Criminal Law
D left her brand new Mercedes running in front of a store while she went inside to shop. As she walked out of the store, she saw a stranger opening her car door. D yelled and pulled a handgun from her purse. She told the stranger to move away from the car. The stranger looked at D and turned to climb into the car. D shot and killed the stranger. D is charged with murder. May D successfully claim defense of property? A. No, because shooting someone is never justified. B. No, because deadly force is not justified solely for the protection of property. C. Yes, because the use of deadly force is permitted to prevent the imminent theft of property. D. Yes, because the car was very expensive so the use of deadly force was justified.
B. No, because deadly force is not justified solely for the protection of property.
Darnell agrees to sell his car to Jamie. Darnell tells Jamie that his car has only 60,000 miles on it. In fact, Darnell has rolled back the odometer on the car from 140,000 miles. Jamie pays Darnell $12,000 for the car. The car falls apart shortly thereafter. What crime, if any, has Darnell committed? A. Embezzlement. B. Larceny by trick. C. False pretenses. D. Highway robbery.
C. False pretenses.
Davis decided to kill Adams. He set out for Adams' house. Before he got there he saw Brooks, who resembled Adams. Thinking Brooks was Adams, Davis shot at Brooks. The shot missed Brooks but wounded Case, who was some distance away. Davis had not seen Case. In a prosecution under a statute that proscribes attempt to commit murder, the district attorney should indicate that the intended victim(s) was (were): (A) Adams only. (B) Brooks only. (C) Case only. (D) Adams and Brooks.
(B) Brooks only.
Intending to kill Vic, Deft shot at Vic, but the bullet just missed Vic and hit Cal. Cal was only slightly wounded. 1. Did Deft commit attempted murder of Cal? 2. Did Deft commit attempted murder of Vic?
1) No, because Deft did not intend to kill Cal and the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply to attempted murder. 2) Yes, because Deft had the specific intent to kill Vic and took a substantial step toward completing the crime (and came dangerously close to success).
A state statute defines all murders as second-degree murders unless deliberation and premeditation can be shown, in which case the crime is elevated to first-degree murder. Manslaughter is defined as at common law. The defendant, just having been served with divorce papers, decided to drown his sorrows at the local pub. After drinking heavily and becoming very intoxicated, the defendant became enraged when another patron spilled a drink on him. He took a nearby glass pitcher and smashed it over the patron's head, killing him instantly. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness. What is the most serious crime of which defendant could be convicted? A. Murder in the first degree. B. Murder in the second degree. C. Voluntary manslaughter. D. Involuntary manslaughter.
B. Murder in the second degree.
A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor's house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor's house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door. The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted? (A) No crime. (B) Conspiracy. (C) Burglary. (D) Conspiracy and larceny.
(A) No crime.
Defendant entered a grocery store just before closing time. He went up to the clerk in the store and said, "Hand over all the money in the cash register or you will get hurt." The clerk fainted and struck her head on the edge of the counter. Defendant went behind the counter and removed $200 from the cash register. After taking a couple of steps toward the front door, defendant saw a police car pull up to the curb. Defendant then put the $200 back into the cash register and ran out the back door. On this evidence, the most serious crime(s) Defendant could be convicted of is (are): (A) robbery. (B) assault and robbery. (C) attempted robbery. (D) assault and attempted robbery.
(A) robbery.
A state statute provides as follows: "In all criminal cases, whenever the U.S. Constitution permits, the burden of proof as to a defense claimed by the defendant shall rest on the defendant, and the magnitude of the burden shall be as great as the Constitution permits." The same state defines the crime of forcible rape as follows: "Forcible rape consists of sexual penetration inflicted on an unconsenting person by means of force or violence. Consent of the victim is a complete defense to a charge of rape." At a defendant's trial for forcible rape, he testified that the alleged victim had consented to having sexual intercourse with him. How should the trial judge instruct the jury regarding the burden of proof on the issue of consent? (A) The defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim consented. (B) The defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the victim consented. (C) The defendant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim consented. (D) The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent.
(D) The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent.
Homer lived on the second floor of a small convenience store/gas station that he owned. One night he refused to sell Augie a six-pack of beer after hours, saying he could not violate the state laws. Augie became enraged and deliberately drove his car into one of the gasoline pumps, severing it from its base. There was an ensuing explosion causing a ball of fire to go from the underground gasoline tank into the building. As a result, the building burned to the ground and Homer was killed. In a common-law jurisdiction, if Augie is charged with murder and arson, he should be A. convicted of both offenses. B. convicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of arson. C. convicted of arson and involuntary manslaughter. D. acquitted of both offenses.
A. convicted of both offenses.
Deft went to an unofficial happy hour after work. During her 45-minute stay, she had three glasses of wine. On her drive home, a small child darted out into the road in front of Deft's car. She applied her brakes but was unable to stop in time. The child was killed. At the time of her accident, Deft's blood alcohol was .09, slightly above the legal limit (i.e., .08). If she had not been intoxicated, she would have been able to avoid hitting the child. Deft is most likely to be found guilty of A. Driving Under the Influence and Murder. B. Driving Under the Influence and Voluntary Manslaughter. C. Driving Under the Influence and Involuntary Manslaughter. D. Driving Under the Influence.
C. Driving Under the Influence and Involuntary Manslaughter.
Smart approached Johnson and inquired about hiring someone to kill his girlfriend's parents. Unknown to Smart, Johnson was an undercover police officer who pretended to agree to handle the job and secretly taped subsequent conversations with Smart concerning plans and payment. A few days before the payment was due, Smart changed his mind and called the plan off. Nevertheless, Smart was charged with solicitation to commit murder. Smart should be A. acquitted, because he withdrew before payment and commission of the act. B. acquitted, because no substantial acts were performed. C. convicted, because the offense was completed before his attempt to withdraw. D. convicted, because Johnson agreed to commit the offense.
C. convicted, because the offense was completed before his attempt to withdraw.
Hannah, who was homeless, broke into the basement of a hotel and fell asleep. She was awakened by a security guard, who demanded that she leave. As Hannah was leaving, she cursed the security guard. Angered, the guard began to beat Hannah on her head with his flashlight. After the second blow, Hannah grabbed a fire extinguisher and sprayed the guard in his face, causing him to lose his sight in one eye. The jurisdiction defines aggravated assault as assault with intent to cause serious bodily injury. The most serious crime for which Hannah could properly be convicted is A. aggravated assault. B. burglary. C. assault. D. trespass.
D. trespass.
Joe and Marty were coworkers. Joe admired Marty's wristwatch and frequently said how much he wished he had one like it. Marty decided to give Joe the watch for his birthday the following week. In the weekend before Joe's birthday, Joe and Marty attended a company picnic. Marty took his watch off and left it on a blanket when he went off to join in a touch football game. Joe strolled by, saw the watch on the blanket, and decided to steal it. He bent over and picked up the watch. Before he could pocket it, however, Marty returned. When he saw Joe holding the watch, he said, "Joe, I know how much you like that watch. I was planning to give it to you for your birthday. Go ahead and take it now." Joe kept the watch. Joe has committed A. larceny. B. attempted larceny. C. embezzlement. D. no crime.
A. larceny.
Eric and Carol have been getting on each other's nerves at work. Carol decides she needs to liven things up by playing a practical joke on Eric. When Eric arrives at work, Carol pretends to throw a baseball at his head. However, unbeknownst to Eric, the ball is attached to a string and rebounds to Carol before it hits Eric. Nonetheless, Eric is extremely startled and upset by the incident. Is Carol guilty of assault? A. Yes, because Carol acted maliciously. B. Yes, because Carol intended to and did create a reasonable apprehension in Eric that he would be hit by the ball. C. No, because Carol never intended to hit Eric with the ball. D. No, because Eric suffered no physical injury.
B. Yes, because Carol intended to and did create a reasonable apprehension in Eric that he would be hit by the ball.
In a jurisdiction that has abolished the felony-murder rule, but otherwise follows the common law of murder, Sally and Ralph, both armed with automatic weapons, went into a bank to rob it. Ralph ordered all the persons in the bank to lie on the floor. When some were slow to obey, Sally, not intending to hit anyone, fired about 15 rounds into the air. One of these ricocheted off a stone column and struck and killed a customer in the bank. Sally and Ralph were charged with murder of the customer. Which of the following is correct? A. Sally can be convicted of murder, because she did the act of killing, but Ralph cannot be convicted of either murder or manslaughter. B. Neither can be guilty of murder, but both can be convicted of manslaughter based upon an unintentional homicide. C. Sally can be convicted only of manslaughter, but Ralph cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter. D. Both can be convicted of murder.
D. Both can be convicted of murder.
Sam told Horace, his neighbor, that he was going away for two weeks and asked Horace to keep an eye on his house. Sam gave Horace a key to use to check on the house. Horace decided to have a party in Sam's house. He invited a number of friends. One friend, Lewis, went into Sam's bedroom, took some of Sam's rings, and put them in his pocket. Which of the following is true? A. Horace and Lewis are guilty of burglary. B. Horace is guilty of burglary and Lewis is guilty of larceny. C. Horace is guilty of larceny and Lewis is guilty of larceny. D. Lewis is guilty of larceny and Horace is not guilty of any crime.
D. Lewis is guilty of larceny and Horace is not guilty of any crime.
Suffering from painful and terminal cancer, Willa persuaded Harold, her husband, to kill her to end her misery. As they reminisced about their life together and reaffirmed their love for each other, Harold tried to discourage Willa from giving up. Willa insisted, however, and finally Harold held a gun to her head and killed her. The most serious degree of criminal homicide of which Harold can be legally convicted is A. No degree of criminal homicide. B. Involuntary manslaughter. C. Voluntary manslaughter. D. Murder. a. Could Harold use the defense of "consent" to avoid a conviction?
D. Murder. a. No, consent is not a defense to homicide or serious batteries.
Smith asked Jones if he would loan him $500, intending to repay the amount within two weeks. Jones loaned him the $500. The next day Smith took the money to the race track and lost all of it betting on horse races. He then left town for six months. He had not repaid Jones. Smith has committed A. Both larceny by trick and obtaining money by false pretenses (although he can only be convicted of one offense). B. Larceny by trick only. C. Obtaining money by false pretenses only. D. Neither larceny by trick nor obtaining money by false pretenses.
D. Neither larceny by trick nor obtaining money by false pretenses.
A worker was in the habit of carrying a lot of cash with him after payday. His good friend was worried that some day the worker might get robbed. To teach him to be more careful, and intending only to frighten him, the friend purchased a realistic-looking toy gun and a face mask and hid in the bushes one night after payday, waiting for the worker to come home. As the worker passed by, the friend jumped out of the bushes, pointing the toy gun at him, and took all of his money. The worker was badly frightened by the incident. Shortly thereafter, the friend returned the money to the worker and explained why he had staged the holdup. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which of the following is the most serious crime for which the friend can be convicted? A. Armed robbery. B. Robbery. C. Assault. D. Larceny.
C. Assault.
Nelson and Bart are arrested for kicking an infant to death. Nelson is eight years old; Bart is six years old. Both boys were previously arrested for assault and shoplifting, but they were released to the supervision of their parents. The prosecution wants to charge both boys with murder. Under the common law approach, the prosecution will be A. Successful in pursuing charges against both boys. B. Unsuccessful in pursuing charges against both boys. C. More likely successful in pursuing charges against Nelson than against Bart. D. More likely successful in pursuing charges against Bart than against Nelson.
C. More likely successful in pursuing charges against Nelson than against Bart.
Tom recently killed his landlord when the landlord threatened to increase Tom's rent. Dick recently killed his wife's lover when he found them in bed upon his return from a hard day of work. The prosecutor wants to throw the book at both of them. Which of the following is true? A. Both Tom and Dick are guilty of murder because all intentional killings are murder. B. Both Tom and Dick are guilty of murder because both acted with malice. C. Neither Tom nor Dick is guilty of homicide because they were provoked to kill their victims. D. Tom is guilty of murder and Dick is probably guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
D. Tom is guilty of murder and Dick is probably guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
A man and his friend, who were both adults, went to a party. The man and the friend had many drinks at the party and became legally intoxicated. They decided to play a game of chance called "Russian roulette" using a gun loaded with one bullet. As part of the game, the man pointed the gun at the friend and, on her command, pulled the trigger. The man shot the friend in the shoulder. What common law crime, if any, did the man commit? (A) Attempted murder. (B) Battery. (C) No crime, because the man was legally intoxicated. (D) No crime, because the friend consented to the offense.
(B) Battery.
A fashionista purchased a wardrobe closet at an antique auction. Three days later, while cleaning the inside of the closet, she discovered a small quantity of a white powder inside a box. She showed the box to her boyfriend, a paralegal. He identified the powder as driscamine, a controlled substance. He told her that it was illegal to buy driscamine, but because she did not know that it was in the closet when she purchased it, it was okay to keep it, which she did. A state statute prohibits "willful and unlawful possession of a controlled substance." If the fashionista is charged with violating this statute, she should be found: (A) Guilty, because she knowingly possessed the driscamine. (B) Guilty, because she acquired the driscamine when she intentionally purchased the wardrobe closet and, in doing so, committed the requisite unlawful act. (C) Not guilty, because she thought she was acting lawfully. (D) Not guilty, because she did not willfully acquire the driscamine and, hence, committed no unlawful act.
(A) Guilty, because she knowingly possessed the driscamine.
The defendant was walking down a street when he realized that a long-lost friend was walking in the opposite direction. The defendant started waving his arms in a desperate attempt to get his friend's attention. The defendant did not notice an old woman, who was walking past him, and negligently struck her with his elbow with sufficient force to cause her to stumble to the pavement. The fall did not, however, cause her any major injury. If the defendant is prosecuted for criminal battery, he will probably be found: (A) Not guilty, because his act did not cause serious bodily injury. (B) Not guilty, because he did not have the mental state required for criminal battery. (C) Guilty, because he failed to exercise due care in flailing his arms near a public sidewalk. (D) Guilty, because he caused an offensive touching.
(B) Not guilty, because he did not have the mental state required for criminal battery.
Juanita was the manager of the flower store. As such, she had full responsibility for ordering and pricing goods, hiring and firing employees, and promoting the store generally. One day she took home a fancy plant, sold it to her friend and kept the money. What crime has she committed? A. Embezzlement. B. Larceny. C. False pretenses. D. Robbery.
A. Embezzlement.
One evening, Parnell had several drinks and then started to drive home. As he was proceeding down Main Boulevard, an automobile pulled out of a side street to his right. Parnell's car struck this automobile broadside. The driver of the other car was killed as a result of the collision. A breath analysis test administered after the accident showed that Parnell satisfied the legal definition of intoxication. If Parnell is prosecuted for manslaughter, his best chance for acquittal would be based on an argument that (A) the other driver was contributorily negligent. (B) the collision would have occurred even if Parnell had not been intoxicated. (C) because of his intoxication he lacked the mens rea needed for manslaughter. (D) he did not act with malice.
(B) the collision would have occurred even if Parnell had not been intoxicated.
A woman promised to pay $10,000 to a hit man if he would kill her neighbor in any manner that could not be traced to her. The hit man bought a gun and watched the neighbor's house for an opportunity to shoot him. One evening, unaware of the hit man's presence, the neighbor tripped as he was walking toward his house, falling and hitting his head against the front steps. Believing that the neighbor was unconscious, the hit man ran over to him and shot him twice in the chest. When the woman learned of the neighbor's death, she paid the hit man $10,000. A medical examiner determined that the neighbor was already dead when the hit man shot him. For which of the following crimes could the woman properly be convicted? (A) Murder and conspiracy. (B) Attempted murder, conspiracy, and solicitation. (C) Attempted murder and conspiracy. (D) No crimes.
(C) Attempted murder and conspiracy.
A con artist asked his friend to introduce him to the town's banker so that he could apply for a loan to set up a hardware business. The friend, also a friend of the banker, arranged a meeting and later gave the con artist a glowing recommendation based on their long and deep friendship. When the banker approved a $25,000 loan, the friend was present at the signing of the loan papers and co-signed on the con artist's behalf. Unbeknownst to the friend, the con artist intentionally misrepresented his intentions as to the proceeds of the loan and his financial status, forging some documents used to verify his solvency. The con artist has been tried and convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses (a felony) and sentenced to state prison. If the friend is charged as an accessory to obtaining money by false pretenses, he should be found: (A) Guilty, because he was present when the crime was committed and was thus a principal in the second degree. (B) Guilty, because he encouraged and aided the con artist, and his ignorance of the con artist's insolvency is no defense to the charged crime. (C) Not guilty, because he lacked the requisite mental state to be an aider and abettor. (D) Not guilty, because his encouragement and aid was not the legal cause of the offense.
(C) Not guilty, because he lacked the requisite mental state to be an aider and abettor.
A bartender promised to pay her friend $100 if he would take her color television and stereo from her house, so that she could report the items as being stolen to collect a settlement from the insurance company. Although the friend had visited the bartender's house on two previous occasions, he mistakenly broke into and entered her neighbor's house and took the neighbor's color television and stereo. When he returned to the bar where the bartender was waiting for him, both were arrested by the police. If the bartender and her friend are tried for conspiracy, the court will find them: (A) Not guilty, because the friend failed to take the bartender's property. (B) Not guilty, because the friend, being in the wrong house, could not take the bartender's property. (C) Guilty, because they actually took the neighbor's property. (D) Guilty, because they intentionally agreed to defraud the insurance company.
(D) Guilty, because they intentionally agreed to defraud the insurance company.
A husband and wife took their 12-year-old son to a political rally in an auditorium to hear a controversial United States senator speak. The speaker was late, and the wife stepped outside the auditorium to smoke a cigarette. While there, she saw a man placing what she believed to be a bomb against the back wall of the auditorium. She went back inside and told her husband what she had seen. Without alerting anyone, they took their son and left. Some 20 minutes later, the bomb exploded, killing 8 persons and injuring 50. In the jurisdiction, murder in the first degree is defined as an intentional homicide committed with premeditation and deliberation; murder in the second degree is defined as all other murder at common law; and manslaughter is defined as either a homicide in the heat of passion arising from adequate provocation or a homicide caused by gross negligence or reckless indifference to consequence. As to the deaths of the eight persons, what crime, if any, did the wife commit? (A) Manslaughter. (B) Murder in the first degree. (C) Murder in the second degree. (D) No crime.
(D) No crime.
A consultant operated a consulting firm from an office in his home. An employee asked if she could stay late one night to use one of the firm's computers. The consultant replied that she could consider the computer hers. The employee mistakenly believed that the consultant was giving her the computer. Late the next night, when the employee could borrow her roommate's car, she drove to the consultant's house to pick up the computer. She went to the door leading directly to the office, which was unlocked. She let herself in and took the computer. The next day, the consultant reported the computer as stolen, and the police arrested the employee. The employee can be convicted of: (A) Burglary. (B) Attempted burglary. (C) Larceny. (D) None of the above.
(D) None of the above.
The defendant and his friend entered a convenience store wearing ski masks and demanded all the money in the register, claiming they had a gun. The clerk promptly complied with that demand. The pair grabbed the money and ran out the door. A police officer saw them running through the parking lot, still wearing their masks, and surmised that a robbery had taken place. Without any warning, the police officer drew out his gun and fired two shots, one of which shattered the defendant's kneecap and sent him tumbling to the ground. The other bullet struck the friend in the head, killing him instantly. The defendant is placed on trial for the friend's death on a felony-murder theory. Which of the following is the best argument for the defendant to make in order to gain an acquittal: (A) Both the defendant and his friend were unarmed. (B) The police officer failed to warn the pair before firing. (C) The felony had already been completed when the friend was killed. (D) The friend was a co-felon.
(D) The friend was a co-felon.
A patient was late for an appointment with her doctor across town. Because of this, she was driving recklessly through traffic at a high speed and ran through a red light. There were a number of people crossing the street at that time, and the patient accidentally hit one of them. The person she hit was seriously injured and was rushed to the hospital, but recovered. The patient was arrested and charged with attempted murder. The patient should be: A. Acquitted, because she did not intend to hit anyone with her car. B. Acquitted, because she had not gone far enough in her actions to constitute attempt. C. Convicted, because a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of her act. D. Convicted, because of her recklessness, intent to inflict serious bodily harm will be presumed.
A. Acquitted, because she did not intend to hit anyone with her car.
Phillips bought a new rifle and wanted to try it out by doing some target shooting. He went out into the country to an area where he had previously hunted. Much to his surprise, he noticed that beyond a clearing contained several newly constructed houses that had not been there before. Between the houses there was a small playground where several children were playing. Nevertheless, Phillips nailed a paper target to a tree and went to a point where the tree was between himself and the playground. He then fired several shots at the target. One of the shots missed the target and the tree and hit and killed one of the children in the playground. Phillips was convicted of murder. He appealed, contending that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction of murder. The appellate court should A. Affirm the conviction, as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of murder. B. Reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but will support a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. C. Reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but will support a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. D. Reverse the conviction and order the case dismissed, because the evidence is sufficient only for a finding of negligence and negligence alone cannot support a criminal conviction.
A. Affirm the conviction, as the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of murder.
Defendant was upset because he was going to have to close his liquor store due to competition from a discount store in a new shopping mall nearby. In desperation, he decided to set fire to his store to collect the insurance. While looking through the basement for flammable material, he lit a match to read the label on a can. The match burned his finger and, in a reflex action, he dropped the match. It fell into a barrel and ignited some paper. Defendant made no effort to put out the fire but instead left the building. The fire spread and the store was destroyed by fire. Defendant was eventually arrested and indicted for arson. In a jurisdiction that includes commercial structures (including those owned and possessed by the defendant) in its definition of arson, Defendant is A. Guilty, if he could have put out the fire before it spread and did not do so because he wanted the building destroyed. B. Guilty, if he was negligent in starting the fire. C. Not guilty, because even if he wanted to burn the building there was no concurrence between his mens rea and the act of starting the fire. D. Not guilty, because his starting the fire was the result of a reflex action and not a voluntary act.
A. Guilty, if he could have put out the fire before it spread and did not do so because he wanted the building destroyed.
Daniela is a skilled karate master and drug dealer. Solly is the neighborhood Good Samaritan; he does not know Daniela or her background. One day, Solly sees Daniela struggling with two men. Honestly believing the men are trying to mug Daniela, Solly rushes to her rescue. He pounces on the men and injures them. As it turns out, the men are undercover narcotics officers and they were trying to arrest Daniela but she was resisting. If Solly is charged with assaulting the officers in a jurisdiction that follows the majority approach A. He can argue the defense of another. B. He can argue self-defense. C. He cannot argue defense of another because Daniela did not have the right to resist the officers. D. He cannot argue defense of another because Daniela was not under an immediate threat of harm.
A. He can argue the defense of another.
Calvin is a chronic alcoholic. Seldom does a day pass when he doesn't end up drunk by lunchtime. As a result of his problem, Calvin has had some encounters with law enforcement. In particular, he is facing charges for breaking a beer bottle over a security officer's head, larceny, and driving without a license. Which of these crimes, if any, is Calvin likely to be able to argue an intoxication defense? A. Larceny. B. Battery of the security officer. C. Driving without a license. D. All of the above.
A. Larceny.
Eddie worked as the cashier in a restaurant. One night after the restaurant had closed, Eddie discovered that the amount of cash in the cash register did not match the cash register receipt tapes. He took the cash and the tapes, put them in a bag, gave them to Rita, the manager of the restaurant, and reported the discrepancy. Rita immediately accused him of taking money from the register and threatened to fire him if he did not make up the difference. Rita placed the bag in the office safe. Angered by what he considered to be an unjust accusation, Eddie waited until Rita left the room and then reached into the still open safe, took the bag containing the cash, and left. Eddie is guilty of A. Larceny. B. Embezzlement. C. Either larceny or embezzlement but not both. D. Neither larceny nor embezzlement.
A. Larceny.
Thomas worked for a large bank as a vice-president managing trusts for wealthy clients. He personally invested his money conservatively and did not often buy large quantities of stock. Marta, a friend from college, called him one afternoon and talked with him at length about a young biotech company for which Marta worked. She mentioned some things about this company that convinced Thomas that it would be incredibly profitable within five years. Thomas also learned from another source that this company was about to have a public offering. Unfortunately, Thomas' assets were not "liquid," and by the time he would be able to raise enough capital, the opportunity to invest would be lost. Thomas decided to skew the numbers at work a bit and borrow some cash from the bank in order to purchase shares in this company. He knew he could return the money within a short time if all went well. If Thomas' dealings came to light some time later, could he be found guilty of embezzlement? A. Yes, even if Thomas was able to return the money, he still embezzled from the company. B. Yes, but if Thomas actually returned the money before he was caught, he will not be convicted. C. No, because Thomas was not acting as an employee at the time. D. No, because he was only temporarily borrowing the money.
A. Yes, even if Thomas was able to return the money, he still embezzled from the company.
At 11:00 p.m., John and Marsha were accosted in the entrance to their apartment building by Dirk, who was armed as well as masked. Dirk ordered the couple to take him into their apartment. After they entered the apartment, Dirk forced Marsha to bind and gag her husband John and then to open a safe which contained a diamond necklace. Dirk then tied her up and fled with the necklace. He was apprehended by apartment building security guards. Before the guards could return to the apartment, but after Dirk was arrested, John, straining to free himself, suffered a massive heart attack and died. Dirk is guilty of A. burglary, robbery, and murder. B. robbery and murder only. C. burglary and robbery only. D. robbery only. a. Would Dirk also be guilty of kidnapping?
A. burglary, robbery, and murder. (2 victims, so no merger) a. Probably not, because the movement of John and Marsha was not substantial and was incidental to other crimes.
Martha's high school teacher told her that she was going to receive a failing grade in history, which would prevent her from graduating. Furious, she reported to the principal that the teacher had fondled her, and the teacher was fired. A year later, still unable to get work because of the scandal, the teacher committed suicide. Martha, remorseful, confessed that her accusation had been false. If Martha is charged with manslaughter, her best defense would be that she A. committed no act that proximately caused the teacher's death. B. did not intend to cause the teacher's death. C. did not act with malice. D. acted under extreme emotional distress.
A. committed no act that proximately caused the teacher's death.
Sam decided to kill his boss, Anna, after she told him that he would be fired if his work did not improve. Sam knew Anna was scheduled to go on a business trip on Monday morning. On Sunday morning, Sam went to the company parking garage and put a bomb in the company car that Anna usually drove. The bomb was wired to go off when the car engine started. Sam then left town. At 5 a.m. Monday, Sam, after driving all night, was overcome with remorse and had a change of heart. He called the security officer on duty at the company and told him about the bomb. The security officer said he would take care of the matter. An hour later, the officer put a note on Anna's desk telling her of the message. He then looked at the car but could not see any signs of a bomb. He printed a sign saying "DO NOT USE THIS CAR," put it on the windshield, and went to call the police. Before the police arrived, Lois, a company vice president, got into the car and started the engine. The bomb went off, killing her. The jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as any homicide committed with premeditation and deliberation or any murder in the commission of a common-law felony. Second-degree murder is defined as all other murder at common law. Manslaughter is defined by the common law. Sam is guilty of A. murder in the first degree, because, with premeditation and deliberation, he killed whoever would start the car. B. murder in the second degree, because he had no intention of killing Lois. C. manslaughter, because at the time of the explosion, he had no intent to kill, and the death of Lois was in part the fault of the security officer. D. only attempted murder of Anna, because the death of Lois was the result of the security officer's negligence.
A. murder in the first degree, because, with premeditation and deliberation, he killed whoever would start the car.
After being fired from his job, Mel drank almost a quart of vodka and decided to ride the bus home. While on the bus, he saw a briefcase he mistakenly thought was his own, and began struggling with the passenger carrying the briefcase. Mel knocked the passenger to the floor, took the briefcase, and fled. Mel was arrested and charged with robbery. Mel should be A. Acquitted, because he used no threats and was intoxicated. B. Acquitted, because his mistake negated the required specific intent. C. Convicted, because his intoxication was voluntary. D. Convicted, because mistake is no defense to robbery. a. If Mel is charged with battery, can he use mistake as a defense? b. If Mel is charged with battery, can he use intoxication as a defense?
B. Acquitted, because his mistake negated the required specific intent. a. Only if the mistake is reasonable. b. No, because battery is a general intent crime.
The police set up a sting operation targeting a resale shop that had a reputation for selling stolen goods. An undercover police officer approached the owner of the shop posing as a truck driver who was down on his luck and looking for a way to earn some extra money. The shop owner suggested that on his next load the officer should take a box of goods from the back of his truck, bring them to the shop owner to sell in exchange for cash, and then report the box lost to the trucking company. The next day the officer gave the shop owner an empty box in exchange for money. Immediately after the exchange, the shop owner was arrested. Which of the following crimes did the shop owner commit? A. Receipt of stolen property. B. Attempted receipt of stolen property. C. Conspiracy and receipt of stolen property. D. No crime.
B. Attempted receipt of stolen property.
While out walking one evening, a pedestrian was stopped at gunpoint by a robber who demanded all of her money. The pedestrian hesitated in going for her wallet, so the robber hit her over the head. In doing so, the robber accidentally dropped the gun, panicked, and started to run. The pedestrian was stunned for a second by the blow on the head, but she quickly recovered, grabbed the gun from the ground, and shot at the fleeing robber. The bullet missed the robber, but hit a bystander, killing him instantly. The pedestrian was arrested and charged with murder. If her attorney asserts at trial that the pedestrian should be charged with voluntary manslaughter rather than murder, this assertion would be: A. Correct, because the pedestrian had no intent to kill the bystander. B. Correct, because there was adequate provocation for the pedestrian's actions. C. Incorrect, because the pedestrian intended to kill the robber. D. Incorrect, because the pedestrian was in no danger when she shot at the fleeing robber.
B. Correct, because there was adequate provocation for the pedestrian's actions.
Dawson was charged with felony murder because of his involvement in a bank robbery. The evidence at trial disclosed that Smith invited Dawson to go for a ride in his new car, and after a while asked Dawson to drive. As Smith and Dawson drove around town, Smith explained to Dawson that he planned to rob the bank and that he needed Dawson to drive the getaway car. Dawson agreed to drive to the bank and wait outside while Smith went in to rob it. As they approached the bank, Dawson began to regret his agreement to help with the robbery. Once there, Smith got out of the car. As Smith went out of sight inside the bank, Dawson drove away and went home. Inside the bank, Smith killed a bank guard who tried to prevent him from leaving with the money. Smith ran outside and, finding that his car and Dawson were gone, ran down an alley. He was apprehended a few blocks away. Dawson later turned himself in after hearing on the radio that Smith had killed the guard. The jurisdiction has a death penalty that applies to a felony murder. Consistent with the law and the Constitution, the jury may convict Dawson of A. Felony murder and impose the death penalty. B. Felony murder but not impose the death penalty C. Bank robbery only D. No crime.
B. Felony murder but not impose the death penalty
Hank sees an unconscious drunk on the sidewalk and cautiously approaches him. Hank can see that the man has a wallet hanging out of his coat pocket. He carefully pulls the wallet from the man's pocket, never touching the man. Hank checks the wallet for identification, but when he finds none, he puts the wallet in his own jacket and walks away. Although Hank is carrying a concealed weapon at the time of the encounter, he never displays it. Hank is apprehended shortly thereafter. What crime(s), if any, is Hank guilty of? A. Robbery B. Larceny C. Robbery and larceny D. No crime
B. Larceny
In which of the following situations would Defendant's mistake most likely constitute a defense to the crime charged? A. A local ordinance forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 18 years of age. Relying on false identification, Defendant sells champagne to a 16-year-old high school student. Defendant is charged with illegal sale of alcoholic beverages. B. Mistaking Defendant for a narcotics suspect, an undercover police officer attempts to arrest him. Defendant, unaware that the person who has grabbed him is an officer, hits him and knocks him unconscious. Defendant is charged with assault. C. Defendant, aged 23, has sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old prostitute who tells Defendant that she is 18. Defendant is charged with the felony of statutory rape under a statute that makes sexual relations with a child under 16 a felony. D. Relying on erroneous advice from his attorney that, if his wife has abandoned him for more than a year, he is free to marry, Defendant remarries and is subsequently charged with bigamy.
B. Mistaking Defendant for a narcotics suspect, an undercover police officer attempts to arrest him. Defendant, unaware that the person who has grabbed him is an officer, hits him and knocks him unconscious. Defendant is charged with assault.
Daphne told Tad, her administrative assistant, that she would fire him if he refused to improperly "cook the books." Tad reluctantly did as instructed. When the auditors find the fraudulent entries, may Tad successfully defend against a criminal fraud charge by showing that he acted under duress? A. No, because the threat was not imminent. B. No, because duress may only be used as a defense for threats of deadly force or great bodily injury. C. Yes, because Daphne's threat was credible and she had the ability to carry it out. D. Yes, because Tad was not at fault for being put in the threatening situation.
B. No, because duress may only be used as a defense for threats of deadly force or great bodily injury.
Defendant is charged with murder. The evidence shows that she pointed a gun at Victim and pulled the trigger. The gun discharged, killing Victim. The gun belonged to Victim. Defendant testifies that Victim told her, and she believed, that the "gun" was a stage prop that could fire only blanks, and that she fired the gun as part of rehearsing a play with Victim at his house. If the jury believes Defendant's testimony and finds that her mistaken belief that the gun was a prop was reasonable, they should find her A. guilty of murder. B. guilty of manslaughter. C. guilty of either murder or manslaughter. D. not guilty of murder or manslaughter.
D. not guilty of murder or manslaughter.
Judy and Donna go swimming. Judy is aware that Donna is not a great swimmer. Nonetheless, she takes Donna to a beach with strong currents. She then pushes Donna into the water. Her goal is to frighten Donna a little and show off her own swimming skills. Because of the strong currents, Donna starts to drown. However, before she actually does, Donna is rescued by a lifeguard. Judy is charged with attempted murder. Under the majority approach, Judy is A. Guilty of attempted murder because she was aware that Donna might be overcome by the currents. B. Not guilty of attempted murder because her goal was to frighten, not kill, Donna. C. Guilty of attempted murder because she acted with malice when she pushed Donna into the water. D. Not guilty of attempted murder because a reasonable person would realize that a lifeguard would probably save Judy.
B. Not guilty of attempted murder because her goal was to frighten, not kill, Donna.
D decided to kidnap her boss, V, in order to hold him for ransom. While V was supervising the clothing section of the large department store where they both worked, D put a knife to V's back and told him not to move. Two minutes later, D demanded that V walk slowly out to the public parking lot across the street from the store. As soon as they got to the parking lot, a police officer observed what was going on, became suspicious, and arrested D. Can D be convicted of kidnapping? A. Yes, once she put the knife to V's back, the crime was complete. B. Yes, the crime was complete as soon as V was moved a substantial amount against his will. C. No, D was never able to get V away from the area of the store. D. No, without the use of actual force against the victim, the kidnapping was not complete. a. If D were arrested after she put the knife in V's back but before V began walking out of the store, would D have been guilty of any crime(s)?
B. Yes, the crime was complete as soon as V was moved a substantial amount against his will. a. Yes, assault, false imprisonment, and probably battery.
At a party, Diane and Victor agreed to play a game they called "spin the barrel." Victor took an unloaded revolver, placed one bullet in the barrel, and spun the barrel. Victor then pointed the gun at Diane's head and pulled the trigger once. The gun did not fire. Diane then took the gun, pointed it at Victor, spun the barrel, and pulled the trigger once. The gun fired, and Victor fell over dead. A statute in the jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as an intentional and premeditated killing or one occurring during the commission of a common-law felony, and murder in the second degree as all other murder at common law. Manslaughter is defined as a killing in the heat of passion upon an adequate legal provocation or a killing caused by gross negligence. The most serious crime for which Diane can properly be convicted is A. murder in the first degree, because the killing was intentional and premeditated and, in any event, occurred during commission of the felony of assault with a deadly weapon. B. murder in the second degree, because Diane's act posed a great threat of serious bodily harm. C. manslaughter, because Diane's act was grossly negligent and reckless. D. no crime, because Victor and Diane voluntarily agreed to play a game and each assumed the risk of death.
B. murder in the second degree, because Diane's act posed a great threat of serious bodily harm.
Eighteen-year-old Kenneth and his 14-year-old girlfriend, Emma, made plans to meet in Kenneth's apartment to have sexual intercourse, and they did so. Emma later told her mother about the incident. Kenneth was charged with statutory rape and conspiracy to commit statutory rape. In the jurisdiction, the age of consent is 15, and the law of conspiracy is the same as at common law. Kenneth was convicted of both charges and given consecutive sentences. On appeal, he contends that his conspiracy conviction should be reversed. That conviction should be A. affirmed, because he agreed with Emma to commit the crime. B. reversed, because Emma could not be a conspirator to this crime. C. reversed, because the crime is one that can only be committed by agreement and thus Wharton's Rule bars conspiracy liability. D. reversed, because one cannot conspire with a person too young to consent. a. Would Kenneth's conviction for conspiracy be reversed under the M.P.C.'s unilateral approach to conspiracy? b. Could Emma be convicted of solicitation of statutory rape, conspiracy, or as an accomplice to statutory rape?
B. reversed, because Emma could not be a conspirator to this crime. a. No, because the M.P.C. requires only one guilty mind for conspiracy. b. No, if (as here) a statute is designed to protect a particular class, the protected person may not be convicted of solicitation, conspiracy, or accomplice liability.
While browsing in a clothing store, Alice decided to take a purse without paying for it. She placed the purse under her coat and took a couple of steps toward the exit. She then realized that a sensor tag on the purse would set off an alarm. She placed the purse near the counter from which she had removed it. Alice has committed A. no crime, because the purse was never removed from the store. B. no crime, because she withdrew from her criminal enterprise. C. only attempted larceny, because she intended to take the purse out of the store. D. larceny, because she took the purse from its original location and concealed it with the intent to steal.
D. larceny, because she took the purse from its original location and concealed it with the intent to steal.
Plagued by neighborhood youths who had been stealing lawn furniture from his back yard, Armando remained awake nightly watching for them. One evening Armando heard noises in his backyard. He yelled out, warning intruders to leave. Receiving no answer, he fired a shotgun filled with nonlethal buckshot into bushes along his back fence where he believed the intruders might be hiding. A six-year-old child was hiding in the bushes and was struck in the eye by some of the pellets, causing loss of sight. If Armando is charged with second-degree assault, which is defined in the jurisdiction as "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another," he is A. Not guilty, because the child was trespassing and he was using what he believed was nondeadly force. B. Not guilty, because he did not intend to kill or to cause serious physical injury. C. Guilty, because he recklessly caused serious physical injury. D. Guilty, because there is no privilege to use force against a person who is too young to be criminally responsible.
C. Guilty, because he recklessly caused serious physical injury.
Patrick started taking a new medication on Friday. His doctor and pharmacist warned him not to drive while taking the medication. The medicine bottle had a prominent label warning against operating machinery, including motor vehicles. Patrick noticed that he had been dropping off to sleep all weekend. Nonetheless, he decided to drive to work on Monday morning. On the way to work, Patrick fell asleep and veered into a car in the next lane. That car swerved into a concrete construction barricade. Despite the slow speeds of both vehicles, the driver of the other car was killed. Of what crime is Patrick guilty? A. First degree murder, because the other driver's death was foreseeable. B. Murder, because driving in that condition was grossly negligent. C. Involuntary manslaughter, because driving in that condition was reckless. D. No crime, because the death was caused while Patrick was asleep.
C. Involuntary manslaughter, because driving in that condition was reckless.
Ted is a former professor who has dropped out of society and lives in a primitive shack in the woods. Occasionally, he leaves his secluded surroundings and ventures to the city where he makes mail bombs and sends them to his former colleagues. He is so notorious that he has been labeled the "Bombmaster." After Ted sends his bombs, he usually sends a note ranting about the imperialist, capitalist empire. In the note he states, "I'm sorry that people will have to die, but the world is evil, not me." When Ted is apprehended and charged with several attempted murders, he raises an insanity defense. Ted is diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. Does Ted have an insanity defense under the M'Naghten standard? A. Yes, because he has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. B. Yes, because a mental disease caused him to believe that he was right and that society was wrong. C. No, because he is not legally insane. D. No, because he is charged with serious crimes.
C. No, because he is not legally insane.
Gerald was camping in the mountains when a bad storm suddenly hit. Although it was extremely early in the year for a winter storm, several feet of snow accumulated. Gerald had no equipment, clothing or provisions to survive in such severe weather. Slowly clambering through the rocky forest, Gerald came upon a cabin. He broke in and for five days he used food and clothing he found in the cabin, until the snow had melted enough for him to hike back to town. May Gerald be excused from the crimes he committed by using the defense of necessity? A. No, because Gerald's lack of preparation caused his predicament. B. No, because necessity is only available in life and death situations, and Gerald probably would have survived without committing any crimes. C. Yes, because the harm Gerald avoided (serious injury) was a lesser evil than the harm he created (trespass and theft). D. Yes, because one may always do whatever is necessary to save one's own life.
C. Yes, because the harm Gerald avoided (serious injury) was a lesser evil than the harm he created (trespass and theft).
Rachel, an antique dealer and a skilled calligrapher, crafted a letter on very old paper. She included details that would lead knowledgeable readers to believe the letter had been written by Thomas Jefferson to a friend. Rachel, who had a facsimile of Jefferson's autograph, made the signature and other writing on the letter resemble Jefferson's. She knew that the letter would attract the attention of local collectors. When it did and she was contacted about selling it, she said that it had come into her hands from a foreign collector who wished anonymity, and that she could make no promises about its authenticity. As she had hoped, a collector paid her $5,000 for the letter. Later the collector discovered the letter was not authentic, and handwriting analysis established that Rachel had written the letter. In a jurisdiction that follows the common-law definition of forgery, Rachel has A. committed both forgery and false pretenses. B. committed forgery, because she created a false document with the intent to defraud, but has not committed false pretenses, since she made no representation as to the authenticity of the document. C. not committed forgery, because the document had no apparent legal significance, but has committed false pretenses, since she misrepresented the source of the document. D. not committed forgery, because the document had no apparent legal significance, and has not committed false pretenses, since she made no representation as to authenticity of the document.
C. not committed forgery, because the document had no apparent legal significance, but has committed false pretenses, since she misrepresented the source of the document.
Kingsley was prosecuted for selling cocaine to an undercover police agent. At his trial, he testified that he only sold the drugs to the agent, whom Kingsley knew as "Speedy," because Speedy had told him that he (Speedy) would be killed by fellow gang members unless he supplied them with cocaine. The prosecution did not cross-examine Kingsley. As rebuttal evidence, however, the prosecutor introduced records, over Kingsley's objection, showing that Kingsley had two prior convictions for narcotics-related offenses. The court instructed the jury concerning the defense of entrapment and added, also over Kingsley's objection but in accord with state law, that it should acquit on the ground of entrapment only if it found that the defendant had established the elements of the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Kingsley was convicted. On appeal, Kingsley's conviction should be A. Reversed, because it was an error for the court to admit the evidence of his prior convictions as substantive evidence. B. Reversed, because it was a violation of due process to impose on the defense a burden of persuasion concerning entrapment. C. Reversed, for both of the above reasons. D. Affirmed, because neither of the above reasons constitutes a ground for reversal.
D. Affirmed, because neither of the above reasons constitutes a ground for reversal.
Beth wanted to make some money, so she decided to sell cocaine. She asked Albert, who was reputed to have access to illegal drugs, to supply her with cocaine so she could resell it. Albert agreed and sold Beth a bag of white powder. Beth then repackaged the white powder into smaller containers and sold one to Carol, an undercover police officer, who promptly arrested Beth. Beth immediately confessed and said that Albert was her supplier. Upon examination, the white powder was found not to be cocaine or any type of illegal substance. If Albert knew the white powder was not cocaine but Beth believed it was, which of the following is correct? A. Both Albert and Beth are guilty of attempting to sell cocaine. B. Neither Albert nor Beth is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine. C. Albert is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is not. D. Albert is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is.
D. Albert is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is.
Jerome falls in love with his first cousin, Cindy. Before marrying Cindy, Jerome asked his family whether it is appropriate for him to marry a first cousin. Jerome's uncle Harry, a domestic relations lawyer, tells Jerome that the marriage is permitted. As it turns out, Harry is wrong. In fact, not only is it illegal for Jerome to marry Cindy, but such a marriage is also considered a strict liability offense, as set forth in the state's official statutory reporters. Which, if any, of the following defenses are available for Jerome? A. Jerome reasonably relied upon the advice of counsel. B. Jerome had an honest and reasonable mistake of law. C. Jerome did not receive sufficient notice that marrying Cindy was illegal. D. None of the above.
D. None of the above.
Lester was engaged to marry Sylvia. One evening, Lester became enraged at the comments of Sylvia's eight-year-old daughter, Cynthia, who was complaining, in her usual fashion, that she did not want her mother to marry Lester. Lester, who had had too much to drink, began beating her. Cynthia suffered some bruises and a broken arm. Sylvia took Cynthia to the hospital. The police were notified by the hospital staff. Lester was indicted for felony child abuse. Lester pleaded with Sylvia to forgive him and to run away with him. She agreed. They moved out of state and took Cynthia with them. Without the testimony of the child, the prosecution was forced to dismiss the case. Some time later, Sylvia returned for a visit with her family and was arrested and indicted as an accessory-after-the-fact to child abuse. At her trial, the court should A. Dismiss the charge, because Lester had not been convicted. B. Dismiss the charge, because the evidence shows that any aid she rendered occurred after the crime was completed. C. Submit the case to the jury, on an instruction to convict only if Sylvia knew Lester had been indicted. D. Submit the case to the jury, on an instruction to convict only if her purpose in moving was to prevent Lester's conviction.
D. Submit the case to the jury, on an instruction to convict only if her purpose in moving was to prevent Lester's conviction.
Sammy breaks into Jones's house at night to steal his precious painting. He intentionally does not bring a gun so that he won't hurt anyone in the house. Hearing a noise, Jones jumps out of bed and goes into the living room to investigate. He sees Sammy touch his irreplaceable Rembrandt. Jones has a heart attack and dies. Is Sammy guilty of first-degree murder? A. Yes, because he acted in a premeditated manner. B. No, because he did not intend to kill Jones. C. No, because Jones's death was accidental. D. Yes, if felony-murder for burglary is considered first-degree murder in this jurisdiction.
D. Yes, if felony-murder for burglary is considered first-degree murder in this jurisdiction.
Matt and his friend Fred were watching a football game at Matt's home when they began to argue. Fred became abusive, and Matt asked him to leave. Fred refused, walked into the kitchen, picked up a knife, and said he would cut Matt's heart out. Matt pulled a gun from under the sofa, walked to his front door, opened it, and again told Fred to leave. Fred again refused. Instead, he walked slowly toward Matt, brandishing the knife in a threatening manner. Matt, rather than running out the door himself, shot in Fred's direction, intending only to scare him. However, the bullet struck Fred, killing him instantly. Charged with murder, Matt should be A. convicted, because the use of deadly force was unreasonable under the circumstances. B. convicted, because he had a clear opportunity and duty to retreat. C. acquitted, because he did not intend to kill Fred. D. acquitted, because he was acting in self-defense and had no duty to retreat.
D. acquitted, because he was acting in self-defense and had no duty to retreat.
Grace, while baby-sitting one night, noticed that Sam, who lived next door, had left his house but that the door did not close completely behind him. Grace said to Roy, the 11-year-old boy she was baby-sitting with, "Let's play a game. You go next door and see if you can find my portable television set, which I lent to Sam, and bring it over here." Grace knew that Sam had a portable television set and Grace planned to keep the set for herself. Roy thought the set belonged to Grace, went next door, found the television set, and carried it out the front door. At that moment, Sam returned home and discovered Roy in his front yard with the television set. Roy explained the "game" he and Grace were playing. Sam took back his television set and called the police. Grace is A. not guilty of larceny or attempted larceny, because Roy did not commit any crime. B. not guilty of larceny but guilty of attempted larceny, because she never acquired possession of the television set. C. guilty of larceny as an accessory to Roy. D. guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent. a. Would Roy be guilty of larceny or burglary?
D. guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent. a. No, because he did not have the requisite mental state to commit either crime or to be an accomplice.
Eric was charged with "transporting illegal firearms across state lines," a federal crime. Following a jury trial, he was acquitted of that crime. Disappointed by the verdict, the U.S. Attorney looked over the case file and the applicable statutes. She found a statute prohibiting an alien from possessing a firearm. Eric is an alien. May Eric be convicted of this second crime?
Yes, because the second crime is not a lesser included offense of transporting illegal firearms across state lines. Unlike the second crime, the first crime required proof that the firearm was transported across state lines. Unlike the first crime, the second crime required proof that the defendant was an alien. Thus, neither crime requires proof of all elements of the other crime.
