Crim Questions
The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires the prosecution in a criminal matter to prove each element of a crime: a. By Clear and Convincing Evidence. b. All of these are correct. c. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (BARD). d. None of the these. e. By a Preponderance of the Evidence.
BARD
Bill, a summer lifeguard at a municipal swimming pool, failed to notice that Cindy, a six-year old child who was swimming in the crowded pool, had slipped off the flotation devices that had been on her arms, and was drowning. Bill failed to notice this because he was preoccupied with flirting with two young women wearing skimpy swimsuits who were standing next to him, busy flirting with him. By the time Bill was finally alerted by others to Cindy's distress and jumped into the water to rescue her, it was too late. Cindy never regained consciousness. Bill has been charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of Cindy. His defense counsel claims that he is not guilty of these charges, inter alia, because he committed no criminal act. Rather, Bill simply failed to act—an omission, which is not deemed to be culpable in criminal law. Which of the following is most accurate in a Common Law jurisdiction? a. Bill's failure to act does not satisfy the actus reus element of involuntary manslaughter. b. Bill's failure to act satisfies the actus reus element of involuntary manslaughter, but only if a statute created a duty for lifeguards to act to save distressed swimmers. c. Bill's failure to act satisfies the actus reus element of involuntary manslaughter, but only if he was related to Cindy. d. Bill's failure to act satisfies the actus reus element of involuntary manslaughter.
Bill's failure to act satisfies the actus reus element of involuntary manslaughter.
Celia shot Barry in the chest after a heated domestic dispute. The gunshot wound was a serious one and Barry would have died from it in a few hours. But Barry actually died as a result of a traffic accident when the ambulance driver rushing him to the hospital, Lewis, recklessly decided to drive the wrong way down a one-way street and smashed headfirst into an oncoming car. Barry was killed when the ambulance burst into flames after the crash.Celia and Lewis have both been charged with homicide offenses relating to the death of Barry. Each of them is defending on the ground that the other one "caused" Barry's death. Which of the following is true: a. None of the these. b. Only Celia caused Barry's death. c. Celia and Lewis each caused Barry's death. d. Neither Celia nor Lewis caused Barry's death. e. Only Lewis caused Barry's death.
Celia and Lewis each caused Barry's death.
Deff and Puff are longtime rivals. They were rivals in middle school, and high school. They are both now employed at the same local packaging and shipping company. Deff competes with Puff on a daily basis at work. One day during work, Deff said "it's time to end this competition by getting rid of Puff all together and for good." "I can't stand him." David, another co-employee, overheard Deff's comments and thought that he would like to help Deff because Deff is a good friend. Unknowing to Deff, David called a friend, Denver, and asked him to help kill Puff. Denver refused David's request. David decided that he must go ahead and kill Puff because it is "clear that Deff wants Puff dead." David shoots and kills Puff one afternoon as Puff was leaving work. In a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, which of the following statements is true? a. none of these b. david is guilty of murder c. david is guilty of voluntary manslaughter d. deff and david are guilty of involuntary manslaughter
David is guilty of murder
Steven is s a storm tracker, who travels around the state chasing tornados in order to collect data for his research. One night Steven miscalculated his data and actually places himself directly in the path of the tornado. He quickly panics out of fear for his life and breaks into a home to take shelter in the basement, in order to save his life. Steven was later arrested and charged with criminal trespass. a. Defense of Necessity. b. Defense of Habitation. c. Defense of Duress. d. All of these are correct. e. Defense of Property.
Defense of Necessity.
Diana anonymously telephoned a false bomb threat to a public high school. The school was evacuated and searched top to bottom, but, of course, nothing was found as there was no bomb there. Diana's role in making the call was discovered when her brother overheard her talking about it with one of her friends, and he turned her in for the $1,000 reward money. Diana was subsequently arrested and charged with the criminal offense of recklessly endangering another person. In the jurisdiction where these events took place, this offense is defined as follows: "A person is guilty of recklessly endangering another person where he or she recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury." Recklessness is defined in this jurisdiction the same way it is defined in the Model Penal Code: "A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation." Which of the following is most accurate: a. Diana is guilty of recklessly endangering another person. b. None of the these. c. Diana is not guilty of recklessly endangering another person because no one was actually placed in danger of death or serious bodily injury. d. Diana is not guilty of recklessly endangering another person because she did not consciously intend to harm anyone.
Diana is not guilty of recklessly endangering another person because no one was actually placed in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
A father was terminally ill with a particularly painful form of cancer. His daughter visited him every evening in the hospital and for several months listened to his pleas to put him out of his misery. On her final visit, she gave her father a hug and then pulled a small revolver from her purse. She fired a single shot at her father killing him instantly. The daughter immediately broke down in tears and surrendered to the police. The daughter was charged with her father's death. What is the most serious offense of which the daughter can be convicted? a. involuntary manslaughter b. voluntary manslaughter c. second degree murder; defined by this jurisdiction as any murder not classified as first degree murder d. first degree murder; defined by this jurisdiction as the premeditated and deliberate killing of another human being.
First degree murder; defined by this jurisdiction as the premeditated and deliberate killing of another human being
A hospital patient had a heart ailment so serious that his doctors had concluded that only a heart transplant could save his life. The doctors arranged to have the patient flown to a bigger hospital to have the operation performed. The patient's nephew, who stood to inherit from him, poisoned him. The poisoned produced a reaction that required postponing the trip to the bigger hospital. The plane on which the patient was to have flown crashed, and all aboard were killed. By the following day, the patient's heart was so weakened by the effects of the poison that he suffered a heart attack and died. If charged with a criminal homicide in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, the nephew should be found: A. Guilty B. Nor guilty, the deceased was already suffering from a fatal illness C. none of these d. not guilty because the poison was not the sole cause of the death, and the patient would have died if he had traveled on the plane
GUILTY
Ike and Eden were cross-country skiing in a remote, wilderness area when an unexpected blizzard hit. The snowfall became so heavy that they became completely disoriented and lost. While Ike had a mobile phone with him, there was no reception during the storm and—although he tried—Ike failed to reach anyone to ask for help. In truth, even if Ike had reached someone, given the severity of the storm and their remote location, it was doubtful that anyone could have reached them quickly enough to offer them any real assistance.Ike and Eden feared with good reason that they might get lost and be seriously injured or die in the snowstorm, either through exposure or just by falling and hurting themselves. Luckily for them, however, at the height of the storm, they stumbled upon an unoccupied cabin in the woods. They broke the lock on the cabin door and stayed inside for a day and a half, until the storm subsided. At that point, the owner of the cabin showed up and called for assistance for them.The owner of the cabin also called the police and asked them to arrest Ike and Eden. He was not sympathetic to the dilemma that caused them to break into his cabin as he had already had to repair the cabin a dozen times after hikers had broken into it. The cabin owner was just plain tired of the break-ins and he wanted to teach someone a lesson. So he filed a criminal complaint for breaking and entering and criminal trespass against both Ike and Eden.If Ike and Eden are actually prosecuted for one or both of these criminal offenses, do they have a good defense? Which of the following is most accurate: a. Ike and Eden do not have a good defense of necessity to these charges because the dangers they faced were the result of a natural event not an imminent threat from another person. b. None of the these. c. Ike and Eden have a good defense of necessity to these charges. d. Ike and Eden do not have a good defense of necessity to these charges because they had other non-criminal alternatives open to them to escape from harm.
Ike and Eden have a good defense of necessity to these charges.
Angela had a medical marijuana license in the State of Colorado for treatment of a broken finger. While driving down to Florida for spring break, she was pulled over by Officer Reinaldo. He arrested her after he saw a half smoked marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. The search after arrest resulted in a quarter ounce of marijuana hidden in the arm rest. She was charged with possession, a specific intent crime in this jurisdiction. In court, what would her best defense be? a. Lack of requisite mens rea. b. Mistake of Law. c. Lack of intent. d. Mistake of Fact.
Lack of requisite mens rea.
Larry, who lived in Detroit, was out of town on a business trip for a week in February. While he was gone, he let two of his friends, Dan and Candy, use his house. He did not tell them, however, that the furnace in his home was an old one, and that he knew that it was not working well, that it did not produce enough heat, and that the house stayed too cold. As a result, Larry had scheduled a furnace repair person to come and look at it the week after he returned to town to let Larry know if it could be repaired, or if he needed to replace it.While he was gone and Dan and Candy were living in the house, carbon monoxide leaked from the furnace late one evening. Dan never woke up, but Candy woke up, nauseous and lightheaded, and feeling that her heart was beating funny. She dragged Dan, who was unresponsive, out of the house and called 911. The Fire Department arrived and discovered the leak. Dan was rushed to the hospital, but he subsequently died there of carbon monoxide poisoning.Assume that Larry has been charged with involuntary manslaughter of Dan for failing to tell Dan and Candy that he suspected that his furnace might be leaky. Involuntary manslaughter murder in this jurisdiction contains a mens rea element of criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is defined in this jurisdiction the same way it is defined in the Model Penal Code: "A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation."Which of the following is most accurate: a. Larry is probably not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because he did not actually know that his furnace was leaky and posed a risk of harm to others. b. Larry is probably not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because his failure to inform Dan and Candy of the risk of harm was not a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have observed in his situation. c.Larry is probably guilty of involuntary manslaughter. d. Larry is probably not guilty of involuntary manslaughter because there is no evidence that he actually intended to harm Dan. e. None of the these.
Larry is probably guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
The defendant bought a new bow and arrow set at a local sporting goods store and went to a public park to try it out. Based on prior experience, the defendant knew that practicing his marksmanship at the park was a violation of park regulations and constituted a misdemeanor. Right at the moment that the defendant fired his first arrow, a park ranger yelled at him from a distance to "stop shooting, stupid." Perturbed that he was caught so early, the defendant decided to fire an arrow a couple of feet above the ranger's head. Unfortunately, the defendant's aim was slightly off, and the arrow struck the ranger right between the eyes, killing him instantly. The defendant is charged with homicide for the park ranger's death. At trial, the jury was given instructions on common law murder and manslaughter. If the jury believes the defendant's testimony that he did not intend to hit the park ranger with the arrow, the most serious charge for which the jury may find him guilty is: a. misdemeanor manslaughter b. involuntary manslaughter based on recklessness c. murder d. none of these e. voluntary manslaughter
MURDER
While walking home alone late one evening, Marcel was accosted by Carl, who jumped out at him unexpectedly from a dark alley. Carl grabbed Marcel by his arm and shouted at him: "Give me your wallet! Now! Right now!"Marcel reached into his pocket. But instead of pulling out his wallet, he pulled out a knife instead and stabbed Carl three times in the chest. Carl subsequently died as a result of complications resulting from internal bleeding caused by the stab wounds.Marcel has been charged with second degree murder as a result of his stabbing of Carl and Carl's subsequent death. Marcel's defense counsel, Ursula, has argued, however, that Marcel's actions were completely justified as he was acting in self defense in response to being physically accosted by Carl in a robbery attempt.Is Ursula correct? Does Marcel have a good self defense argument in these circumstances? Which of the following is most accurate: a. Marcel does not have a good self defense argument because Marcel was the aggressor in this situation. b. Marcel has a good self defense argument. c. None of the these. d. Marcel does not have a good self defense argument because Carl did not threaten him with deadly force.
Marcel does not have a good self defense argument because Carl did not threaten him with deadly force.
Defendant is in a parking lot in the process of stealing a car. After he manages to get the car's door open, Defendant realizes that he dropped one of his tools further back. Leaving the door open, Defendant runs back to get it. On the way back to the car, two men jump out from behind another car and startled him. The men laugh at him, causing Defendant to get angry. He returns to the car he was stealing, gets in, and runs the car into the men wanting to badly hurt or kill them for laughing at him. One of the men one dies. At common law, what crimes is Defendant most likely to be convicted of? A. Felony Murder and Battery B. all of these are correct C. Assault, battery, murder D. Murder
Murder
Will, an indigent, was walking through Central Park when he decided to rob someone. He hid behind a tree, lying in wait for a victim to approach. Shortly after, Vicky, a sixteen year-old girl, was walking in the park when Will suddenly jumped from his hiding place and accosted her. Although Willy only intended to rob his victim, he punched Vicky in her mouth and she fell to the ground. Will then grabbed her pocketbook and fled. Unknown to Will, Vicky suffered a fractured skull when she fell to the ground. Vicky subsequently died from her head injuries. Which of the following is the most serious crime for which Will can be found guilty at common law? a. unlawful act manslaughter b. involuntary manslaughter c. Murder d. none of the above
Murder
The president of a pharmaceutical firm received a report from his testing bureau that a manufactured lot of the firm's anti-cancer prescription medication was well below strength. Concerned about being able to fulfill contractual commitments, the president instructed his staff to deliver the defective lot. A cancer patient who had been maintained on the drug died shortly after beginning to take the defective pills. Medical evidence established that the patient would have lived longer had the drug been at full strength, but would have died before long in any event. The president was convicted of murder. On appeal, he argues that his conviction should be reversed. Should the conviction be reversed? a. Yes, because the cancer, not the president's conduct, was the proximate cause of death of the patient. b. No, because the jury could have found that the president's conduct was sufficiently reckless to constitute murder. c. Yes, because distribution of the defective lot was only a regulatory offense. d. No, because the intentional delivery of adulterated or mislabeled drugs gives rise to strict criminal liability.
No, because the jury could have found that the president's conduct was sufficiently reckless to constitute murder.
Norman was sound asleep in the upstairs bedroom of his home late one evening when he heard what he thought were noises coming from downstairs. Norman got out of bed and walked quietly into the upstairs hallway. He couldn't hear anything more. "Who's there? Is anyone there?," Norman yelled down the staircase.In apparent response to his yelling, he heard some loud but garbled voices and what then sounded like people running and crashing into things. Quickly grabbing his shotgun from the upstairs closet, Norman ran downstairs to the kitchen. When he got there, he saw the kitchen door wide open with the window smashed and glass from the broken window all over the floor. A number of the cabinet doors and kitchen drawers were open with their contents strewn around all over the kitchen.Norman ran to the kitchen doorway. Looking outside, he saw two men running away from his home at the far end of the back yard. "Stop!," he screamed at them, "Stop or I'll shoot!" The two men did not stop, and Norman shot twice and hit them both. Both men, who subsequently admitted that they had been burglarizing Norman's house thinking that no one was at home, were seriously but non-fatally wounded by the shotgun blasts.Norman has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault, one count for each of the two men he shot and wounded. His defense counsel, Lee, has argued that Norman had every right to shoot these two men as they were burglarizing his home. Is Lee correct? Which of the following is most accurate: a. Norman has a good defense of habitation defense in these circumstances b. Norman does not have a good defense of habitation defense in these circumstance because that defense only applies when the actors actions were necessary to terminate the unlawful intrusion into the home c. Normal does not have a good defense of habitation defense in these circumstances because that defense foes not permit the actor to use deadly force
Norman does not have a good defense of habitation defense in these circumstance because that defense only applies when the actors actions were necessary to terminate the unlawful intrusion into the home
Sandy knew that the brakes on his truck were failing. He simply did not have the money to get them repaired for a couple of weeks, until after he got paid. Finally, payday came and Sandy had enough money in the bank to take his truck to a service station for repair. Unfortunately, on his way to the service station, his brakes failed completely as he tried to come to a complete stop at a red light and he rolled right through the intersection and smashed into the passenger side of a car, killing the front-seat passenger, Tim.Sandy has been charged with first degree murder. In the jurisdiction where these events took place, first degree murder has a mens rea element of "purposeful" conduct, i.e. to be guilty of first degree murder, the prosecution must prove, inter alia, that the accused had the "conscious object to cause" the resulting death of the victim. Which of the following is most accurate: a. Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim if but only if it is true that he did not have the money to repair the truck's brakes prior to the accident. b. Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim. c. Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim if but only if his actions were reckless. d. None of the these. e. Sandy acted purposefully in killing Tim.
Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim.
The defendant, angered because a rival gang member had twice beaten him up after school, obtained a heavy lead pipe and waited in a deserted alleyway which he knew the rival took as a route home every day after school. When his enemy came walking down the alley, the defendant leapt out behind him and smashed the pipe into the victim's head, knocking him to the ground. The defendant then rolled the victim over and pounded his face with 15 to 20 heavy blows with the lead pipe, killing him. The jurisdiction defines first degree murder as murder committed with premeditation and deliberation. All other murders are defined as second degree murders. If the defendant is convicted of first degree murder (as opposed to second degree murder), it will be because: a. The nature of the acts causing death distinguishes the defendant's action as first degree murder. b. The defendant's mental state up to and including the moment of the attack determines that the act is first degree murder. c. The relationship between the defendant and the victim requires that a finding of first degree murder be made. d. The degree of causative relationship between the defendant's acts and the death of the victim renders it murder of the first degree.
The defendant's mental state up to and including the moment of the attack determines that the act is first degree murder.
Bianca was standing at the rail on the top deck of a ferry boat, smoking and talking to her friends, while the ferry crossed a long expanse of water. At one point, Bianca flicked her half-smoked cigarette overboard. But, because of the strong wind generated by the ferry boat's motion, the cigarette was blown right back at the boat and onto a lower deck, and it was still lit and burning.The cigarette landed in a pail of cleaning liquid that was being used by a crew member to clean woodwork, and it immediately ignited that liquid. The ensuing fire on the ferry boat ended up engulfing the entire boat in flames, causing many injuries, including the deaths of two passengers, Bernard and Penny, who jumped in the water to escape the burning boat and drowned.Bianca has been charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of Bernard and Penny. Her defense counsel claims that Bianca could not have anticipated the strong wind that caught her cigarette and blew it back onto the boat and that, accordingly, she was not criminally responsible for their deaths. Which of the following is most accurate: a. The fact-finder will probably find that Bianca did not cause Bernard's and Penny's deaths because the wind blowing the cigarette back onto the boat was an action that broke the causal chain. b. The fact-finder will probably find that Bianca caused Bernard's and Penny's deaths. c. None of the these. d. The fact-finder will probably find that Bianca did not cause Bernard's and Penny's deaths because the fact that the wind blew the cigarette back onto the boat was causing those deaths was a result that was too remote or accidental.
The fact-finder will probably find that Bianca caused Bernard's and Penny's deaths.
After a drug deal went wrong, George shot Rudolfo twice in the abdomen, gravely wounding him. Rudolfo was rushed to the hospital.While he was still unconscious, Rudolfo was placed on a gurney and wheeled into an X-ray room. A hospital employee then sat him up at an angle but failed to secure him to the gurney before lowering a side rail. As a result, Rudolfo fell off of the gurney, breaking his neck at the fifth and sixth vertebrae. This break resulted in Rudolfo dying almost instantaneously as a result of spinal shock.George has been charged with first degree murder in the shooting of Rudolfo. His defense counsel has argued, however, that George did not cause Rudolfo's death due to the intervening negligence of the hospital employee who failed to secure him to the gurney while he was being x-rayed, resulting in his fall and subsequent death. Which of the following is most accurate:' a. None of the these. b. The fact-finder will probably find that George did not cause Rudolfo's death because the hospital employee's negligence broke the causal chain. c. The fact-finder will probably find that George caused Rudolfo's death. d. The fact-finder will probably find that George did not cause Rudolfo's death because the hospital employee was the only proximate cause of Rudolfo's death.
The fact-finder will probably find that George caused Rudolfo's death.
Two men drinking at a local bar got into a heated argument. The small, slightly built man knew that the large burly man had a short fuse, yet continued to argue with him. The larger man insulted the smaller man's religion and national origin, whereupon the smaller man spat on the other, who responded by pouring a glass of beer over the smaller man's head. The smaller man then punched the larger man in the nose, catching him off guard and knocking him to the floor. The larger man got to his feet, pulled out a knife, and advanced toward the other, who was standing by the door. The smaller man reached inside his boot and drew out a small gun and shot the larger man, killing him instantly. This common law jurisdiction makes it a crime to carry a concealed weapon. The smaller man is charged with murder. If the smaller man claims the killing was in self-defense, which of the following is the most helpful to the prosecution? a. Before any violence erupted, the smaller man was aware that the larger man was becoming increasingly quarrelsome and belligerent, and continued to drink and argue with him notwithstanding. b. The use or possession of the type of gun that the man used is a crime under state law, and carrying any concealed weapon is a separate crime. c. None of the these. d. The smaller man was standing very close to the door and could have broken off the affray if he had chosen to do so. e. The smaller man initiated the physical violence by spitting on the larger man, and his punching the larger man in the nose is what caused him to threaten the smaller man with the knife.
The smaller man was standing very close to the door and could have broken off the affray if he had chosen to do so.
Defendant was involved in a car accident in which a passenger of the other car was seriously injured. Defendant exited his car and looked at the injured passenger, and after realizing that the passenger would survive her injuries, Defendant got back into his car and drove away without rendering aid. The Defendant was later arrested and charged with leaving the scene of an accident. Should the Defendant be convicted as charged? a. No, because there is no duty to generally assist others. b. Yes, because the Defendant had a legal obligation to offer aid since he caused the accident that injured the passenger. c. No, because the injured passenger would survive the injuries and so there was no urgency or need for immediate aid. d. Yes, if there is a statute in that jurisdiction that requires the Defendant to render aid or report the accident.
Yes, if there is a statute in that jurisdiction that requires the Defendant to render aid or report the accident.
Sylvie was arrested by a local police officer for walking her dog, Trixie, in a park near her home without Trixie being on a leash. The criminal statute under which she was arrested provides that "[n]o dog shall be permitted except on leash within any park or wildlife management area except in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources, and whoever shall be the owner of any dog at large within any park or wildlife management area, knowing that this conduct is unlawful, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." When she was arrested, Sylvie told the arresting officer that she did not know that she needed to have Trixie on a leash. The officer responded, "I'm sorry, but that's irrelevant, ma'am. Ignorance of the law is no defense." Assuming that Sylvie's statement that she did not know that she needed to have Trixie on a leash is truthful, is that a defense in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction? a. Yes, but only if the statute also includes a mens rea element of purposeful, intentional, or knowing behavior. b. Yes, it is a good defense. c. No, it is not a good defense. d. Yes, but only if her belief was a reasonable one.
Yes, it is a good defense.
After drinking heavily at his bachelor party at a beachfront resort, the groom was helped into a speedboat by a few of his close friends and taken to a small island off the coast as a joke. They left him on the island which had a small shelter. As a result, the groom missed his wedding the next day. One of the groom's friends, Defendant, was charged with kidnapping. Kidnapping in this jurisdiction is defined as the "unlawful movement or concealment of a person without his or her consent." In his defense, the Defendant claims he was so intoxicated that he did not realize what he was doing, and that the groom had consented to being left on the island. Which of the following would not be helpful to the Defendant's defense? a. Kidnapping is a general intent crime in this jurisdiction. b. The Defendant had overheard the groom say that he was not sure about going through with the wedding. c. Kidnapping is a specific intent crime in this jurisdiction. d. The groom was not legally intoxicated that evening
a. Kidnapping is a general intent crime in this jurisdiction.
Sergio has a sleep disorder that causes him occasionally to wander around his home late at night and to make other movements without being aware that he is doing so. One night, Sergio, while sleepwalking in his living room, tripped over an electrical cord and fell onto and seriously injured a friend, Ilsa, who was sleeping on the living room couch. Which of the following is most accurate in a Common Law jurisdiction? a. Sergio did not commit a criminal act because his actions were involuntary since he was sleepwalking at the time he injured Ilsa. b. Sergio did commit a criminal act if but only if the crime in which he is charged is a strict liability offense
a. Sergio did not commit a criminal act because his actions were involuntary since he was sleepwalking at the time he injured Ilsa.
Mother intending the death of Victim, her child, furnished poison to X a home nurse telling her it was medicine to give to Victim. X did not believe the Victim needed it and did not administer the poison. X placed the poison on a mantel where Sister, another child, gave it to Victim and Victim died. Which of the following statements are accurate? a. mother is guilty of victims death because mother was the proximate cause b. mother is not guilty of a homicide because this was a coincidental intervening cause c. Mother is guilty of Victim's death because this was a responsive intervening cause.
a. mother is guilty of victims death because mother was the proximate cause
Which of the following statements are true regarding the "reasonable belief" requirement in a self defense claim at common law? a. all of these b. There must be a reasonable belief that he or she was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm before deadly force can be used. c.If you have a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to repel an imminent attack, you can use self-defense. d. The belief must not only have been honestly entertained but also objectively reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances.
all of these
Which of the following statements are true regarding the different approaches to felony murder when the killing is perpetrated by a non-felon? a. all of these are correct b. According to the "Limited Version" of the proximate causation approach, a felon can only be convicted of killing an innocent victim but not another felon. c.According to the "Agency" approach, the Felony Murder Rule does not extend to a killing if directly attributable to the act of one other than the defendant or those associated with him or her in the unlawful enterprise. d. According to the "Proximate Causation" approach, a felon is liable for any death resulting from the felony whether the shooter is a felon or a third party.
all of these are correct
Cheech was growing a small marijuana patch in his backyard garden. Possession of marijuana remains a crime in this jurisdiction. A neighbor observed the marijuana, alerted the police, and Cheech was arrested. He has been charged with possession of marijuana.Cheech can convince a jury that he honestly believed that it was not against the law to grow a small amount of marijuana for one's own personal use in that jurisdiction, would that be a good defense? a. Yes, but only if the possession of narcotics statute in his jurisdiction includes a mens rea element of purposeful, intentional, or knowing behavior. b No, it would not be a good defense. c. Yes, but only if the possession of narcotics statute in his jurisdiction is a strict liability statute. d. None of the these
b No, it would not be a good defense.
Stewart had sexual intercourse with Allie forcibly and without her consent. Stewart was forced against his will to commit this sexual act by Logan, Allie's bitter and psychotic ex-boyfriend.Logan held a loaded gun on Stewart, and was present during the entire event. He told Stewart that he would shoot him if Stewart did not rape Allie immediately. After the sexual act was completed, Logan shot and killed himself.Stewart has been charged with the crime of the rape of Allie. Does Stewart have a tenable defense to this charge? Which of the following is most accurate: a. None of the these. b. Stewart has a good duress defense to this charge. c. Stewart does not have a good duress defense to this charge because actions undertaken in response to a threat never justify an act of forcible rape. d. Stewart does not have a good duress defense to this charge because the threat made to him was one that a reasonable person would have and should have resisted.
b. Stewart has a good duress defense to this charge.
Mike and Ellen were cross-country skiing in a remote, wilderness area when an unexpected blizzard hit. The snowfall became so heavy that they became completely disoriented and lost. While Mike had a mobile phone with him, there was no reception during the storm and—although he tried—Mike failed to reach anyone to ask for help. In truth, even if Mike had reached someone, given the severity of the storm and their remote location, it was doubtful that anyone could have reached them quickly enough to offer them any real assistance.Mike and Ellen feared with good reason that they might get lost and be seriously injured or die in the snowstorm, either through exposure or just by falling and hurting themselves. Luckily for them, however, at the height of the storm, they stumbled upon a cabin in the woods. Mike knocked on the cabin door and the owner, Zeb, opened the door just a crack while he kept the door secured with a security chain."Let us in. Please, please, mister, let us in!," Ellen cried out, "we're freezing out here. We're lost. We'll die out here! Let us in!" Zeb responded coldly: "Get the hell out of here! There's only room for one person in here. And that's me!" And then Zeb slammed the door shut.Mike and Ellen huddled on the front porch of the cabin as long as they could. But after a couple of hours, they were frozen and nearly covered with drifting snow and they both began hammering on the cabin door with their fists, screaming at Zeb to let them in. At first, Zeb did not respond at all, but then he screamed back at them through the closed and locked door: "Get the f*** outta here! I got a rifle. If I hear anything more out of you two, I'll open the door and shoot you both. Clear out!"Eventually, Mike and Ellen decided they had no choice. If they stayed huddled outside any longer, they were likely to die. They talked about it and they decided that there was two of them and only one person inside the cabin. If they had to kill Zeb to get inside, then, as Mike said: "So be it. It's better that two people survive than that just one person survive. I'm going in."Mike then pulled out the pistol he carried in his backpack, and shot off the cabin door lock. As he and Ellen rushed inside, they saw Zeb, who had apparently been asleep, stumble toward his rifle. Mike shot and killed him.Mike has now been charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of Zeb. His defense counsel, Allyson, has argued that Mike was justified in shooting and killing Zeb because—just as Mike had reasoned before entering the cabin—the commission of that crime was justified because it resulted in a net increase in the amount of lives saved from the storm: two rather than one. Is this a good defense to this charge? Which of the following is most accurate: a. None of the these. b. Mike has a good defense of necessity to this charge. c. Mike does not have a good defense of necessity to this charge because he killed another person. d. Mike does not have a good defense of necessity to this charge because he did not face an imminent threat of serious harm to himself if he did not reach a place of shelter quickly.
c. Mike does not have a good defense of necessity to this charge because he killed another person.
A manufacturer has released five times the permitted amount of dangerous gas into the air, in violation of a state criminal environmental statute. Courts in this jurisdiction have construed this statute as strict liability. Which of the following is most accurate: a. The manufacturer has a strong defense that it was not aware of the statutory requirements and did not intend to violate the law. b. None of the these. c. The manufacturer has no possible mens rea defense in these circumstances. d. The manufacturer cannot be convicted of violating the statute if it can show that it did not know the gas was being emitted.
c. The manufacturer has no possible mens rea defense in these circumstances.
As part of her new landscaping, Rita had a wood-burning fire pit installed at the back of her property, close to the wooden fence that separates her lot from a neighbor. On a chilly evening in early October, she left the fire unattended and went into the house to answer the telephone. While she was inside, a strong wind came up and suddenly sparks from the fire pit blew onto the wooden fence. The fence caught fire, and the fire quickly spread to Rita's neighbor's house, which nearly burned to the ground before the fire department got the blaze under control. Rita has been charged with arson, which requires, in this jurisdiction, a showing of purpose to commit the offense. Which of the following best describes what the prosecutor must prove to convict Rita of this offense? a. Rita knew that leaving the fire unattended could result in this damage, but she did it anyway. b. None of the these. c. A reasonable person would have known not to leave the fire unattended. d. When she left the fire unattended, Rita consciously meant to burn her neighbor's house down e. Rita should have known that leaving the fire unattended could result in this damage.
d. When she left the fire unattended, Rita consciously meant to burn her neighbor's house down
