Crim Multiple Choice

89. The police arrive just as Voleur emerges from a 3 a.m. burglary of a suburban jewelry store. In the ensuing high speed chase, an officer runs over a drunken pedestrian who wandered into the road. Which of the following statements concerning Voleur's liability for homicide is most correct (choose one): a. Voleur may be convicted for negligent homicide because anyone in his circumstances would be consciously aware that high speed escapes endanger pedestrians. b. Voleur may not be convicted of negligent homicide because the police officer's intentional conduct chasing him was intervening human agency that broke the causal chain. c. Voleur may not be convicted of negligent homicide because attempting to escape by vehicle at 3 a.m. on a suburban road does not create sufficient risk of death d. Voleur may not be convicted of negligent homicide because it was unforeseeable that a drunken pedestrian would wander onto a suburban road at 3 a.m.

A- the wording is strange. N is not about unconscious awareness of risk - that sounds like R (Beatrix think A. Endangers "pedestrians" generally, which is broad B- police was doing his duty, so no break in the causal chain C- it could, and it did here

81. Parent watches while Significant Other brutally beats and eventually kills Parent's baby. The beating starts at 5 a.m. and lasts until 6 a.m. At 6 a.m. the child dies. Consider the following two facts: (1) If Parent had called the police anytime until 5:45 a.m., they would have been able to arrive in time to save the child. The failure to call them after that made no difference to the outcome; they could not have gotten there in time. (2) Parent did not want Significant Other to beat the child. In fact Parent told him Significant Other to stop; but Significant Other ignored Parent's plea. Which of the following is the most correct statement (choose one)?: a. (1) Makes it difficult to hold Parent as a perpetrator; (2) Makes it difficult to hold Parent as an accomplice. b. (1) Makes it difficult to hold Parent as an accomplice; (2) Makes it difficult to hold Parent as a perpetrator. c. (1) Makes it difficult to hold Parent as either a perpetrator or as an accomplice. d. (2) Makes it difficult to hold Parent as either a perpetrator or as an accomplice.

d. (2) Makes it difficult to hold Parent as either a perpetrator or as an accomplice.

24. A, a prisoner in the state penitentiary, who has been threatened with sex and violence by other inmates, escapes from the prison. Under the MPC, which is his best defense against the charge of escape? a. A person of reasonable firmness coerced by such threats would have "gone over the wall." b. The prisoner was faced with an unreasonably hard choice, and "going over the wall" was therefore an excusable course of conduct under the circumstances. c. "Going over the wall" was a lesser evil than suffering the threatened sex and violence. d. The threatened sex and violence were unlawful and therefore the prisoner was entitled to take any reasonable action necessary to protect himself against the threatened unlawful force.

c. "Going over the wall" was a lesser evil than suffering the threatened sex and violence. A- this is a duress claim, but this hypo fits better with justification claim B- this is another duress claim C- necessity/justification D- escaping prison is not the same as self-defense

73. A says to B "You are as dumb as your temper is short!" In reaction, B throws a heavy object at A. In this jurisdiction, this would ordinarily qualify as an aggravated assault. Provocation, however, will reduce aggravated assaults to simple assaults. Consider the following jury instructions a judge might give. Which of them is most correct (choose one)? a. "You may consider evidence of the defendant's short temper to determine how dumb he supposedly was." b. "You may consider evidence of the defendant's short temper to determine how a reasonable defendant under the circumstances and with his temper would have behaved." c. "You are to disregard all evidence of the defendant's short temper. The question is not how a reasonably short-tempered person would have behaved under the circumstances, but how a reasonable person would have behaved under the circumstances." d. "You may consider evidence of the defendant's short temper to determine how difficult it was for him to resist his violent impulses. He need not have behaved exactly as a reasonable person would. That's why a finding of provocation will not set him free. Reasonable people don't throw punches or objects. The question is how difficult it was for him under the circumstances to behave like a reasonable person. To assess that, you may consider evidence of his short temper."

c. "You are to disregard all evidence of the defendant's short temper. The question is not how a reasonably short-tempered person would have behaved under the circumstances, but how a reasonable person would have behaved under the circumstances." A- stupidity is irrelevant B- "and with his temper" individuates too much C- this is correct. MPC allows "in the actors situation" individualization, but even MPC doesn't go so far as to make it "the reasonable short-tempered person." CL is more strict, often requires pure reasonable person standard D- this is more in line with People v. Casassa and the MPC - this individualizes too much

91. Alpha tells Beta that she will kill Beta unless Beta takes part in an armed bank robbery that Alpha and her crew commit. Beta takes part and during the course of the bank job, Guard is killed by Alpha. Which of the following arguments concerning Beta's homicide liability is most correct (choose one): a. Under the common law, Beta may be guilty of felony murder because the taking of innocent life is never permissible. b. Under the MPC, Beta's conduct is justified. c. Under the common law, Beta may have a duress excuse to the charge of felony murder. d. All of the above are correct.

(flagged. D could be right) A- if Beta's participation in the felony can be excused due to duress, then Beta cannot get felony murder B- It's unclear whether participating in armed bank robbery (especially here when a guard is killed) is lesser evil than getting killed. Query: does balance of evil analysis happen at the point of threat, or at the end of everything? C- this is true

20. Which of the following is the least cogent objection to permitting a defendant who creates grave risk of death with conscious awareness of the risk to be convicted of attempted reckless homicide? a. The defendant's dangerousness has not been demonstrated by his or her behavior. b. The crime of attempted reckless homicide offends the ordinary usage of the English language. c. The defendant's culpability has not been demonstrated by his or her behavior. d. None of the above lacks reasonable cogency.

B- Morse thinks that the linguistic oddity is not a good reason. Just call it an inchoate reckless homicide

Criminalization: Homicide 16. Mildred breaks into Abigail's house intending to kill husband. Mistaking Abigail for her husband, she kills Abigail instead. Which of the following is Mildred's best defense to a charge of felony-murder? a. A burglary with intent to kill is not independent of the homicide. b. A burglary is generally not deemed inherently dangerous. c. The burglary was not the proximate cause of the killing. d. There is no underlying felony, because burglary requires an intent to steal, not an intent to kill.

a. A burglary with intent to kill is not independent of the homicide. A- this tries to use the merger doctrine. Since the underlying felony is itself assaultive in nature, under People v. Chun, it would merge. B- this tries to use the "inherently dangerous" exception to the felony-murder rule. Burlaries can be seen as inherently dangerous in the bastract, but this is also inherently dangerous "as committed" C- Proximate cause is usually not an issue in felony-murder. here it seems to be met D- this is not true. Burglary = illegal entry with intent to commit a crime

59. One night, Alpha surprised Beta, a neighbor, who had entered Alpha's living room without permission through an open window. Beta was carrying Alpha's small, plastic Liberty Bell souvenir, which she always coveted and had taken from a table near the window. Her other hand was empty and she was using it to get out the window. In fact, she already had one leg out the window when Alpha surprised her. Alpha pulled out a trusty pistol and killed Beta. Under the common law, which of the following statements is most correct (choose one): a. Alpha was not entitled to use deadly force solely to protect personal property. b. Alpha was entitled to use deadly force to prevent a felony. c. Alpha was not entitled to use deadly force because Alpha knew that Beta was not committing burglary. d. None of the above.

a. Alpha was not entitled to use deadly force solely to protect A- this is the CL rule. Especially true here because liberty bell souvenir is trivial property and Alpha was not in danger

54. Boza and Dumbo entered Boza's car and Boza turned on the ignition. A neighbor overheard a loud conversation between Boza and Dumbo as they were walking towards the car that indicated that both knew that the brakes needed a total overhaul and were almost completely unreliable and that the roads were also very slippery from a recent freezing rain. Moreover, the conversation also indicated that they planned to go drag racing near the local high school, an activity they described as "on the edge." The neighbor called the police and before Boza pulled out of her driveway, both Boza and Dumbo were arrested. Assuming that the prosecution can prove that they were consciously aware that the planned drag racing presented a very grave risk to human life, which of the following is most accurate concerning the potential criminal liability of Boza and Dumbo (choose one): a. Boza and Dumbo can be convicted for conspiring to commit and attempted depraved heart murder. b. Boza and Dumbo can be convicted for conspiring to commit and attempted reckless endangerment. c. Boza and Dumbo can be convicted of conspiring to commit depraved heart murder but not for attempted depraved heart murder. d. Boza and Dumbo can not be convicted for conspiring to commit and attempted reckless endangerment.

a. Boza and Dumbo can be convicted for conspiring to commit and attempted depraved heart murder. A- this is correct. conspiring requires true purpose. Here they have true purpose to do the activity, which consists of R (mens rea) + Risk^3. Linguistic oddity is of no concern to prof. They also have crossed the line into attempt by getting in the car and turning it on B- this is a milder version of A C- it looks like the line into attempt has been crossed D- B and D did conspire

84. Bozo broke into the home of a woman with whom he thought he had set up an encounter on what was described as a "rape fantasy" chat site on the web. After he entered the wrong apartment, he hit and struggled with Victim, who thought she was going to be killed. Victim stopped the attack by kicking Bozo, who then asked for the name Victim used in the chat room. Victim responded that she had never visited the chat site and had no computer. Which of the following statements about Bozo's criminal liability is most accurate (choose one)?: a. Bozo is not guilty of attempted rape because his mistake of fact negates the required mens rea. b. Bozo is guilty of attempted rape because his intent transfers. c. Bozo is not guilty of attempted rape because impossibility in this case is legal. d. Bozo is guilty of attempted rape because impossibility in this case is factual.

a. Bozo is not guilty of attempted rape because his mistake of fact negates the required mens rea. A- Bozo was not going to rape in the first place, becasue rape fantasy is consensual B- not rape C- there is no legal confusion here D- this doesn't seem right because there is no impossibility here, new victim would still be raped

88. Coltella is one of the world's best circus knife throwers. For years she has been delighting audiences by throwing knives at high speed perilously close to assistants who are attached spread-eagled on a vertically-aligned disk that is spinning many feet in front of her. Coltella is so skilled that in the past no assistant has been harmed, but on this occasion she is inaccurate and kills the assistant. Which of the following is the most accurate statement about Coltella's criminal liability (choose one)?: a. Coltella is guilty of negligent homicide because throwing knives under these conditions creates grave risk, but she is probably unaware that she would miss and potentially kill the victim. b. Coltella is not guilty of any form of homicide because the assistant's consent is a complete defense. c. Coltella is guilty of some form of risk creation homicide because consent is not a defense to criminal homicide. d. Coltella is guilty of murder because she creates immense risk of death and certainly is aware of such risk; after all, the risk is what makes the performance exciting.

a. Coltella is guilty of negligent homicide because throwing knives under these conditions creates grave risk, but she is probably unaware that she would miss and potentially kill the victim. or c. Coltella is guilty of some form of risk creation homicide because consent is not a defense to criminal homicide. (Beatrix thinks A because second half of C is weird. see also Shimmen's p. 278) A- The issue here is that we don't know if she is "probably unaware" B- This sounds like assumption of risk. we haven't talked about consent negating homicide C- this answer is safer than A. If C is aware, she could get voluntary manslaughter D- to be guilty of murder, C would need R and Risk^3. Unclear if either is met

66. D fires a bullet into a corpse, hoping the victim to be dead, but realizing that he might be alive. Which of the following is the most likely outcome under the MPC (choose one)?: a. D is guilty because it is a case of factual impossibility. b. D is not guilty because D lacks the mens rea required for an attempt. c. D is not guilty because it is a case of legal impossibility. d. D is not guilty because D's conduct was insufficient for an attempt.

a. D is guilty because it is a case of factual impossibility. (does MPC allow legal impossibility? Andrew thinks yes) A- this is a case of attempted manslaughter (even attempted murder if it is Risk^3) B- this sounds kind of right; look at MPC 5.01(1) C- no legal problems here and besides, MPC tries to get rid of factual/legal distinction D- it was plenty sufficient

49. Several states have abolished the insanity defense and have replaced it with a rule permitting negation of mens rea using evidence of mental disorder. Which of the following is the strongest criticism of this change (choose one): a. Defendants who act unjustifiably but with mens rea are not always culpable and do not always deserve blame and punishment. b. Psychological and psychiatric evidence concerning legal insanity is as reliable or more reliable than psychological and psychiatric evidence concerning mens rea. c. Limiting the use of evidence of mental disorder to negation of mens rea claims will not protect the public better than civil commitment of defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity. d. Abolition of the insanity defense is unconstitutional because it violates the requirement of substantive due process and the ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

a. Defendants who act unjustifiably but with mens rea are not always culpable and do not always deserve blame and punishment. A- most insane people act with proper mens rea, but they are not culpable because they are insane B- this is true, but doesn't get at heart of issue C- this is true, but doesn't get at heart of issue D- Arizona v. Clark says abolition is constitutional

47. Dealer and an undercover agent negotiated a drug deal in the back seat of Driver's car while Driver drove. The agent arrested Dealer and Driver and found a gun in Dealer's pocket. Under the common law, which of the following is Driver's best defense to an allegation that she is chargeable for Dealer's weapon possession offense: a. Driver is not an accomplice to the weapon offense, because she did not have the purpose that Dealer possess the weapon. b. Driver did not agree that Dealer should possess the weapon. c. Dealer's possession of the weapon was not foreseeable. d. Driver was not a major participant in the drug deal.

a. Driver is not an accomplice to the weapon offense, because she did not have the purpose that Dealer possess the weapon. A- no true purpose, see Rosemund B- agreement is not required in accomplice liability C- seems pretty foreseeable that gun could be brought to drug deal D- looks like she was because she was the driver

36. A, a passerby, is about to dive into a lake to rescue Z, a drowning swimmer. B holds her at gun point to prevent her from doing so, and Z drowns. Which statement correctly describes B's liability? a. Guilty of criminal homicide. b. Not guilty of criminal homicide because A is under no duty to rescue Z. c. Not guilty of criminal homicide because B is under no duty to rescue Z. d. None of the above is correct.

a. Guilty of criminal homicide. A- this is true because criminal law, like tort law, imposes a duty on B not to interfere with a rescue underway. Since A undertakes the duty by being "about to drive into lake," A has a duty to rescue now, and by blocking it B should be guilty. See People v. Oliver (Cal 1989) preventing others from rescuing

75. X convinces Y that the world will end unless Y kills Z. Y kills Z. Which of the following statements is least likely to be true (choose one)?: a. If Y has a valid necessity defense, X cannot be held liable because accomplice liability is derivative. b. If Y does not have a valid necessity defense, the innocent agent rule is not an appropriate doctrine with which to hold X liable. c. If Y's belief that the world will end unless he kills Z is unreasonable, Y can be held liable for manslaughter, but not murder. d. If Y's belief that the world will end unless he kills Z is unreasonable, X can only be held liable for manslaughter.

a. If Y has a valid necessity defense, X cannot be held liable because accomplice liability is derivative. A- accomplice liability is not always precisely derivative. Accomplice can get more than perp B- unclear that Y is an innocent agent, but if he is, then X can certainly be labeled as perp C- this could be true. Y thought he was justified, but he mis-estimated the balance of evils, which turns out to be negative. Under CL, no defense. Under MPC, yes defense unless R/N version of crime is available, here it would be manslaughter D- this is if AL is strictly derivative. It's possible for accomplice to get something worse than perp

82. Many people claim that unless human beings have "ultimate responsibility" based on "contra-causal" freedom, it isunfair to blame and punish anyone. This claim may be referred to as the metaphysical challenge to the criminal law. Which of the following statements is the most plausible positive and normative response to the metaphysical challenge (choose one)?: a. In virtually all cases, people do have ultimate responsibility because they choose their conduct, uncaused by anything except their own desires, beliefs and intentions. b. No one is ultimately responsible, but blame and punishment practices are efficacious means of social control and therefore it is fair to use them. c. No one is ultimately responsible, but in virtually all cases, people do not act under morally or legally excusing conditions that we have reason to endorse. d. Ultimate responsibility is possible for most people, but some people are determined and should be excused.

a. In virtually all cases, people do have ultimate responsibility because they choose their conduct, uncaused by anything except their own desires, beliefs and intentions.

Excuse: Diminished Capacity 34. A, who suffers from a serious mental disorder, becomes disoriented on a cold winter night in the midst of a large city. She breaks into a home in order to keep warm. Which of the following is her worst defense to a charge of burglary? a. Lack of mens rea because she had an irresistible impulse to enter the home. b. Legal insanity. c. Lack of intent to commit a felony in the home. d. Lack of capacity to form the mens rea for burglary.

a. Lack of mens rea because she had an irresistible impulse to enter the home. A- she did have a mens rea

44. Malo regularly beat Pauvre during the course of their relationship if Pauvre refused to give Malo money. Pauvre would often have sex with Malo just to accommodate him. One afternoon Malo comes to Pauvre's apartment, says that he has a right to have intercourse with her, and demands sex. Pauvre replies that she doesn't want to have sexual relations. Malo walks over to Pauvre, undresses her, and penetrates her. Which of the following statements is most nearly correct: a. Malo is guilty of rape because he knew Pauvre did not consent. b. Malo is guilty of rape because Pauvre's will was overborne. c. Malo is not guilty of rape because there was no forcible compulsion. d. Malo is not guilty of rape because Pauvre did not resist.

a. Malo is guilty of rape because he knew Pauvre did not consent. A- this is correct. P clearly says no, and M understands B- unclear what overborne means C- modern jurisdictions no longer require compulsion; mere physical force used to penetrate is enough D- modern jurisdiction no longer require resistance

Culpability: Causation 79. Thug administers a vicious blow to victim's head with a black-jack. Victim is taken to hospital where he dies.Which of the following causes of victim's death is most likely to result in Thug's homicide liability (choose one)?: a. Scarlet fever communicated by a nurse. b. A mortal wound inflicted on victim by a knife-wielding maniac who appears in the hospital. c. A fatal dose of sleeping pills victim deliberately takes to end the misery caused by the blow. d. A fatal attack of appendicitis.

a. Scarlet fever communicated by a nurse. A- med mal won't cut causal chain unless gross negligence Med mal generally won't cut the causal chain. Scarlet fever is strep throat which is pretty common B- this is intervening actor breaking prox causation C- could be like KKK case, causal chain still not broken D- this is a separate bodily attack that was uncaused by thug

Culpability: Mens Rea 78. A friend in a Mexican border town hands Defendant a suitcase containing what he hints are illegal drugs and asks Defendant to transport the suitcase into the United States. Defendant's sole purpose in transporting the suitcase is to help other friends of his in the United obtain the type of drugs smuggled from that border town. Because Defendant doesn't have time to investigate the contents of the bag, Defendant is never certain whether he correctly understands his friend's intentions and whether there are in fact illegal drugs in the bag. When Defendant crosses the border, customs officials search the suitcase and find (imagine our surprise!) illegal drugs. Defendant is charged with knowingly transporting illegal drugs. Which of the following will be most useful in securing Defendant's conviction (choose one)?: a. The MPC provision that states that, "When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes it does not exist." b. The MPC provision that states that, "When a particular purpose is an element of an offense, the element is established although such purpose is conditional unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense." c. The MPC provision that states that, "When the law provides that negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposefully." d. The British rule, often called the "Ostrich" rule.

a. The MPC provision that states that, "When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes it does not exist."

65. A fundamental doctrine of criminal law is that it is unjust to punish for mere thoughts, as opposed to acts. According to that doctrine, in which of the following cases would it be improper to punish a person (choose one)?: a. The defendant who spent the last ten years trying to figure out a successful strategy for assassinating the president, so long as he never put anything on paper and hasn't yet started to implement the strategy. b. The soldier who during battle shoots and kills an enemy soldier believing that his victim is his own sergeant. c. The defendant who deliberately shoots and kills victim, unaware that at that very instant victim was about to kill him. d. It would be improper to punish any of them.

a. The defendant who spent the last ten years trying to figure out a successful strategy for assassinating the president, so long as he never put anything on paper and hasn't yet started to implement the strategy. A- this looks like mere thoughts

61. A physician, attending to a patient the physician knows to be brain dead and is certain will be heart dead in a matter of days, takes steps to stop the patient's heart in order to use the heart for a transplant. The physician believes that her jurisdiction has enacted a brain death statute, but it hasn't, and the traditional definition of death- cessation of heart function-is still in effect. Which of the following statements about the physician's liability for homicide is most correct (choose one): a. The physician is not guilty of intentional murder because she didn't intend to kill a live human being. b. The physician is not guilty of intentional murder because her mistake was about non-penal law (a general statute defining death that applies to all law) and in such cases ignorance of the law is an excuse. c. The physician is not guilty of intentional murder because the balance of evils is positive and therefore she was justified. d. The physician is guilty of intentional murder.

a. The physician is not guilty of intentional murder because she didn't intend to kill a live human being. explanation: A- she did intend to take out a human's heart. Whether than constitutes killing is a mistake of law B- "applies to all" so this can't be right C- not enough info to balance evils here D- mistake of law is a defense

68. Defendant believes that the young person with which he is having sexual contact is twelve years old. In fact she is nine. Under the MPC, in the case of any sexual offense in which the criminality of the conduct depends on the victim being below the age of ten, no mistake about age, reasonable or unreasonable, negates the prima facie case. Which of the following justifications for this rule is the most consistent with the MPC's general approach to fault (choose one):? a. The rule is inconsistent with the MPC's general approach to fault and must be justified on other grounds. b. Defendant knew he was committing a legal wrong, since he knew sex with a twelve-year old was a crime. c. Defendant might have been mistaken as to the victim's age, but he could not have been mistaken as to her lack of maturity and he therefore deserves the maximum punishment appropriate for those who have sexual contact with victims too immature to make responsible decisions about whether to have sexual relations. d. Defendant might have been mistaken as to the victim's age, but he could not have been mistaken about the victim being a child and he therefore deserves the penalty appropriate for having sexual contact with a child below the age of ten.

a. The rule is inconsistent with the MPC's general approach to fault and must be justified on other grounds. A- this is correct. The statutory rape rule in the MPC is is inconsistent with other crimes which require some mens rea B- MPC doesn't use lesser legal wrong principle C- this is a nonlegal argument D- Same as C

51. A attacks B with wrongful deadly force and B defends with deadly force. C, who hates A, arrives on the scene after the encounter between A and B begins and is not aware that A attacked B. C yells to B, "Kill that no good ... A." Which of the following is the most accurate statement (choose one): a. Under the MPC, C is guilty of attempted murder. b. Under the common law, C is guilty of attempted accomplice liability. c. Under the MPC, C is not guilty of any crime. d. Under the common law, C is guilty of murder.

a. Under the MPC, C is guilty of attempted murder. (Beatrix thinks C. Andrew thinks A if killing hasn't occurred, otherwise D guilty of murder if killing happened) A- C attempted to, so under 5.01 he gets AL B- this is not a thing C- that does not seem right. Suppose A died. Under MPC, C could get murder under AL D- C had (1) true purpose and (2) mens rea required for murder, which is also P. C encouraged B, which is an act. B has justification defense, but that does not carry over to C. BUT the facts don't tell us that C actually died.

37. Franklin and Bloomie get into a heated argument over whether Penn or NYU is a better law school. Franklin, losing the argument, punches Bloomie in the abdomen. Bloomie pulls a gun and attacks Franklin. In the struggle Franklin shoots and kills Bloomie. Choose the correct statement: a. Under the common law, Franklin, as the initial aggressor, forfeits his right of self-defense. b. Under the Model Penal Code, Franklin could not be held liable for any of his actions, because Bloomie's response was excessive. c. Under the Model Penal Code, Franklin could not successfully claim provocation, because he started the fight. d. None of the above is correct.

a. Under the common law, Franklin, as the initial aggressor, forfeits his right of self-defense. A- this is the black letter law B- Franklin would still be liable for punching Bloomie

86. Detective Calda has a serial killer, Kevin, manacled and in secure custody. Kevin's "trademark" is that he decapitates his victims. While Calda is interrogating Kevin, Calda's partner, Fredda, comes to deliver a package addressed to Calda. When Calda wonders what's in it, Kevin says that it is the severed head of Calda's spouse. Calda then takes her gun and shoots Kevin. Calda is prosecuted for homicide. Which of the following is most accurate about Calda's liability (choose one)?: a. Under traditional common law doctrine, Calda should be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. b. Under traditional common law doctrine, Calda has a plausible claim of unconsciousness. c. Under traditional common law doctrine, Calda was justified in shooting Kevin. d. Under traditional common law doctrine, Calda should be found guilty of murder.

a. Under traditional common law doctrine, Calda should be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter A- this is a case of provocation. Close family member. It reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter B- non unconscious here C- provocation may be a partial justification at best D- see A

13. A is member of a commune. On the command of the commune's leader, he commits an assault on B. The commune leader has threatened A that unless he does as he has been told the commune leader will have A's family killed. When A joined the commune he knew of the leader's violent proclivities. Under the MPC, what is the result of A's knowledge of the leader's violent proclivities? a. A unqualifiedly loses the justification of necessity. b. A loses the justification of necessity only if assault requires the mens rea of recklessness. c. A loses the excuse of duress only if assault requires the mens rea of negligence. d. A retains the excuse of duress as long as assault requires the mens rea of purpose.

b. A loses the justification of necessity only if assault requires the mens rea of recklessness. A- this is false. Under CL, A would lose it. But under MPC, A keeps it unless R/N version of crime is available. Here, no such thing as reckless or negligent assault crime B- If assault requires mens rea of R, then A has no defense. Query: but A can also lose it if assault requires mens rea of negligence... C/D- we are not under excuse analysis here because the balance of evils is positive

Excuse: Legal Insanity 14. Alpha delusionally believes that Beta is a member of an international conspiracy dedicated to killing Alpha. When Alpha see Beta, she shoots and kills Beta. Which of the following statements about Alpha is most correct (choose one): a. Alpha should be found legally insane because her conduct was a product of mental disorder. b. Alpha should be found legally insane because she did not know that what she was doing was wrong. c. Alpha should be found legally insane because she had no choice when she shot Beta. d. Alpha should be found guilty of negligent homicide because she should have known that Beta was not a conspirator.

b. Alpha should be found legally insane because she did not know that what she was doing was wrong. A- fundamental psycholegal error! B- this is correct. At certain level of generality, A thought she was doing the right thing C- she did have choices D- majority rule and Morse's opinions is that we should have insanity d

62. Alpha watched her child run over by a speeding driver who then crashed into a tree. Alpha pulled out a knife and was about to attack the driver, who appeared dazed but not seriously injured. Beta then came upon the scene. Believing that the driver was in deadly peril, Beta tried to stop Alpha from stabbing the driver by trying to restrain Alpha. Alpha stabbed Beta in the heart, killing Beta. Which of the following statements is most theoretically persuasive concerning Alpha's culpability (choose one): a. Alpha should be guilty of voluntary manslaughter on a theory of imperfect justification. b. Alpha should be guilty of murder because Beta did not provoke her. c. Alpha should be guilty of murder because Beta was justified in restraining her and Beta did not use deadly force to do so. d. Alpha should be guilty of voluntary manslaughter because she was in the heat of passion produced by a legally adequate provocation-the criminally wrongful killing of her child in her presence--and there was no legally sufficient cooling time.

b. Alpha should be guilty of murder because Beta did not provoke her. (the fact pattern here is identical to note case Rex v. Scriva, p. 478. There the court held that a provocation defense is unavailable on the charges of murdering a non-provoking victim) B- this is correct, per the note case (Rex v. Scriva)

23. Encouraged by B, a passenger, A drives his car on icy roads at speeds much above the lawful limit. On a dangerous curve, the car skids out of control and crashes into a, killing another passenger, C. Which of the following is the most plausible under the Model Penal Code? a. B is guilty as the perpetrator of manslaughter. b. B is guilty of manslaughter because he aided A's conduct of placing another person in danger of death. c. B is not guilty of manslaughter because A's independent act broke the causal chain between B's acts and C's death. d. B is not guilty because C assumed the risk.

b. B is guilty of manslaughter because he aided A's conduct of placing another person in danger of death. A- B is not perp, only accomplice B- B had (1) true purpose to encourage A to drive fast and (2) mens rea required for crime, which is R C- AL doesn't work like this D- just not true

50. Defender honestly but unreasonably believes that Innocent is about to kill Defender. Defender shoots at Innocent, but misses. Which of the following propositions is most accurate under the Model Penal Code (choose one): a. Defender is guilty of attempted negligent homicide. b. Defender is guilty of reckless endangerment. c. Defender is guilty of attempted manslaughter. d. Defender is guilty of attempted murder.

b. Defender is guilty of reckless endangerment. (as morse: can you be guilty of attempted negligent crime? also: what is reckless endangerment? is there such as thing as attempted reckless endangerment?) A- under MPC, D gets N crime if he was unreasonable in self-defense case. But since he missed, he gets attempt version. Beatrix: one problem here is this is what MPC says, not what Morse thinks B- Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. This misses the analysis C- This would only be true if D's belief was reckless, but we only know that D's belief was unreasonable, N D- murder is out of the picture because only R/N homicide can be charged in mistaken self-defense killing

12. Felonia and Misdemeana independently approached Hapless with guns, intending to kill Hapless. Neither was aware of the other. Both came within a few feet of Hapless. Felonia thereupon had a change of heart, recognized that killing Hapless was a grave evil, turned around and walked away. Misdemeana, using a weapon fitted with a "silencer"shot at Hapless from behind but missed. Hapless continued walking, blithely ignorant of his mortal peril. Misdemeana thereupon had a change of heart identical to Felonia's, recognized that killing Hapless was a great evil, put her gun away, and walked away. Assuming that the conduct of each would satisfy the conduct requirement for an attempt, which of the following statements is most correct (choose one): a. Both Felonia and Misdemeana should have the defense of abandonment on retributive grounds. b. Felonia should have the defense of abandonment on grounds, but Misdemeana should not. c. Neither should have the defense of abandonment because deterrence of murder would be undermined. d. Neither should have the defense of abandonment because attempted murder is a crime and the conduct of both satisfied all the elements of the offense.

b. Felonia should have the defense of abandonment on grounds, but Misdemeana should not. A- M should be guilty of attempted murder. M did turn away -- but that was AFTER the attempted murder had occurred B- F can have defense of abandonment via MPC, but not CL. MPC says that even after attempt line has been crossed, F can renunciate C- abandonment is a defense in MPC even after attempted occurred D- this doesn't explain abandonment doctrine

87. Please assume the same basic facts as in the prior question (concerning Calda, Kevin and Fredda). In this variation, Fredda, who delivers the package, sees that Calda is about to shoot Kevin. When Calda's first shot does not kill Kevin, Calda then moves closer to Kevin and shoots him three more times, killing Kevin. Which of the following statements is most accurate (choose one)?: a. Fredda is liable for murder because she omitted to prevent Calda from shooting Kevin. b. Fredda is not liable for murder because Calda's shooting was an "intervening" human action that cut the causal chain. c. Calda and Fredda are both liable for murder because each is both a factual and legal ("proximate") cause of Kevin's death. d. Fredda is not liable for murder because omissions can not cause anything.

b. Fredda is not liable for murder because Calda's shooting was an "intervening" human action that cut the causal chain. or d. Fredda is not liable for murder because omissions can not cause anything.

93. Greedy, a skid row store owner, routinely sold regular "Sterno," a flammable methyl (wood) alcohol product used to heat serving dishes and the like. Many of his buyers suffered from alcoholism and would drink it to get high. Methyl alcohol is toxic, but not fatal at "domestic". At one point, Greedy's Sterno wholesaler was only able to supply "industrial strength" Sterno. Each can was labeled in bold, capital letters, "INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH," and had a large warning logo showing someone drinking with a line through it. Greedy sold many cans of the industrial strength Sterno to people who usually bought domestic strength. Some who drank the industrial strength died as a result. Which of the following is most accurate concerning Greedy's homicide liability (choose one): a. Greedy is guilty of "depraved heart" murder because he created an immense amount of risk of death and he was consciously aware that many of the buyers would drink the industrial strength Sterno without paying attention to the label. b. Greedy is not guilty of homicide because the actions of the buyers of the industrial strength Sterno were intervening and "cut" the causal chain. c. Greedy is guilty of involuntary manslaughter because he created a substantial amount of risk of death and he should have known that the buyers of industrial strength Sterno would drink it without paying attention to the label. d. Greedy is not guilty for homicide but he is guilty as an accomplice to suicide because he knew that many of the buyers were suffering from alcoholism and would kill themselves by drinking the industrial strength Sterno.

b. Greedy is not guilty of homicide because the actions of the buyers of the industrial strength Sterno were intervening and "cut" the causal chain. A- we don't know if he was consciously aware of this risk. and even so, the immense amount of risk is speculative, especially because the warning label is clear. B- the buyers should have read the clear label. Besides, G should not be responsible for the fact that buyers used product to get high instead of for legitimate purpose. C- this sounds good, but the problem is the intervening actor that cuts the causal chain D- AL usually requires true purpose. Here G has knowing facilitation, but it doesn't fit into one of the three category exceptions

11. Arso was about to torch (set fire to) a building he knew was likely to be inhabited. The highly inflammable liquid he brought for the purpose of dousing the building failed to ignite, however, because he had brought a mislabeled container that in fact contained a liquid that was not at all inflammable. Which of the following statements about Arso's criminal liability is most accurate (choose one): a. Arso is guilty of reckless endangerment. b. If there was a person in the building, Arso would be guilty of attempted murder. c. Arso could not be guilty for attempted arson because the liquid could not have caused the building to burn. d. None of the above.

b. If there was a person in the building, Arso would be guilty of attempted murder. (flagged) A- definition: reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person - here, A didn't actually set the house on fire. A could only be charged with attempted reckless endangerment, which doesn't sound like a crime B- A had no purpose to kill, nor even knowledge (he only knew building was LIKELY to be inhabited, which is R). but R + Risk^3 could get him murder C- factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt D- A could be guilty of attempted arson

22. Alpha, who suffers from hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) with blackout, but whose disorder is well-controlled with medication, blacks out while operating heavy machinery and kills a co-worker. Which of the following is the best defense to a charge of involuntary manslaughter: a. Lack of a voluntary act causing death. b. Lack of mens rea. c. Legal insanity. d. The affirmative defense of unconsciousness

b. Lack of mens rea.

83. Meanie observes Violenta beating up Victim, but Violenta does not notice Meanie. Meanie hates Victim, but Meanie realizes that if she makes her presence known, Violenta will cease beating Victim and will run away. Meanie therefore stands immobile and in complete silence to prevent Violenta from noticing her. Which of the following statements is most accurate (choose one): a. Meanie is not guilty as an accomplice because Violenta had no idea that Meanie wanted to insure that the beating continued. b. Meanie is not guilty as an accomplice because she did not act and her omission violated no duty she owed to Victim. c. Meanie is guilty as an accomplice to Violenta's beating because she knew that Victim was the victim of wrongful force and Meanie failed to fulfill her duty to defend another. d. Meanie is guilty as an accomplice to Violenta's beating because Meanie had the purpose to facilitate the beating and her silent immobility aided Violenta.

b. Meanie is not guilty as an accomplice because she did not act and her omission violated no duty she owed to Victim. A- under AL, perp does not need to know accomplice wanted to help - Beatrix disagrees. Beatrix: under CL, accomplice is not guilty unless he first communicated to perp that he is willing to help. Under MPC, guilty even without communication because attempted to aid B- this is correct C- M has no duty as far as we know D- M actually had true purpose, but no aid

29. Which of the following has the best defense (choose one): a. One who buys dried horse manure in the mistaken belief that it is marijuana. b. One who smokes dried horse manure in the mistaken belief that it has been included in the list of controlled substances use of which is made illegal. c. One who feeds his wife dried horse manure in the mistaken belief that it will kill her. d. One who accepts the horse manure in the mistaken belief that it is stolen property

b. One who smokes dried horse manure in the mistaken belief that it has been included in the list of controlled substances use of which is made illegal. A- this is attempted possession crime. Factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt B- this is correct. Legal impossibility is a defense to attempt C- factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt. D will get attempted murder D- factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt. D will get attempted possession of stolen property

Culpability: Mistake of Law--Negation of Mens Rea & Excuse 35. Warrior tried to sell to, alas, two federal undercover agents a fully automatic, Romanian-made AKM machine gun that he obtained while on duty with the U.S. Air Force in northern Iraq. 18 USC 922(o) makes it "unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun." 18 USC 924(a)(2) attaches the penalty to whoever "knowingly violates" section 922(o). Warrior argues that the plain meaning of the statutes taken together requires the government to prove that he knew he was violating the law. The government's best argument in response is: a. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. b. Requiring proof only of defendant's knowledge that defendant was possessing or transferring a machine gun is not a trap for the unwary in this case. c. The "plain meaning" of these statutes is not "plain." d. Requiring the government to prove knowledge of illegality places an impossible burden on the prosecution.

b. Requiring proof only of defendant's knowledge that defendant was possessing or transferring a machine gun is not a trap for the unwary in this case. explanation: A - this question is not about whether warrior knew what he did was wrong or not C- if it is not plain, then warrior can say that he wasn't on notice D- too extreme

Criminalization: Conspiracy 2. Narca, the boss of a huge illegal drug importing and distribution network, was facing trial for various drug offenses. To avoid conviction, she threatened a prosecution witness with death if the witness testified against Narca. Runner was a street dealer in a distant jurisdiction, who obtained her drugs from Narca's network. Runner has been charged with "obstruction of justice" in Narca's jurisdiction. Obstruction of justice is defined as follows: "Endeavoring to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice...." Which of the following propositions is most accurate(choose one): a. Runner is not guilty because she is such an unimportant member of Narca's network. b. Runner is guilty because obstruction of justice is a foreseeable consequence of drug importing and distribution. c. Runner is not guilty because she is not Narca's co- conspirator. d. Runner is guilty because she is an accomplice to Narca's obstruction of justice.

b. Runner is guilty because obstruction of justice is a foreseeable consequence of drug importing and distribution. (flagged) A- the Alvarez small-fry exception is used in few jurisdictions B- this is correct. Under Pinkterton, one member of a conspiracy is guilty for any foreseeable consequences of other members in furtherance of conspiracy. There might be some question whether obstruction of justice is (1) foreseeable or (2) in furtherance of conspiracy C- you since they are in the same drug-selling group, they are conspirators D- AL doesn't apply here. Runner had no true purpose to help Narca obstruct justice

58. Felonia, who has a fear of height, asks Faka, a high wire walker, to participate the following month in a burglary of a jewelry store located in the penthouse of a highrise building. Entry will require swinging down to the store window from the roof and walking on a window ledge far above the ground, which is why Felonia needs the services of someone like Faka. Felonia says that if Faka takes the job, Felonia will supply all the cash that Faka needs to do the job. Faka has no genuine intent to take part in the burglary, but wishes to get Felonia in trouble and says she will do the job. Faka immediately contacts the police, however, who plant a wire (listening device) on Faka when Felonia meets Faka the next day to deliver the cash. As Felonia is delivering the cash, she is arrested. Which of the following statements is most correct (choose one): a. Under the common law, Felonia is guilty of neither conspiracy nor attempted burglary. b. Under the Model Penal Code, Felonia is guilty of both conspiracy and attempted burglary (but can't be punished for both). c. Both a. and b. d. Neither a. nor b.

b. Under the Model Penal Code, Felonia is guilty of both conspiracy and attempted burglary (but can't be punished for both). A- under CL, F is likely to get both B- this is true. F committed unilateral conspiracy, and soliciting someone to engage crime is enough for attempt under 5.01(2)(g). however, F cannot be punished for both under 5.05(3)

28. A husband, knowing that his wife had threatened to kill their child and that recently she had unsuccessfully tried to do so, deserted her without informing the authorities. His wife then killed the child. Which of the following arguments has the least plausibility? a. He could be held for manslaughter on the ground that he acted with recklessness in creating precisely the risk of loss of the child's life which developed. b. Whatever his liability, it will rest on his being an accomplice of his wife, since there is no problem holding his wife (and thus him) for murder. c. He could be held for manslaughter only under a foreseeability, but not a direct cause, conception of proximate causation. d. He could be held for manslaughter because of his failure to save the child's life in violation of his parental duty.

b. Whatever his liability, it will rest on his being an accomplice of his wife, since there is no problem holding his wife (and thus him) for murder. B- he is not an accomplice, because that requires true purpose

Justification: Defense of Property and Law Enforcement 96. Puny is an inmate in a state prison. He is small, weak, and not a good fighter. On numerous occasions he has been sexually assaulted. Puny reported these assaults to the correctional officers, but they have taken no steps to him. Puny just received an anonymous telephone threatening him with death for "snitching." Puny that his only way to save his life is to escape from prison. As he is making his escape, Puny is confronted by a PG, a prison guard. Which of the following statements is the most true (choose one): a. If Puny screams out that he is escaping to save his own life, PG has a duty to let him escape. b. Whether or not Puny screams out that he is escaping to save his own life, PG is entitled to use deadly force to prevent Puny's escape if Puny ignores PG's order to desist. c. Puny's use of non-deadly force to accomplish his escape is justified even if PG orders him to desist. d. None of the above is true.

b. Whether or not Puny screams out that he is escaping to save his own life, PG is entitled to use deadly force to prevent Puny's escape if Puny ignores PG's order to desist. (Bobby think C, Beatrix thinks B) A- this is strange B- this seems to be true C- Beatrix thinks Lovercamp has a factor that D must not use force against prison guard in escape

27. A drives his car on the highway and hits a child, who wandered into the roadway. A was driving safely. A stopped after hitting the child but finding no body, negligently kept on driving with the child caught under A's car. Of the following propositions, identify the most accurate: a. A could not be held for manslaughter because culpable negligence is insufficient mens rea at common law for manslaughter. b. A could not be held for manslaughter because the child's conduct constitutes an intervening cause relieving A of responsibility for the death. c. A could not be held for manslaughter if the child died during the time that A was stopped and looking for him. d. None of the above propositions is reasonably accurate.

c. A could not be held for manslaughter if the child died during the time that A was stopped and looking for him. A- N = involuntary manslaughter B- probably not. children under 7 also aren't responsible C- this is true. If child is already dead by the time A keeps driving, A did not culpably cause death D- C is correct

33. While driving on the highway, A sets her cruise control at the legal speed limit of 55 mph. She does not notice that the defective cruise control is letting the speed of her soar all the way to 65 mph. She is stopped by a police officer and charged with speeding. Speeding in her state is a strict liability offense defined as "causing one's car to exceed the posted legal speed limit." Which of the following is A's best defense? a. A does not meet the mens rea requirement. b. A has not committed an act. c. A does not meet the proximate causation requirement. d. A is justified by necessity.

c. A does not meet the proximate causation requirement. A- no need, because SL B- A's act is setting the cruise control C- it is not foreseeable that cruise control would be defective D- no necessity here

8. Having heard that B intended to burglarize Z's house that night, A deliberately left a ladder in back of the house to help B break in. B came that night and entered by picking the front door lock. Under the Model Penal Code which statement is correct? a. A did not in fact aid B and therefore cannot be B's accomplice. b. Without some prior agreement or understanding with B, A cannot be convicted as B's accomplice. c. A is an accomplice to B's burglary. d. A only attempted to aid B, and therefore is liable only for attempted burglary.

c. A is an accomplice to B's burglary. A- attempting to aid is enough under MPC. Under CL A would actually need to help somewhat *** this would be the correct answer under CL B- AL does not need prior agreement in general - exception: if D is ready, willing, and able to help, but had no prior agreement with perp, under CL no AL C- MPC says this clearly D- this would be right if V's burglary failed. Then A could be guilty of attempt as an independent crime

60. In which of the following cases does the principle that requires a "voluntary" act or any other principle preclude justifiable punishment (choose one): (Mistake of Law) a. A soldier during battle shoots and kills an enemy soldier believing that the victim is the soldier's own sergeant. b. A man has intercourse with a woman over the age of consent, though he believes that she is underage. c. A physician who wrongly believes that there is a legal duty to treat patients in emergency cases without receiving compensation from the patient, refuses to treat a patient in a case of emergency unless the patient pays the physician first. d. Killer deliberately shoots and kills victim, unaware that at that very instant the victim was about to kill Killer.

c. A physician who wrongly believes that there is a legal duty to treat patients in emergency cases without receiving compensation from the patient, refuses to treat a patient in a case of emergency unless the patient pays the physician first. explanation: A- attempted murder, factual impossibility is not a defense B- attempted statutory rape, factual impossibility is not a defense C- legal impossibility is a defense D- attempted murder, factual impossibility (of self defense) is not a defense

97. Pure ignorance of the law is not an excusing condition unless the defendant acted in reasonable reliance upon an authoritative source that mistakenly advised that the conduct was lawful. Which of the following statements is most true about this doctrine (choose one): a. Although some defendants who act out of pure ignorance may be morally blameless, the doctrine is justified by consequential concerns. b. There would be little danger in admitting the excuse because such claims would scarcely be plausible in the case of seriously dangerous crimes and there is little danger in providing the excuse only once in the case of less serious crimes. c. Both of the above are true. d. Both of the above are false.

c. Both of the above are true. A- true because deterrent effect on the rest of society B- true because officials would know about serious crimes, and less serious crimes done in reliance on authority should be excused C- true because A and B are both true

43. A state statute makes it criminal to "assault a police officer in the performance of his/her duties." (Simple assault is defined as "an attempt to injure physically another.") Which of the following statements is false under the Model Penal Code: a. A mistake about whether an officer is acting illegally on a given occasion may acquit the defendant. b. It will be sufficient for conviction that a defendant who is attempting to batter another believes that that person is a police officer in the performance of his/her official duties. c. Evidence of voluntary intoxication is not admissible to negate the mens rea required by this statute. d. All these statements are false under the MPC.

c. Evidence of voluntary intoxication is not admissible to negate the mens rea required by this statute. explanation: A - MPC is generous on mistake of fact. only subjective needed B- factual impossibility is not a defense. D would be guilty of attempt D- under MPC, evidence of voluntary intoxication can be admissible (note: it can negate P and K, but not R)

52. Arthur attacks and kills his enemy Bob. Recent research has demonstrated that men who suffer from TOD (Testosterone Oversupply Disorder) are at increased risk for violent criminal conduct compared to men who don't suffer from the disorder because TOD tends to increase impulsivity. (You may assume the validity of TOD and the research linking it to violent criminal conduct.) Arthur has been diagnosed as chronically suffering from TOD. In a prosecution for intentional murder, which of the following is most accurate concerning the relation of TOD to criminal liability (choose one): a. Arthur is legally insane under a volitional theory because he suffers from a biological disease that causes crime and therefore he couldn't help himself. b. Arthur has a partial defense to murder such as "Extreme Emotional Disturbance" because TOD causes diminished rationality. c. Given what research has learned about TOD, Arthur has no defense. d. Arthur is legally insane because TOD caused him to have an irresistible impulse to kill.

c. Given what research has learned about TOD, Arthur has no defense. A- prof doesn't like volitional test. we don't know if Arthur "can't" or "won't" B- this is plausible. EED is about diminished rationality C- Arthur has to try harder. This disorder is not substantial enough D- Increased risk is not the same as irresistible impulse

74. X asks Y to kill Z. Which of the following statements is least likely to be true (choose one)?: a. Under the MPC, if Y never does anything to carry out X's request, X is guilty of the attempted murder of Z. b. Under the common law, if Y never does anything to carry out X's request, X is guilty of the attempted murder of Z. c. If Y kills Z, then he breaks the chain of proximate causation between X and Z, and X cannot be held liable as the perpetrator of Z's death. d. If X's reason for encouraging Y is that he hopes that Y will be caught in the process of trying to do so and thus land in jail, he may lack the requisite mens rea for complicity.

c. If Y kills Z, then he breaks the chain of proximate causation between X and Z, and X cannot be held liable as the perpetrator of Z's death. A- MPC 5.01(2)(g) B- Many CL courts think solicitation can amount to an attempt. This is harder because CL labels less things as attempts because it looks at what's left to be done C- X will be accomplice and Y will be perp, so X will be liable. This is least viable answer D- this is true. X's true purpose is not to kill Z, but to get Y in trouble

55. Which of the following is the best argument for punishing completed crimes more severely than attempts (choose one): a. Agents who cause more harm morally deserve more punishment. b. The differential response is so engrained in the moral attitudes of our culture that abolishing the difference would invite jury nullification and disrespect for law. c. Lesser penalties for attempts provide an agent with an incentive to desist. d. Agents who attempt crimes are less dangerous than agents who complete crimes, and, therefore, public safety does not require equal incapacitation.

c. Lesser penalties for attempts provide an agent with an incentive to desist. A- but did they actually cause more harm? B- this is on p. 83 of outline C- after failing first time, agent might not do it again D- this doesn't sound right. Mental state of either is same

18. A is what is commonly called a kleptomaniac, namely, he regularly steals items for which he has no use. One day he is arrested for shoplifting at a department store, stealing his twenty-third radio. He tells the arresting officer that he had no need for the radio and did not know why he stole it because he had no desire to go to jail. A also says that he just felt very tense beforehand and very relaxed and free of tension afterwards. The version of the insanity defense most favorable to A is: a. The M'Naghten test. b. The elements approach to insanity. c. The MPC test. d. The post-Hinckley revisions (e.g., federal and California) for the insanity tests.

c. The MPC test. A- this only has cognitive prong. here it looks like A does know what he's doing wrong B- what is the elements approach? C- MPC test has both cognitive and control elements D- negation of mens rea

95. The most recent, serious challenge to the very possibility of moral and legal responsibility may be characterized as the "disappearing person" view, also characterized as the view that human beings are simply "victims of neuronal circumstances" or the view that we are all victims of "the illusion of conscious will." Which of the following statements about the disappearing person view is least cogent (choose one): a. The disappearing person view is self-evidently false. b. The disappearing person view is normatively inert. c. The disappearing person view is not undermined by a compatibilist metaphysics of responsibility because compatibilism begs the question against the disappearing person view. d. The current empirical evidence does not support the disappearing person view.

c. The disappearing person view is not undermined by a compatibilist metaphysics of responsibility because compatibilism begs the question against the disappearing person view.

57. Supplia tells Importa that Supplia knows of a trustworthy dealer, Deala, to sell the drugs that Importa imports from Supplia's factory abroad. Importa thanks Supplia, goes to see Deala, and offers Deala drugs. Alas, Deala does not have sufficient cash to pay for the drugs. Deala is 15 years old, but Supplia and Importa honestly but unreasonably, believe Deala is 18. Assume that the jurisdiction has a statute prohibiting the sale of drugs to a minor, defined as any person less than 18 years old, and that the statute requires the mens rea of negligence as to the age of buyer. Which of the following is most correct under the Model Penal Code: a. Importa did not go far enough to be guilty of attempted sale to a minor, so Supplia cannot be guilty of attempted sale either. b. Even an unreasonable mistake of fact about a material element must excuse both Supplia and Importa from any criminal liability. c. To be guilty of attempted sale to a minor, Importa need only be negligent with respect to Deala's age because negligence suffices for liability for the completed crime. d. Because conspiracy requires purpose as its mens rea, Supplia cannot be convicted of conspiring with Importa to sell to a minor because Supplia's "conscious object" was not to sell drugs to a minor.

c. To be guilty of attempted sale to a minor, Importa need only be negligent with respect to Deala's age because negligence suffices for liability for the completed crime. A- offering drugs seems far enough into the sale B- look at MPC 2.04(2): mistake of fact can still reduce the grade to the offense that they thought they committed. Under MPC honest mistake negates even negligence, right? C- this is correct. MPC/CL both say that for attendant circumstances, good enough for completion means good enough for attempt D- under Pinkerton, S did not need true purpose to sell to minor. This is a natural and foreseeable consequence

63. Critics of the legal/factual impossibility distinction offer the example of Mr. Fact and Mr. Law by way of criticism. The example appears in the Comment of thr Hypothetical Law Review to the hypothetical Lady Eldon case in your casebook. It reads as follows: "Two friends, Mr. Fact and Mr. Law, go hunting in the morning of October 15 in the fields of the state of Dakota, whose law makes it a misdemeanor to hunt any time other than from October 1 to November 30. Both kill deer on the first day out, October 15. Mr.Fact, however, was under the erroneous belief that the date was September 15, and Mr. Law was under the erroneous belief that the hunting season was confined to the month of November, as it was the previous year. Under the Lady Eldon formulation [which tracks the MPC rule for the legal/factual impossibility distinction], Mr. Fact could be convicted of an attempt to hunt out of season, but Mr. Law could not be." Which of the following is the strongest reply (implicit or explicit) to the criticism implicit in this hypothetical (choose one)?: a. If we wanted to charge Mr. Law with a crime, there would be no plausible statute with which to charge him. b. If Mr. Law and Mr. Fact went hunting in August, but Mr. Law thought the law allowed hunting in August, and Mr. Fact thought it was October, Mr. Law would be convicted and Mr. Fact would be acquitted. c. To punish Mr. Law would be to punish someone for his thoughts. d. Mr. Law would not be guilty of a crime if all the circumstances were as Mr. Law mistakenly believed them to be.

c. To punish Mr. Law would be to punish someone for his thoughts. A- this sounds circular B- Mr. Fact would be convicted here because factual impossibility is not a defense C- Mr. Law only had a guilty conscience D- If that mistake was as he believed, then he would be guilty as hell

9. A steals a diamond necklace worth $5000.00, unreasonably believing that it is really a necklace of glass beads worth $10.00. Grand larceny is defined as the theft of property worth more than $500.00. Which of the following statements about A's criminal liability is most correct? a. Under the common law "moral wrong" doctrine, A is guilty only of petty larceny because she lacks the mens rea for grand larceny. b. Under the MPC, A is guilty of grand larceny because the mens rea for the value of the property, circumstance element, is only negligence. c. Under the common law, A is guilty of grand larceny because the mens rea A had for the lesser offense is sufficient for his liability for the greater offense. d. Under the MPC, A is guilty of grand larceny because the mens rea A had for the lesser offense is sufficient for his liability for the greater offense.

c. Under the common law, A is guilty of grand larceny because the mens rea A had for the lesser offense is sufficient for his liability for the greater offense. explanation: moral wrong = guilty because its just wrong. mistake of fact is not a defense if D would be guilty of circ as he imagined. MPC 2.04(2). So here D would still be guilty of petty larceny lesser legal wrong. MPC does not use lesser legal wrong. MPC is generous on mistake of fact - only subjective needed.

69. Diana is out hunting, in violation of a poaching statute that prohibits the shooting of animals out of season. When she sees what she thinks is an animal moving in the bush, she shoots. Alas, it turns out that what she hit was a car. Poaching is a misdemeanor. Damage to property is a felony. Which of the following is false (choose one)?: a. Under the common law, Diana is probably guilty of the felony of property damage. b. Under the MPC, Diana is probably not guilty of the felony of property damage. c. Under the common law, Diana is probably guilty of poaching. d. Under the MPC, Diana can probably be punished with the level of severity of a poacher.

c. Under the common law, Diana is probably guilty of poaching. explanation: A- true under the lesser wrong theory B - true, Diana had no mens rea to felony of property damages C- false. Diana would be guilty of attempted poaching D- true. Diana is guilty of attempted poaching, which under the MPC is granted the same as object crime

45. Wanda heard that Tanya the Torch planned to burn Sally's Slop House, a local gourmet restaurant, that night. Wanda left a large can of gasoline, a fuse, and some matches behind Sally's. Tanya broke into Sally's through a front window, turned on the gas stove, waited for the place to fill with gas, and then set the place on fire by a gas explosion. Under the Model Penal Code which of the following statements is correct: a. Wanda only attempted to help Tanya, and therefore she is liable only for attempted arson. b. Wanda is not an accomplice to arson unless there was some prior agreement or understanding with Tanya. c. Wanda is an accomplice to Tanya's arson. d. Wanda did not actually help Tanya and therefore she is not an accomplice to arson.

c. Wanda is an accomplice to Tanya's arson. (related Judge Tally problem: can you be an accomplice to an attempted crime?) C- this question is identical to #8

Other/Where do you belong? 5. A throws a baseball at the back of Z's head intending to kill her. The ball misses Z and sails into the backyard of a neighbor who is secretly raising bees. The ball hits the hive causing the bees to swarm. Z is stung by one bee, but, being allergic, dies from it. Of what crime can A probably be convicted? Choose the correct answer. a. Under the Model Penal Code, not manslaughter because the harm that occurred was too remote. b. At common law, not murder because of the absence of proximate cause. c. Attempted murder. d. All of the above answers are correct.

d. All of the above answers are correct. A/B- A and B are both issues about proximate cause C- definitely D- this is correct

99. Terrorist made a powerful bomb. Another member of his terror group (cell), Curia, planned to leave the bomb in a place crowded with people. Just before Curia could do so, a third member of the cell, Hurria, took the bomb and placed it in a public memorial monument that honored previous victims of terror. The bomb exploded and destroyed the monument. Which of the following statements about the criminal liability of the parties is most cogent (choose one): a. Under both the MPC and the common law, Terrorist, Curia and Hurria are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. b. Under the common law, Terrorist and Curia are guilty of the malicious destruction of property. c. Under the MPC, Terrorist and Curia are guilty of attempted murder. d. All of the above statements are cogent.

d. All of the above statements are cogent. A- MPC conspiracy requires true purpose. Agreement can be inferred by the fact that they'll all in the same terror group. CL conspiracy allows knowledge mens rea where there is no legit use. Here, no legit reason to join terror group B- through Pinkerton liability, T and C are guilty of H's malicious destruction of property C- probably, under MPC's intent corroborative test, it looks like making a bomb and planning to leave it in a crowded place says enough about their murderous plan for it to be an attempt D- true

42. Which of the following statements concerning the role of disease in supporting a claim for exculpation is true (choose one): a. Diseases are objective indicators that an excusing condition might be present. b. The alleged exculpating effect of disease collapses into a claim about status. c. The alleged exculpating effect of diseases collapses into a claim about involuntariness. d. All of the above statements are true.

d. All of the above statements are true.

85. Which of the following statements about a "cultural defense" is most accurate (choose one)?: a. Society is so unjust in its distribution of fair opportunity for law-abiding behavior that it forfeits the moral right to blame and punish those who have had the fewest opportunities. b. In some cases, it is unfair to blame and punish offenders who acted with non-culpable, pure ignorance of law. c. In some cases, enculturated beliefs or perceptions may negate the mens rea required by the definition of an offense. d. All of the above statements may be reasonably accurate if suitably circumscribed, but none supports a cultural defense.

d. All of the above statements may be reasonably accurate if suitably circumscribed, but none supports a cultural defense. A- this isn't even related to culture B- similar to C C- similar to B D- aligns with Morse's view that cultural defense is largely outdated today

Culpability: Mistake of Fact--Negation of Mens Rea 7. A Pennsylvania statute makes mistake of fact a defense when it serves "to negate the intent, knowledge, belief, or negligence required" by the definition of the crime charged, but only if the mistake is one "for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse." If a mistake "for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse" is equivalent to a reasonable mistake, then the effect of the qualifying clause is that: a. It contradicts the clause that precedes it. b. For crimes requiring negligence it is redundant. c. It converts crimes requiring intent, knowledge or belief into crimes of negligence. d. All of the above.

d. All of the above. explanation: A. is true (the first clause says subjective good enough but qualifier says not you have to be reasonable, which is objectve. B is true because reasonableness either way c. true because if you are reasonable you get off

31. Alpha tells Beta that if Beta will have intercourse with him, Alpha will pay for a highly desirable but elective surgery that Beta's child needs. After Beta sleeps with Alpha, Alpha refuses to pay for the surgery, which had always been his plan. Which of the following statements is most correct (choose one): a. Alpha is guilty of larceny by false pretenses. b. Alpha is guilty of rape because there was fraud in the inducement. c. Alpha is guilty of rape because there was fraud in the factum. d. Alpha is not guilty of either larceny or rape.

d. Alpha is not guilty of either larceny or rape. A- larceny = theft of personal property. Not really the case here B- fraud in the inducement = thought it was intercourse, but agreed for different reasons. D can never be guilty of rape through this C- fraud in the factum = didn't think it was intercourse, but it was. Here, Beta knows it is intercourse D- this is correct

94. Suino was verbally abusing his spouse, who was holding their infant child. At one point he tried to hit his spouse, but missed and hit the child instead. The state in which these sad events took place had a specific "domestic violence" statute that prohibited assault and battery on a spouse or minor child and that punished assault on a spouse as a lower grade felony and assault on a minor child as a higher grade felony. Which of the following statements is most true concerning Suino's criminal liability (choose one): a. Suino is guilty of the higher grade felony of intentionally battering the child because his intent to hit transfers. b. Suino is guilty of attempting to commit the lower grade of domestic violence towards his spouse. c. Suino is not guilty of the higher grade felony of battering the child because he lacked the intent to commit the higher grade felony. d. Good arguments can be made on behalf of all of the above outcomes.

d. Good arguments can be made on behalf of all of the above outcomes. A- does intent transfer from one grade to a higher grade? even if it doesn't, there is the lesser wrong prinicple B- yes, Suino attempted but missed, still guilty for attempt C-Under MPC, you're only guilty of the wrong you thought you were doing D- A and B both look really good

67. Heartless fails to rescue what he thinks is a neighbor's child because he hates the brat and hopes that it dies. In fact it is his own child. Which of the following is the most accurate statement about Heartless' probable homicide liability (choose one)?: a. Under the lesser moral wrong doctrine, Heartless is probably guilty of murder. b. Under the MPC, Heartless is probably guilty of murder. c. Under the lesser legal wrong theory, Heartless is probably guilty of murder. d. Heartless is heartless, but he is probably not guilty of murder.

d. Heartless is heartless, but he is probably not guilty of murder.

70. In the State of Bliss, assault on a spouse is a felony. Bliss' murder statute reads as follows: All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or in any other kind of wilful deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate arson, rape, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking ... is murder of the first degree ... all other kinds of murders are of the second degree ... Exwhy finds his spouse in bed with a lover and beats his spouse to death. Which of the following statements about Exwhy's homicide liability is most correct (choose one):? a. If Exwhy were charged with felony-murder, he could have the charge reduced to felony-manslaughter on grounds of provocation. b. If Exwhy were charged with felony-murder, he would have a strong argument that the charge should be dismissed because the felony is not enumerated. c. If Exwhy were charged with felony-murder, he would have a strong argument that the charge should be dismissed under the inherent dangerousness doctrine. d. If Exwhy were charged with felony-murder, he would have a strong argument that the charge should be dismissed under the merger doctrine.

d. If Exwhy were charged with felony-murder, he would have a strong argument that the charge should be dismissed under the merger doctrine. A- I don't think felony-manslaughter is a doctrine B- felony doesn't have to be enumerated, second degree felony-murder C- beating spouse IS inherently dangerous though D- This is correct. Beating spouse has assaultive element, so it merges

76. Defendant deliberately shoots and kills Victim, unaware that at that very moment Victim was about to kill him. Which of the following statements about Defendant's liability is most correct (choose one)?: a. According to the "act doctrine," Defendant will not be held liable because punishment in this case would amount to punishing thought. b. Defendant will not be held liable for murder because it is legally impossible to commit murder while acting in self-defense. c. In a jurisdiction that defines the actus reus of murder as "the unjustifiable killing of another," Defendant is probably guilty of attempted murder. d. In a jurisdiction that defines the actus reus of murder as "the unjustifiable killing of another", Defendant is probably guilty of murder.

d. In a jurisdiction that defines the actus reus of murder as "the unjustifiable killing of another", Defendant is probably guilty of murder. A- but D acted B- D was not acting in self-defense, which requires subjective knowledge C- D did not attempt to kill, he actually did kill D- this is correct. Self-defense has subjective and objective components. D failed subjective

38. The best argument for accepting negligence as a sufficient mens rea for the consent element in rape is (choose one): a. Negligence concerning consent is a sufficient degree of culpability for guilt. b. Negligence is sufficient culpability for guilt and it will maximize deterrence. c. Negligence will maximize deterrence. d. It is impossible to identify the "best" argument with the facts given in the question.

d. It is impossible to identify the "best" argument with the facts given in the question. A- this is true in progressive courts only B- perhaps C- This is probably true. SL arguably maximizes deterrence more than N (people could be so scared they no longer have sex at all), but then again maybe it only has a marginal effect. Beatrix thinks C D- Answer choices could all be true... so this one probably

21. Macha tells Macho that she no longer loves him and is thinking of leaving him. Macho then threatens to kill himself if Macha leaves. Macha knows that Macho is often self-destructive psychologically and physically, but she leaves anyhow. Macho then kills himself. Which of the following statements concerning Macha's criminal liability for Macho's death is most accurate (choose one): a. Macha is guilty of reckless murder because she was aware of a very great probability that Macho would kill himself and her intentional act of leaving Macho was the actual ("but for") cause of his death. b. Macha is not guilty of murder because she did not proximately cause Macho's death, but she can be guilty as an accomplice to Macho's suicide because she was aware of very great probability that he would kill himself. c. Macha is guilty of reckless murder because Macho was an innocent instrumentality. d. Macha is not guilty of reckless murder or as an accomplice to suicide.

d. Macha is not guilty of reckless murder or as an accomplice to suicide. A- this is all true, but Macha did not act here. Her omission is likely not ignoring a legal duty (if they are married, this might be harder). Further, there is a prox cause problem - Macho took his own life, cutting the causal change B- being an accomplice requires true purpose, or in special circumstances, knowledge, but here the special circumstances aren't met C- a person who decides to commit suicide on their own is not an innocent instrumentality D- this is the correct answer, if A is false. but A looks pretty good.

56. Which of the following is the most convincing explanation for why mental disorder sometimes provides the basis for an excuse, but deprivation per se is not an excuse (choose one): a. Mental disorder is more criminogenic than deprivation. b. Mental disorder is a recognized form of disease, but deprivation is not an abnormal condition. c. Mental disorder produces a genuine excusing condition more frequently than deprivation. d. None of the above is a convincing explanation.

d. None of the above is a convincing explanation. D- prof thinks what is relevant is rationality. Mental disorder impairs rationality, whereas deprivation does not necessarily

Criminalization: Rape & Other Sexual Offenses 15. A and B, who were strangers, became drunk together at a bar. A convinced B that A's wife enjoyed having sex with strangers who threatened her with a gun. A gave B his gun to use to threaten Ms. A. They went to Ms. A's home, where B showed her the gun and asked for sex. Ms. A passively submitted to B's request. B's best defense to a charge of rape is: a. Voluntary intoxication. b. Lack of reasonable resistance by Ms. A. c. Lack of specific intent. d. None of the above is a good defense

d. None of the above is a good defense A- half of jurisdictions only accept intox to negate specific intent. but rape charge is general intent B- Modern trend is moving away from resistance. Even states that still require resistance are more sympathetic when victim has reasonable fear of GBH (grievous bodily harm) -- here gun is pointed at her C- rape is a general intent crime D- this is correct

39. The best reason for permitting true legal impossibility as defense to attempt is (choose one): a. Legally impossible attempts demonstrate that the actor is not antisocial. b. The conduct of legally impossible attempts is objectively innocent. c. Punishing legally impossible attempts violates the principle of legality. d. None of the above is a good reason for permitting the defense of legal impossibility to attempt.

d. None of the above is a good reason for permitting the defense of legal impossibility to attempt. (flagged) A- not necessarily. can still show that the actor is willing to break the law, as morse says C- this sounds like a tautology D- Morse thinks that morally, agent has is just as guilty

Justification v. Excuse Generally 32. A is addicted to heroin. She has experienced strong withdrawal symptoms when she has tried to kick the habit. B, who needs a getaway driver for a bank robbery, steals all of A's heroin and threatens not to give it back to A unless A drives for her during a heist. A reluctantly agrees and drives for B's completed bank robbery before the onset of any withdrawal symptoms in A. A's best defense is: a. Duress. b. Necessity. c. Addiction. d. None of the above is a reasonably plausible defense.

d. None of the above is a reasonably plausible defense. A- duress only works as a defense if there is a bodily threat. Here that's arguably not the case. Potential withdrawal is only indirectly related to bodily harm. But MPC allows "unlawful force" is this a case of unlawful force? B- necessity requires positive balance of evils. Here it's likely negative C- this is not a defense

48. Many claim that strict liability is an appropriate standard for the consent element in rape and that people who are guilty under this standard should receive the same penalty as any other rapist. Which of the following is a strong justification for such claims. a. Determining whether a woman consents is such a simple matter that the strict liability standard is not unfair. b. Men who have intercourse with women without consent are dangerous and need to be incapacitated for lengthy periods. c. Rape is such a serious crime that the strict liability standard is needed for deterrence. d. None of the above is a strong justification for the strict liability standard.

d. None of the above is a strong justification for the strict liability standard. A- D will argue that it's not a simple matter B- this is true, but doesn't address why SL rather than another mens rea is justified C- but N can do the job D- this is correct. Prof against SL because its unduly harsh, and N standard should do just as well here

1. Which of the following is the strongest rationale for the adoption of the "Guilty But Mentally Ill" [GBMI] verdict (choose one): a. GBMI permits the jury to assess the degree to which mental disorder affects the defendant's culpability. b. GBMI permits the state to detain criminals who are specially dangerous because they suffer from mental disorder. c. GBMI permits the state to provide treatment to criminals who have special treatment needs because they suffer from mental disorder. d. None of the above is a strong rationale for the adoption of GBMI.

d. None of the above is a strong rationale for the adoption of GBMI.

Culpability: Strict Liability (& Vicarious Liability) 4. A, a gun store owner, is charged with violating a statute prohibiting the sale of armor piercing bullets. A admits that her employee, B, sold such bullets from A's store and that the statute would make B criminally responsible even if B was wholly ignorant of the nature of the bullets he was selling. A argues that she should nonetheless not be liable as an accomplice unless she had knowledge that B had sold such bullets. Which of the following kinds of authorities is most helpful in support of A's argument? a. Cases taking the majority common law view of the mens rea required for accomplice liability. b. Cases stating that because the purpose of strict liability is to promote the highest possible standards of care, the statute will not be furthered by holding A responsible for what could not have avoided. c. The Model Penal Code view of the mens rea required for accomplice liability. d. None of the above is at all in point.

d. None of the above is at all in point. (the phrasing of the question suggests the statute is SL. confusing if true purpose is met. A had the purpose for B to sell bullets, just not armor piercing bullets) A- not sure what the majority rule on attendant circ is, but it could be "good enough for perp, good enough for accomplice" in which case it would be SL, which is not good for A B- Beatrix think this is possible, The question is whether SL can actually promote more care (state v guminga) C- MPC does not take a view on mens rea level for attendant circ D- this is the best answer. A and C are both too vague - it's unclear if a majority common law view exists, and MPC does not take a view on mens rea level for attendant circ.

Excuse: Duress 26. The best theoretical explanation of why duress excuses is: a. Whenever the harm threatened is worse than the harm done to avoid the threat, the person acting under duress has not done wrong. b. The defendant does not perform a voluntary act. c. The defendant is irrational. d. None of the above is the best explanation.

d. None of the above is the best explanation. A- this is justification B- it is voluntary because for example, D chose to kill another to save himself C-it may be irrational to kill another to save yourself

98. There have been many proposals that a background of severe environmental deprivation should be an independent excuse for criminal behavior. Which of the following statements about the proposals is most convincing (choose one): a. In the United States, severe environmental deprivation is a strongly predisposing cause of criminal behavior that is not the fault of the deprived offender and therefore adopting an independent excuse to reflect this fact is well justified. b. Adopting the defense will force our society to recognize both that social injustice, not individual guilt, is the cause of crime and that it is our society's moral and political duty to remedy this injustice. c. Currently existing excuses do not apply to all deprived offenders who morally qualify for the new excuse and therefore a new excuse is necessary. d. None of the above statements is convincing.

d. None of the above statements is convincing.

41. Alpha pretends to agree with Beta on a plan to kill Zeta, although Alpha is only feigning in order to get Beta convicted of a crime. Alpha gives Beta a gun loaded with blanks with which to kill Zeta, telling Beta it is loaded with real ammunition. Beta thereafter fires the gun at Zeta. Which of the following propositions is correct under the Model Penal Code: a. Beta has a good defense of impossibility. b. Since Beta is guilty of attempted murder and Alpha intentionally helped Beta commit that crime, Alpha is also guilty of attempted murder as Beta's accomplice. c. Since the gun was harmless, Beta could not be said to have done an act proximate enough to success to constitute an attempt. d. None of the above.

d. None of the above. A- no because factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt. B will get attempted murder B- This sounds wrong (1) A's true purpose is to get B in trouble. It sounds weird to say A's true purpose was attempted murder. How can your true purpose only be an attempt to do something? (2) A's mens rea to the planned murder was not P, K, or even R. Query: can accomplice be liable of attempt crime? seems so: you shoot at x, at my encouragement, you missed. This suggests that accomplice can only get attempted crime if his purpose was actual crime BUT perp tried and failed C- B did not know it was harmless

Criminalization: Attempt 3. Sherlock Holmes learned that his enemy, Professor Moriarty, planned to shoot him while he was in the front room of his house on Baker Street. Accordingly Holmes had made a wax bust of himself, which he placed in such a position between a reading lamp and the window that it cast a shadow on the shade. Assume Moriarty fired through the window, narrowly missing the bust. If Moriarty were charged with attempted murder, the defense which should succeed under the Model Penal Code is: a. The intent demonstrated by defendant's action was the intent to shoot a wax bust. b. Even if Moriarty had succeeded in hitting the wax bust, no murder would have been committed. c. Only acts which constitute a substantial step toward consummation of the crime can be punished as attempts. Since Moriarty never came close to killing Holmes, his act cannot be regarded as substantial. d. None of the above.

d. None of the above. A- no, the intent was to kill Holmes B- factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt C- firing the gun is a pretty substantial step D- this is correct. M will be charged with attempted murder

Justification: Necessity (Choice of Evils) 6. A threatens to kill B's child then and there unless B tells A where he can find B's employer, C. A further tells B that B and his child will be released once C is safely in A's custody and that A intends to confine C by force. B yields to A's threats and tells B where C may be found. A, accompanied by B and B's child, finds C and forces C at gunpoint to accompany him. A then releases B and his child. B is charged with aiding and abetting false imprisonment (false imprisonment is defined as the "intentional confinement of another by force and against his will"). Choose the correct statement. a. B can show the absence of a voluntary act on his part, prerequisite for accomplice liability. b. B has a defense of duress under the Model Penal Code, but not under the common law. c. B can show that he lacked the mens rea required for liability, because he gave the information to A in order to save his child, not to cause his employer's confinement. d. None of the above.

d. None of the above. A- the act was very hard, but still voluntary B- duress defense good under either C- true purpose still existed, B wanted C toget caught actually. Ultimate motive doesn't matter

Proportionality 92. According to the Supreme Court's opinion in the Ewing case, which addressed the constitutionality of enhanced sentencing for recidivists (e.g.,"three strikes" laws), which of the following statements concerning this practice is most accurate (choose one): a. Recidivist enhancements are unconstitutional because they have no plausible retributive justification. b. Recidivist enhancements are constitutional because they are fully justified by consequential theories of punishment. c. Recidivist enhancements are constitutional, but their costs outweigh any consequential gains. d. Recidivist enhancements are constitutional because they do have a plausible retributive justification

d. Recidivist enhancements are constitutional because they do have a plausible retributive justification B- nothing is fully justified under consequentialist

46. Spoiled and Brat were adult brothers who both suffered from "abused child syndrome," because their parents had brutally whipped them when they were young children. While their parents were watching television in the parents' bedroom one day, the brothers shot and killed their parents. The brothers claimed that as a result of their syndrome they believed that their parents were going to whip them brutally again. Which of the following is the most accurate statement about the brothers' liability for homicide: a. The brothers cannot succeed with an insanity defense, because "abused child syndrome" is not a disorder recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. b. The brothers can succeed with an insanity defense, because they did not know what they were doing when they killed their parents. c. The brothers can succeed with a self-defense claim, because they are reasonable "abused child syndrome" sufferers. d. The brothers should be convicted of manslaughter on the basis of imperfect self-defense.

d. The brothers should be convicted of manslaughter on the basis of imperfect self-defense. A- insanity D does not require disorder formally recognized by APA B- they did know C- Courts don't allow reasonable syndrome test D- imperfect self defense has subjective prong met but objective prong unmet

90. In Clark v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona rule that prohibited a defendant from introducing expert evidence concerning mental disorder to negate mens rea. Which of the following statements concerning the opinion is most true (choose one): a. Placing the persuasion burden for legal insanity on the defendant reduces the risk that the judge or jury will be mislead by confusing evidence concerning mens rea. b. If a state permits a defendant to introduce mental disorder evidence to negate mens rea, the state may also shift the burden of persuasion on that element to the defendant. c. If a state does not permit a defendant to introduce mental disorder evidence to negate mens rea, the state must retain an insanity defense. d. The constitutionality of excluding voluntary intoxication evidence to negate mens rea entails the exclusion of mental disorder evidence introduced for the same purpose.

d. The constitutionality of excluding voluntary intoxication evidence to negate mens rea entails the exclusion of mental disorder evidence introduced for the same purpose. A- this may not be true, but the opinion did not make this point B- AZ did not even allow the mens rea negation C- this may be true, but it's not related to the opinion. In this case the court did consider the insanity defense D- this sounds right - it can be barred because juries are susceptible to being mislead

Justification: Self-Defense and Defense of Others 10. A, a battered spouse, had been beaten severely and regularly by her spouse for many years. One night while her spouse slept, she took his revolver and killed him. Which of the following is the least of the obstacles to the successful use of "battered spouse syndrome" to support the defense of self-defense? Choose one: a. The requirement of an imminent danger. b. The requirement of an actual belief in the need to use deadly force. c. The reasonable person standard. d. The usual legal requirements for the acceptance of expert testimony.

d. The usual legal requirements for the acceptance of expert testimony. A- this is a serious obstacle B-many juries doubt that the woman actually believed it C-this is serious obstacle D- courts allow this

40. The best reason to limit partial responsibility doctrines to homicide is (choose one): a. Mental abnormality rarely negates the mens rea of crimes other than homicide. b. Partial responsibility is a continuum concept that only applies to the most serious crimes, such as homicide. c. It is impossible to devise a punishment system that would be properly proportional to a verdict of partial responsibility for crimes other than homicide. d. There is no compelling reason to limit partial responsibility to homicide.

d. There is no compelling reason to limit partial responsibility to homicide. D- prof's view is that there should always be a verdict of guilty but partially responsible for every crime

100. An independent control test for criminal responsibility, especially if it is tied to an underlying mental abnormality, is intuitively appealing to many even if it is not politically popular at present. Which of the following statements about a control test is least cogent (choose one): a. Some defendants such as pedophiles and addicts who seem firmly in touch with reality and who know and endorse the moral and legal rules, nonetheless seem to behave "out of control" because they powerfully crave certain ends. b. The concept of loss of control is sufficiently well understood to permit reasonably objective evaluation of whether a defendant was substantially out of control. c. Most defendants who might qualify for a control excuse will also qualify for a cognitive test if the latter is properly interpreted. d. Control capacity is a continuum and control tests need not be treated as "all or none." Culpability: The Act Doctrine 30. In Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the involuntary civil commitment of "mentally abnormal sexually violent predators" [MASVPs] who had been convicted of sex crimes and had completed their sentences. Which of the following statements about the constitutional justification for these commitments is most accurate (choose one): a. These commitments are justified because MASVPs are more likely to commit future crimes than other classes of offenders. b. These commitments are justified because MASVPs cannot control their sexual conduct. c. These commitments are justified because the conduct of MASVPs is involuntary. d. These commitments are justified because the conduct of MASVPs is the symptom of a disease.

d. These commitments are justified because the conduct of MASVPs is the symptom of a disease.

Culpability: Intoxication: Negation of Mens Rea & Excuse 53. Alpha, a social drinker, had one beer and a burger before driving home from his place of work late one night. For inexplicable reasons, however, he became extremely intoxicated and unaware that he was so intoxicated. During the drive home, he drove between 70 and 80 miles per hour on a twisting, narrow country road. While trying to pass on a "blind" curve, Alpha crashed into another car approaching from the opposite direction, killing the driver of the other car. Alpha claimed that he was not aware when he was driving that he was creating a risk of death. In a prosecution for risky homicide, which of the following statements is the most accurate (choose one): a. Under the common law, Alpha has the affirmative defense of intoxication. b. In the vast majority of common law jurisdictions that permit the introduction of intoxication evidence to cast doubt on the prosecutions's prima facie case, Alpha will be guilty of murder. c. Under the Model Penal Code, Alpha should be convicted only of negligent homicide because his intoxication was not self-induced. d. Under the Model Penal Code, Alpha has the affirmative defense of intoxication.

d. Under the Model Penal Code, Alpha has the affirmative defense of intoxication. A- yes, because pathological intoxication is like insanity defense B-No, if intox can be used then it will likely negate P, K, and R. so at most Alpha could get involuntary manslaughter C- while pathological intoxication is involuntary, Alpha should not even get negligent homicide because it is a complete defense D- MPC 2.08(4) treats pathological intoxication as an affirmative defense. MPC does seem to be more stringent, as it requires pathological intox to amount to temporary insanity