute special status contract care

A law prohibits the knowing possession of a domesticated cat in a public restaurant, unless the individual has the cat's medical records on file an dup to date. In which of the following scenarios, will mistake of law be most likely to exculpate the D, who is being charged with possessing a domestic cat in a public restaurant? a. the D is unaware of the law b. the D asked his lawyer if he could take his cat with him to a public restaurant and the lawyer advised him that it was legal c. the D does not support this law d. the D in good faith incorrectly interprets the law to mean that as long as he personally administers medical care to his cat and keeps track of these files he is in compliance with the law e. the D read a recent appellate court decision, although it is soon to be overturned, that stated that an individual is not in violation of the statute so long as the owner of a cat personally administers medical care to their cat and keeps track of the cat's files.

the D read a recent appellate court decision, although it is soon to be overturned, that stated that an individual is not in violation of the statute so long as the owner of a cat personally administers medical care to their cat and keeps track of the cat's files.

The D was charged with the attempted murder of the victim. If only one the following facts or inferences were true, which would be most likely to result in an acquittal? a. the V was already dead when the D shot him, although the D believed him to be alive b. the V was alive when the D shot him, although he believed that the V was already dead c. the D's gun was unloaded when he aimed it at the victim and pulled the trigger, although the D believed it to be loaded. d. Intending to poison the V, the D put a harmless substance into the V's drink, although the D believed that the substance was lethal

the V was alive when the D shot him, although he believed that the V was already dead

A man who owned a business believed that one of his employees was stealing computer equipment from the business. He decided to break into the employee's house one night, when he knew that the employee and her family would be away, to try to find and retrieve the equipment. The man had brought a picklock to open the employee's back door, but when he tried the door, he found that it was unlocked, so he entered. As the man was looking around the house, he heard sounds outside and became afraid. He left the house but was arrested by the police on neighborhood patrol. What is the man's strongest defense to a burglary charge? (a) the back door to the house was unlocked (b) the burglary was abandoned (c) the house was not occupied at the time of his entry (d) the man did not intent to commit a crime inside the house

the man did not intent to commit a crime inside the house

if a D fulfills all of the necessary elements of a crime but the victim is not the one the D intended to cause the social harm to this doctrine kicks into effect

transferred intent

A superseding act will generally not relieve the D of liability if it is a dependent and normal response. However, an intervening act may if it is this

unforeseeable

In order for an act to fulfill the actus reus requirement it must be of this nature

voluntary

under the CL evidence of this is not admissible to negate the mens rea for general intent crimes

voluntary intoxication

Evil Doer 1 and Evil Doer 2 agree to break into Rapunzel's tower that night and steal her jewelry. Under the CL are they guilty of conspiracy? In a jurisdiction that requires an overt act are they guilty of conspiracy?

yes no

Evil Doer 1 and Evil Doer 2 agree to break into Rapunzel's tower that night and steal her jewelry. Evil Doer 1 goes out and purchases an 80-foot ladder. that night they take the ladder and lean it up against the tower and Evil Doer 1 begins to climb up the ladder while Evil Doer 2 holds the ladder. Are they guilty of attempted burglary (where burglary is defined as the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a crime therein)? Are they also still guilty of conspiracy?

yes yes

the owner of a meatpacking company charged under a state criminal code prohibiting the sale of contaminated meat. The state's highest court has construed the code as imposing strict and vicarious liability to the extent allowed by the federal Constitution. The evidence at trial established that the owner's company had sold contaminated meat that had sickened hundreds of consumers. It further showed, however, that the owner had been out of the country when the meat was sold and had had no reason to know that any of the meat was contaminated. The jury convicted the owner, and the court sentenced him to a large fine and probation. On appeal, the owner has challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence. should the appellate court uphold the conviction? (a) no, because there was insufficient proof of the owner's actus reus (b) no, because there was insufficient proof of the owner's mens rea (c) yes, because an appellate court cannot second-guess a jury's verdict (d) yes, because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict

yes, because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict

a man and a woman agreed that the woman would rob a bank and that the man would steal a car beforehand for the women to use as a getaway vehicle. The man stole a car and parked it two blocks away from the bank. He left the car key under the floor mat with a note saying that he wanted nothing more to do with the scheme. The next day, the women robbed the bank and ran to the spot where the man had said he would leave the stolen car. She then escaped in the car and disappeared. She never shared any of the money with the man. in a jurisdiction that has adopted the bilateral requirement for conspiracy, can the man properly be convicted of conspiring with the women to rob the bank? (a) no, because the man received no benefit from the robbery (b) no because the man withdrew from the conspiracy (c) yes, because the robbery was successful due in part to the man's actions (d) yes, because there was an agreement to rob the bank and an overt act in furtherance of the agreement

yes, because there was an agreement to rob the bank and an overt act in furtherance of the agreement

a man entered a store with a gun, planning to rob the store. he was unfamiliar with guns and thought that the safety lock was on. When the store manager refused to give him any money, the man shook the gun at her to scare her into cooperating. The gun fired, killing the manager. A clerk ran in from the back stockroom. The man fired a shot into the air to scare the clerk. Unbeknownst to the man, the clerk had a heart condition, and the fright caused her to suffer a fatal heart attack. Can the man properly be convicted of felony murder? (a) no (b) yes, but only for the death of the store manager (c) yes, but only for the death of the clerk (d) yes, for the death of both the manager and the clerk

yes, for the death of both the manager and the clerk