Criminal Law - Questions

While on their way home from a ball game, a driver and his passenger stopped at an all-night gas station. The passenger offered to pay for the gas. While the passenger pumped gas, he was surprised to see the driver enter the station, take money from the unattended cash drawer, and get back in the car. The passenger paid the attendant for the gas, and the driver drove off. The driver offered to reimburse the passenger for the gas, but the passenger declined. After discovering the missing cash, the gas station attendant called the police, and the driver was later stopped. The driver escaped with the stolen money, however, and was never prosecuted. If the passenger is prosecuted for theft as an accomplice, should he be convicted? (A) No, because he had no intent to promote the commission of the offense. (B) No, because the driver, the principal, was never prosecuted. (C) Yes, because he facilitated commission of the offense by failing to make any effort to stop it. (D) Yes, because he paid the attendant while he knew the driver was holding the stolen money.

(A) No, because he had no intent to promote the commission of the offense.

An undercover police detective told a local drug dealer that she wanted to buy cocaine but that she needed time to raise the necessary funds. The drug dealer said that he needed time to get the cocaine. They agreed to meet again in 10 days. An hour later, without a warrant, other officers forcibly entered the drug dealer's apartment and arrested him for attempted possession of a controlled substance. If the drug dealer is prosecuted in a common law jurisdiction for attempted possession of cocaine, should he be convicted? (A) No, because he had not taken sufficient steps toward commission of the crime. (B) No, because he was illegally arrested. (C) Yes, because by objective standards the undercover detective and the drug dealer had made an agreement that the dealer would obtain cocaine. (D) Yes, because he unequivocally expressed his intent to obtain the cocaine.

(A) No, because he had not taken sufficient steps toward commission of the crime.

A foreign diplomat discovered that a small person could enter a particular jewelry store by crawling through an air vent. The diplomat befriended a woman he met in a bar who he believed was small enough to crawl through the air vent. Without telling her that he was a diplomat, he explained how she could get into the jewelry store. She agreed to help him burglarize the store. Someone overheard their conversation and reported it to the police. Shortly thereafter, the police arrested the diplomat and the woman. Both were charged with conspiracy to commit burglary. Before trial, the diplomat moved to dismiss the charge against him on the ground that he was entitled to diplomatic immunity. The court granted his motion. The woman then moved to dismiss the conspiracy charge against her. The jurisdiction has adopted the Model Penal Code version of conspiracy. Should the court grant the woman's motion to dismiss the conspiracy charge against her? (A) No, because the diplomat's defense does not negate any element of the crime. (B) No, because the woman was not aware of the diplomat's status. (C) Yes, because a conspiracy requires two guilty participants. (D) Yes, because but for the diplomat's conduct, no conspiracy would have occurred.

(A) No, because the diplomat's defense does not negate any element of the crime.

A drug dealer agreed with another individual to purchase heroin from the individual in order to sell it on a city street corner. Unbeknownst to the drug dealer, the other individual was an undercover police officer whose only purpose was to arrest distributors of drugs. The drug dealer made a down payment for the heroin and agreed to pay the remainder after he sold it on the street. As soon as the undercover officer handed over the heroin, other officers moved in and arrested the dealer. The jurisdiction follows the common law approach to conspiracy. Could the dealer properly be convicted of conspiring to distribute drugs? (A) No, because there was no overt act. (B) No, because there was no plurality of agreement. (C) Yes, because neither an overt act nor plurality of agreement is required at common law. (D) Yes, because the dealer believed that all the elements of conspiracy were present and cannot take advantage of a mistake of fact or law.

(B) No, because there was no plurality of agreement.

Caitlyn worked as a body guard for a drug kingpin in Dalworth City. One of the street dealers was way behind on the money that he owed so the kingpin sent Caitlyn to get the money. When the dealer did not have the money, Caitlyn gave him 2 days to get it. When Caitlyn went back 2 days later, the dealer still did not have any money. To teach the dealer a lesson that he needed to pay his debts, Caitlyn severely roughed him up. Unfortunately, the dealer died from the injuries caused by Caitlyns beating. The district attorney indicted Caitlyn for murder. Dalworth City is a common law jurisdiction. How should the jury rule on the charge of murder? A: The jury should find Caitlyn guilty because she acted with malice. B: The jury should find Caitlyn guilty because she intended to kill the dealer. C: The jury should find Caitlyn not guilty because she did not intend to kill the dealer. D: The jury should find Caitlyn not guilty because she lacked any premeditation.

A. The jury should find Caitlyn guilty because she acted with malice.

At common law, which was not a type of the offense of murder? A: Deliberate and premeditated. B: Intent to commit a dangerous felony. C: Intent to kill. D: Reckless indifference to human life.

A: Deliberate and premeditated.

Which purpose of punishment is best characterized by the phrase, lock them up and throw away the key? A: General deterrence. B: Restraint. C: Retribution. D: Specific deterrence.

B. Restraint

Consider the following elements: The defendant or one of the defendant's co-conspirators must engage an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit the offense. The defendant either must intend to agree to commit the offense or must intend to accomplish the commission of the offense's goal. The defendant must enter into an agreement to commit the offense, which need not be explicit but may be tacit. Which of these elements are necessary to establish a criminal conspiracy? A: I and II only. B: I and III only. C: II and III only. D: All of the above.

B: I and III only.

Consider the following levels of culpability: I. Knowingly II. Maliciously III. Purposely IV. Recklessly V. Intentionally VI. Negligently VII. Willfully Which of the above levels of culpability are used in the Model Penal Code? A: I, II, VI, and VII. B: I, III, IV, and VI. C: II, IV, V, and VII. D: III, IV, V, and VI.

B: I, III, IV, and VI.

Which of the following is an involuntary act defense? A: Automatism. B: Epilepsy. C: Somnabulism. D: All of the above.

D. All of the above

Austin just graduated from high school and just turned 18. Leslie is a sophomore in high school who is almost 16. They have been dating for a year. A state law makes it illegal to have sexual intercourse with anyone under the age of 16. Austin is caught having consensual sex with Leslie and is charged with violating this state law. Should Austin be acquitted? a)Yes, because he and Leslie have been dating over a year. b)Yes, because he was 17 when they started dating. c)No, because Austin was no longer in high school. d) No, because Austin does not have a defense.

D. No, because Austin does not have a defense

Betty went to a pawn shop run by Archie, looking for a handgun. When Archie asked her what she needed it for, she confided that she was going to rob a jewelry store. Betty wanted a gun that Archie intended to sell for $250, but hearing about Bettys plan, he charged her $800 for it. Betty then approached her friend Veronica about a jewelry heist that she was planning in Dalworth City. Betty asked if Veronica would serve as a lookout in exchange for a cut from the stolen goods. Veronica said that she would if Betty agreed that no one would get hurt because she knew Betty had a gun. Betty promised no one would get hurt. During the robbery, Betty threatened the clerk with the gun. When the clerk triggered the alarm, Betty became startled and the gun discharged, killing the clerk. Veronica alerted Betty about the arrival of police so they both were able to escape. The police eventually captured and arrested Betty, Veronica, and Archie. Dalworth City is a common law jurisdiction. Who can the district attorney charge with murder regarding the clerk's killing? A: Betty only. B: Betty and Archie only. C: Betty and Veronica only. D: Betty, Archie, and Veronica.

D: Betty, Archie, and Veronica.

Beverly is driving while very intoxicated. She was going 20 miles over the speed limit and hit a mailbox destroying it. She is charged with speeding, negligent destruction of property, and reckless use of a vehicle. Beverly asserts an intoxication defense for each offense. For which of offense, will Beverly's intoxication defense be successful? a)Speeding. b)Negligent destruction of property. c)Reckless use of a vehicle. d)None of the above.

None of the above.

Liliana was charged with violating a statute that criminalized the failure to register the possession of a pipe bomb. The statute had no mens rea requirement. The trial court interpreted the statute as one that established strict liability. Liliana was convicted and sentenced to the maximum prison term of 10 years. Liliana appealed her conviction. How should the court rule on Liliana's appeal? a)The court should affirm because a pipe bomb is a dangerous weapon. b)The court should affirm because 10 years is a reasonable sentence. c)The court should reverse because the penalty is so severe that a mens rea requirement is necessary. d)The court should reverse because the statute violates public welfare.

The court should affirm because a pipe bomb is a dangerous weapon.

Nine gang members, including the gang leader, were indicted for the murder of a tenth gang member, who had become an informant. The gang leader pleaded guilty. At the trial of the other eight gang members, the state's evidence showed the following: The gang leader had announced a party to celebrate the release of a gang member from jail, but the party was not what it seemed. The gang leader had learned that the released gang member had earned his freedom by informing the authorities about the gang's criminal activities. The gang leader decided to use the party to let the other gang members see what happened to informants. He told no one about his plan. At the party, after everyone had consumed large amounts of liquor, the gang leader announced that the released gang member was an informant and stabbed him with a knife in front of the others. The eight other gang members watched and did nothing while the released gang member slowly bled to death. The jury found the eight gang members guilty of murder, and they appealed. Should the appellate court uphold the convictions? (A) No, because mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to make a person an accomplice. (B) No, because murder is a specific-intent crime, and there is insufficient evidence to show that the other gang members intended to kill. (C) Yes, because the gang members made no effort to save the released gang member after he had been stabbed. (D) Yes, because voluntary intoxication does not negate criminal responsibility.

(A) No, because mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to make a person an accomplice.

A woman and her sister took a trip to the Caribbean. When they passed through U.S. Customs inspection upon their return, the customs officials found liquid cocaine in several bottles each of them was carrying. They were arrested. Upon separate questioning by customs officers, the woman broke down and cried, "I told my sister there were too many officers at this airport." The sister did not give a statement. The woman and her sister were indicted for conspiracy to import cocaine. They were tried separately. At the woman's trial, after the government introduced the above evidence and rested its case, her lawyer moved for a judgment of acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence. Should the court grant the motion? (A) No, because the evidence shows that both the woman and her sister agreed to import cocaine. (B) No, because the evidence shows that both the woman and her sister possessed cocaine. (C) Yes, because the evidence shows only that the woman and her sister committed separate crimes of cocaine possession. (D) Yes, because the evidence shows that the woman effectively withdrew from the conspiracy when she cooperated by giving a statement.

(A) No, because the evidence shows that both the woman and her sister agreed to import cocaine.

A defendant was charged with battery, defined as at common law. At trial, an expert witness testified for the defense that the defendant, an athlete, was under the influence of a performance-enhancing drug at the time he committed the battery and that he would not have done so had he not been so influenced. The defendant asked for an instruction to the effect that if the jury believed that he was influenced by the drug at the time of the crime and would not have committed it otherwise, it had to acquit him. Which of the following circumstances would most aid the defendant's argument in favor of such an instruction? A) Evidence that the defendant is addicted to this drug and has an overwhelming urge to consume it. (B) Evidence that the defendant's coach, who gave him the drug, told him it was only an aspirin. (C) Evidence that the victim of the assault taunted the defendant about his use of the drug immediately before the assault. (D) Expert testimony that a reasonable person, on consuming this drug, may experience uncontrollable rages.

(B) Evidence that the defendant's coach, who gave him the drug, told him it was only an aspirin.

Four men are being tried for conspiracy to commit a series of bank robberies. Nine successful bank robberies took place during the period of the charged conspiracy. Because the robbers wore masks and gloves and stole the bank surveillance tapes, no witnesses have been able to directly identify the robbers. Some circumstantial evidence ties each of the men to the overall conspiracy. During cross-examination, a prosecution witness testified that one of the men was in jail on other charges during the last six robberies. That man's lawyer has moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case. Should the motion be granted? (A) No, because a conspirator is not required to agree to all of the objectives of the conspiracy. (B) No, because a conspirator need not be present at the commission of each crime conspired upon. (C) Yes, provided that the man has complied with the rule requiring pretrial notice of alibi. (D) Yes, regardless of compliance with the alibi rule, because the government is bound by exculpatory evidence elicited during its case-in-chief.

(B) No, because a conspirator need not be present at the commission of each crime conspired upon.

A state statute provides: "The sale of an alcoholic beverage to any person under the age of 21 is a misdemeanor." A woman who was 20 years old, but who looked older and who had a very convincing fake driver's license indicating that she was 24, entered a convenience store, picked up a six-pack of beer, and placed the beer on the counter. The store clerk, after examining the driver's license, rang up the purchase. Both the clerk and the store owner have been charged with violating the state statute. If the court finds both the clerk and the store owner guilty, what standard of liability must the court have interpreted the statute to impose? (A) Strict liability only. (B) Vicarious liability only. (C) Both strict and vicarious liability. (D) Either strict or vicarious liability.

(C) Both strict and vicarious liability.

A man decided to steal a car he saw parked on a hill. After he got in and started the engine, the car began rolling down the hill. The man quickly discovered that the car's brakes did not work. He crashed through the window of a store located at the bottom of the hill. The man was charged with larceny of the car and with the crime of malicious damage to property. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that if the jury found both that the man was guilty of larceny of the car and that the damage to the store was the result of that larceny, then it should also find him guilty of malicious damage to property. The man was convicted on both counts. On appeal, he argued that the conviction for malicious damage to property should be reversed because the instruction was not a correct statement of the law. Should the man's conviction be affirmed? (A) Yes, because his intent to steal the car provides the necessary mental element. (B) Yes, because he was committing a felony. (C) No, because the instruction wrongly described the necessary mental state. (D) No, because it would violate double jeopardy to convict the man of two crimes for a single act.

(C) No, because the instruction wrongly described the necessary mental state.

A state statute provides: "Aggravated robbery of the elderly consists of robbery committed against a victim who is 65 years of age or older." Another state statute provides that when a criminal statute does not designate a necessary mental state, the mental state required is recklessness. A third state statute provides that a person acts recklessly if the person "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will result from the person's conduct." The evidence at a criminal trial showed that the defendant robbed a 66-year-old man outside a senior citizens' center. The defendant testified truthfully that the robbery had occurred on a dark night, that she had had no idea how old the victim was and had not cared how old the victim was, and that she had intended to rob whomever she encountered. Could the defendant properly be convicted of aggravated robbery of the elderly? (A) No, because the only evidence on the issue showed that the defendant did not know, nor could she reasonably have known, the victim's age. (B) No, because there was no evidence of a substantial risk that the victim was age 65 or older. (C) Yes, because the evidence was clear that the victim was 66 years old, and the statute is designed to protect the elderly. (D) Yes, because the jury could find that there was no justification for the defendant's conduct and that she was willing to take the risk that the victim was age 65 or older.

(D) Yes, because the jury could find that there was no justification for the defendant's conduct and that she was willing to take the risk that the victim was age 65 or older.

Which law is most likely one that is a strict liability crime? a)A law making possession of marijuana a misdemeanor. b)A law making it a felony to fail to register a machine gun. c)A law making it a misdemeanor to improperly store meat in a restaurant refrigerator. d) A law making petty larceny for items

A law making it a misdemeanor to improperly store meat in a restaurant refrigerator.

Fatma went to the Dalworth Pawn Shop because she needed quick money. She pawned her grandmothers wedding ring for $500. The owner Russell and Fatma agreed that she had 30 days to return with $600 or Russell could then sell the ring. Ten days before Russell could sell the ring, a customer came in and offered Russell $1000 for the ring. He figured that Fatma would not likely return with the $600 so he sold the ring. Unfortunately for Russell, Fatma returned four days before the 30 days were to expire. When Fatma learned that Russell sold her ring, she called the police to file a criminal complaint. Dalworth City is a common law jurisdiction. With which crime could the District Attorney charge Russell? A: Embezzlement. B: Larceny. C: Larceny by trick. D: Theft by false pretenses.

A: Embezzlement.

Melinda went to her 20-year high school reunion and met all of the classmates who teased her during school. She made a list of everyone who was mean to her then and decided to kill them. Based on her plans, she had killed four classmates one after the other over the course of a week before she was apprehended in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction. With what crime should the district attorney charge Melinda? A: First degree murder. B: Second degree murder. C: Felony murder. D: Manslaughter.

A: First degree murder.

Adam and Steve have been in a loving and committed relationship for almost fifty years. They married in 2015. Adam has ALS, also known as Lou Gehrigs disease. He spends much of his days in excruciating pain. He can no longer walk and is losing his ability to talk. Adam has told Steve repeatedly that he is in overwhelming pain and asked for Steves help to end it. One night, after a very bad day for Adam, Steve wanted to assist Adam in ending his pain so he calmly put a pillow over Adams head and suffocated him. The coroner declared Adams death a homicide. The Dalworth City district attorney indicted Steve for murder. Dalworth City is a common law jurisdiction. What is the likely outcome of a trial? A: Steve will be convicted because he committed murder. B: Steve will be acquitted because Adam no longer wanted to live. C: Steve will be acquitted because he committed voluntary manslaughter. D: Steve will be acquitted because he compassionately ended Adams suffering.

A: Steve will be convicted because he committed murder.

Devin was a drug dealer who was selling crack cocaine in Dalworth City. Deputy Fife was working as an undercover police officer. He approached Devin about buying 100 grams of crack. Devin did not have that much crack on him so they agreed to meet three days later. After Deputy Fife left, several Dalworth City police officers swarmed and arrested him. The district attorney indicted Devin for conspiracy to sell crack cocaine. Dalworth City is in a common law jurisdiction. Devin filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. How should the trial court rule on Devins motion to dismiss? A: The court should grant the motion because it was a unilateral conspiracy. B: The court should grant the motion because mere presence is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. C: The court should deny the motion because Devin took a substantial step in a conspiracy with Deputy Fife. D: The court should deny the motion because it was a unilateral conspiracy.

A: The court should grant the motion because it was a unilateral conspiracy.

Lucy and Ethel got into a dispute over a parking spot at the mall. In frustration over losing the parking spot, Lucy slightly pushed Ethel who slipped on some ice and fell down. Ethel's head hit the pavement during the fall, which caused her to suffer a concussion. The district attorney charged Lucy with assault in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction. The jury convicted Lucy, and she appealed. How should the appellate court rule on Lucys appeal? A: The court will affirm the conviction because Lucy pushed Ethel. B: The court will affirm the conviction because Lucy purposely caused Ethel to suffer an injury. C: The court will reverse the conviction because Ethel was also involved in the dispute. D: The court will reverse the conviction because Lucy only slightly pushed Ethel.

A: The court will affirm the conviction because Lucy pushed Ethel.

Police discovered 5 plastic bags of marijuana in Davids room at the fraternity house. A frat brother had put it in Davids room a couple of days earlier in a mailing envelope addressed to a former frat brother. The state statute made it a felony to knowingly possess marijuana. David told the investigating police officer that he did not know what the envelope contained and did not ask his frat brother about it. What must the prosecutor establish to convict David for felony possession of marijuana? A: The prosecutor must establish that David knew or believed that the envelope contained marijuana. B: The prosecutor must establish that David knew or believed that the envelope contained marijuana, and that David handled the envelope. C: The prosecutor must establish that David should have known that the envelope contained marijuana, and that David handled the envelope. D: The prosecutor does not need to establish anything else to obtain a conviction.

A: The prosecutor must establish that David knew or believed that the envelope contained marijuana.

A police officer encountered a methamphetamine addict at a park. The addict did not have any methamphetamine on him, but he was carrying a pipe that he used to smoke methamphetamine in support of his addiction. The officer charged the addict with possession of drug paraphernalia pursuant to a state law criminalizing such possession. Is the addict likely to be found guilty of this offense? A: Yes, because he is being charged for his conduct as opposed to his addiction. B: Yes, because his status as a methamphetamine addict is not protected. C: No, because he cannot be charged for his status of being a methamphetamine addict. D: No, because he has a constitutional right to be free of persecution for being an addict.

A: Yes, because he is being charged for his conduct as opposed to his addiction.

As a child, Lisa was severely abused by a teacher at school. To this date, she still has the deep physical and emotional scars that from abuse. In a chance encounter, Lisa bumped into her former teacher who abused her. He hugged her tightly like he used to do just before he abused her. Lisa pulled out a knife that she always carried and plunged it in his back killing him. The prosecutor charged Lisa with murder. It was a jurisdiction that had imperfect self-defense. What is the most likely outcome of Lisas trial? A: Lisa will be found guilty of murder because she intended to stab her former teacher. B: Lisa will be found guilty of murder because she acted reckless in stabbing her former teacher. C: Lisa will be found guilty of manslaughter. D: Lisa will be acquitted of any homicide for killing her former teacher.

C: Lisa will be found guilty of manslaughter.

Dana was a famous cat burglar. At night, she broke into the Dalworth Art Museum because it was holding a world class Picasso exhibit. She got past the laser beam security system. Dana then stole a Picasso painting worth over $200 million. Three months later, when she tried to sell it, she got caught. The district attorney indicted Dana for burglary. The jurisdiction applies common law. Dana moved to dismiss the indictment. How should the trial court rule on Danas motion to dismiss? A: The court should grant the motion because Dana did not get apprehended for three months. B: The court should grant the motion because Dana stole from the Dalworth Art Museum. C: The court should deny the motion because Dana broke into the Dalworth Art Museum. D: The court should deny the motion because Dana committed the crime at night.

B: The court should grant the motion because Dana stole from the Dalworth Art Museum.

Dalworth passed a statute that mandated: An individual who goes into any public place while inebriated and acts in a loud, obnoxious, or indecent manner is guilty of public intoxication.Officer Friendly approached Daniel's home late one night where he was having a loud party. When Daniel answered the door, it became readily apparent that Daniel was very inebriated. He was also loud and obnoxious. Officer Friendly asked Daniel to walk to the street with him so that they could talk without the noise and distraction of Daniels party. When Daniel hesitated, Officer Friendly told him that if he did not cooperate that she would request back up and shut down his party. He then walked with Officer Friendly to the street. Once in the street, she arrested him for violating the statute. The district attorney filed an indictment against Daniel, charging him with public intoxication. Daniel filed a motion to dismiss. How should the trial court rule on Daniels motion to dismiss? A: The court should grant the motion because Officer Friendly should not have bothered Daniel in his home. B: The court should grant the motion because Daniel did not voluntarily go into a public place. C: The court should deny the motion because Daniel met the actus reus requirement by becoming inebriated. D: The court should deny the motion because Daniel voluntarily became inebriated.

B: The court should grant the motion because Daniel did not voluntarily go into a public place.

Francis operated a telephone-answering service in Dalworth City that supplied its services to a number of prostitutes. Francis knew that some of his customers were prostitutes because he used the services of one of them who received 500 calls a month. He told all of his customers that he guaranteed them the utmost confidentiality in message-taking. When three of these prostitutes were arrested, the district attorney indicted Francis along with the three for conspiracy to commit prostitution. Dalworth City is a common law jurisdiction. Francis filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him. How should the trial court rule on Francismotion to dismiss? A: The court should grant the motion because Francis took a substantial step towards conspiring to commit prostitution. B: The court should grant the motion because there was insufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy. C: The court should deny the motion because Francis was involved in a unilateral conspiracy. D: The court should deny the motion because Francis did not take a substantial step towards conspiring to commit prostitution.

B: The court should grant the motion because there was insufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy.

Linda is planning to rob a jewelry store when it received a shipment of diamonds. She bought a gun and a mask as well as cased the jewelry store for how to proceed when the diamonds were delivered. On the day of the robbery, she went to the store and was a block away when she bumped into a high school friend. As a result, she missed the timing of the jewelry delivery. Pursuant to the Model Penal Code, can Linda be found guilty of attempted robbery? A: Yes, because Linda had taken the first step toward robbing the jewelry store when she ran into her friend. B: Yes, because Linda took a substantial step toward robbing the jewelry store. C: No, because Linda had not taken the last step toward robbing the jewelry store when she ran into her friend. D: No, because Lindas actions did not show her unequivocal intent to rob the jewelry store.

B: Yes, because Linda took a substantial step toward robbing the jewelry store.

Stewart learned that his best friend had been sleeping with Stewarts wife. Stewart went to his friends house to exact revenge by killing him. Just as he was on his friends doorstep, Officer Friendly saw Stewart with a pistol and arrested him. The state had a law that criminalized the unwanted entry onto the private property with the intent to commit a homicide.The district attorney charged Stewart with attempting to violate this law. Should a jury convict Stewart? A: Yes, because the law was created to protect society from homicidal acts. B: Yes, because Stewart entered his friends property intending to kill him. C: No, because Stewart was just angry with his friend and that is not illegal. D: No, because the law establishes an attempt offense and one cannot commit attempt of an attempt.

B: Yes, because Stewart entered his friends property intending to kill him.

Seven years ago, Alice suffered a head trauma that caused her to have periodic episodes of unconsciousness lasting for 5 to 10 minutes while she was in a recovery facility or at home. Although she has had over 25 such episodes, she has not had one in over 5 years. Four days ago, while driving her daughter to school, Alice suffered another episode of unconsciousness. She lost control of her car and struck a pedestrian on the sidewalk. Alice was charged with reckless endangerment, which required causing harm or injury to another based on acting in knowing disregard of the strong likelihood that serious harm or injury would occur.What is Alices defense attorneys best argument against the offense of reckless endangerment? Original Order: 2 A: Alices head trauma was not the result of any culpable action by Alice. B: After the episode of unconsciousness, Alice was no longer capable of controlling her car. C: Alice reasonably believed that she would not have any more episodes of unconsciousness. D: Alice did not know that her driving would lead to serious injury.

C: Alice reasonably believed that she would not have any more episodes of unconsciousness.

Which of the following statements is correct? A: As a general rule in most American jurisdictions, factual impossibility and legal impossibility are both good defenses. B: As a general rule in most American jurisdictions, factual impossibility is a good defense, but legal impossibility is not. C: As a general rule in most American jurisdictions, legal impossibility is a good defense, but factual impossibility is not. D: As a general rule in most American jurisdictions, neither factual impossibility nor legal impossibility are good defenses.

C: As a general rule in most American jurisdictions, legal impossibility is a good defense, but factual impossibility is not.

Officer Friendly arrested Dan based on a complaint by Beth that he took her cell phone at gunpoint. Specifically, Beth indicated that Dan threatened to shoot her if she did not give him her cell phone and then he grabbed it before fleeing. An eyewitness told Officer Friendly that he saw Dan grab Beths cell phone and run after talking with her briefly, but he did not see any firearm or hear any threats. It is a common law jurisdiction. The complaint has been referred to the District Attorney. With which crime can the District Attorney charge Dan? A: Larceny only. B: Robbery only. C: Either larceny or robbery. D: Neither larceny nor robbery.

C: Either larceny or robbery.

Consider the following statements regarding complicity. I. At common law, principals received the death penalty if convicted. II. At common law, accessories received the death penalty if convicted. III. At common law, acquittal of the principal barred prosecution of an accessory in a felony case. IV. At common law, acquittal of the principal barred prosecution of an accessory in a misdemeanor case. Which of the statements above is correct? A: I and II. B: I and III. C: I, II, and III. D: All of the above.

C: I, II, and III.

Consider the following: I. An offensive touching. II. Placing another person in apprehension. III. A bodily injury. IV. Unlawful application of contact. Which of the above are elements of battery at common law? A: I, II, and III only. B: I, II, and IV only. C: I, III, and IV only. D: I, II, III, and IV.

C: I, III, and IV only.

William lost his job two years ago. Unable to find a good paying job, he was working two minimum-wage jobs to support his son and his daughter because he was a loving father. His son became sick. William knew that his son needed medical care, but could not afford to take time off of work to bring his son to the clinic. He was also worried about how much the clinic would cost. In the end, he decided that he would forgo medical care. Instead, William gave his son over the counter medication. Even as his sons illness worsened, William did not take him for medical care. Ultimately, his son died. The district attorney assigned the criminal investigation to you as an assistant district attorney. She wants to know whether there are available charges against William in your common law jurisdiction. What is the most serious homicide crime with which William can be charged? A: Murder. B: Voluntary Manslaughter. C: Involuntary Manslaughter. D: No charge of homicide is available.

C: Involuntary Manslaughter.

Monica bought a cheap laser light at the mall. It did not have any warning label on it. Monica did not fully understand how the laser worked, but was playing with it at the mall. She briefly pointed the laser toward Adnans eye, causing his vision to blur and pain to ensue. The district attorney charged Monica with battery in a common law jurisdiction. Monica filed a motion to dismiss. What is Monicas strongest argument in support of her motion to dismiss? A: Monica did not cause Adnan any bodily injury or offensive touching. B: Monica lacked the mental state to establish criminal negligence. C: Monica lacked the mens rea to establish any intent to cause bodily injury. D: All of the above are equally strong arguments in favor of the motion to dismiss.

C: Monica lacked the mens rea to establish any intent to cause bodily injury.

Moe is friends with both Larry and Curly. The three of them often went to lunch at a fast food restaurant. One day, Larry and Curly decided that they were going to steal money from the cash register when the manager was not looking. Moe did not say anything about their plan, but still went to the restaurant with them because he was hungry. After Larry and Curly got away and fled. They were never charged for stealing the money. However, Moe was arrested. The district attorney is contemplating the potential charges. She is in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction. Should the district attorney charge Moe as an accomplice to the theft? A: Yes, because Moe intended to encourage Larry and Curly to steal the money. B: Yes, because Moe encouraged Larry and Curly to steal the money. C: No, because Moe mere presence at the crime scene does not establish accomplice liability. D: No, because the Model Penal Code merged the distinctions between principals and accessories. Rationale: The best answer is C because has committed no act in furtherance of the crime by Larry and Curly.

C: No, because Moe mere presence at the crime scene does not establish accomplice liability.

Which of the following is not a test at common law in determining whether the defendant has met the standard for actus reus for an attempt offense? A: Physical proximity. B: First step test. C: Substantial step test. D: Last step test.

C: Substantial step test.

Francesca was the CEO of a canning factory. Dalworth had a law criminalizing the hiring of anyone who had no legal status to be in the United States. The state courts construed this law to establish strict liability. Francesca assigned the task of hiring to the foreman for the canning factory. The foreman hired two undocumented aliens. The district attorney indicted Francesca for violating the law. Francesca filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. How should the trial court rule on the motion to dismiss? A: The court should grant the motion because Francesca lacked mens rea for the crime. B: The court should grant the motion because Francesca delegated the hiring decision to the foreman. C: The court should deny the motion because Francesca delegated the hiring decision to the foreman. D: The court should deny the motion because the law establishes strict liability.

C: The court should deny the motion because Francesca delegated the hiring decision to the foreman.

Jessica broke into a house committing a burglary to steal some diamond jewelry. As she was looking for the bedroom that had the jewelry, she stumbled across the elderly homeowner. He was very startled to see Jessica, suffering a heart attack and dying. Deputy Fife caught Jessica as she was fleeing the house. The district attorney indicted Jessica for murder of the homeowner in a common law jurisdiction. Jessica moved to dismiss the indictment. How should the trial court rule on Jessicas motion to dismiss? A: The court should grant the motion because Jessica did not intend to kill the homeowner. B: The court should grant the motion because Jessica lacked malice aforethought. C: The court should deny the motion because Jessica had malice aforethought. D: The court should deny the motion because the burglary was done with reckless disregard for the homeowners life.

C: The court should deny the motion because Jessica had malice aforethought.

Brendan was arrested in Dalworth City for arson by Officer Friendly. The statute requires that the prosecution establish that a defendant knowingly caused a building to be ignited on fire with the intent to destroy the building. Dalworth City is a Model Penal Code jurisdiction. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence to establish that Brendan knowingly caused the Quickie Mart to be ignited on fire. The prosecution further established that Brendan purposely intended to destroy the Quickie Mart by means of fire. After the prosecution rested, Brendan moved to dismiss the indictment against him, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish the requisite mens rea. How should the trial court rule on Brendans motion to dismiss? A: The court should grant the motion because the prosecution failed to establish that Brendan acted intentionally regarding his intent to destroy the Quickie Mart. B: The court should grant the motion because the prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea for both elements. C: The court should deny the motion because the prosecution established the requisite mens rea for both elements. D: The court should deny the motion because Brendan had the burden of establish that he did not intend to destroy the Quicki Mart by means of fire

C: The court should deny the motion because the prosecution established the requisite mens rea for both elements.

Ben is a student with a peanut allergy, who had an allergic reaction at school. There are several adults at the school. Erika is the mother of Bens classmate. Maria is a reporter who is a guest at the school doing a newspaper story about the school. Wendy is the school nurse. Anna is Bens teacher. All four of these adults see Ben having the allergic reaction, but none of them assist Ben by administering a shot of adrenaline. Consequently, Ben dies. The prosecutor is considering homicide charges. Who should the prosecutor charge? Original Order: 2 A: The prosecutor should charge only Erika and Wendy. B: The prosecutor should charge only Maria and Anna. C: The prosecutor should charge only Wendy and Anna. D: The prosecutor should charge all of them.

C: The prosecutor should charge only Wendy and Anna.

Grant went into the Piggly Wiggly to do some shopping on a Sunday afternoon. While in the produce section, Grant decided to sample the fruit. He started eating some grapes to see how they tasted. Then he did the same with some cherries and strawberries. Deputy Fife saw Grant eating this fruit. He arrested him for taking the grapes. The district attorney indicted Grant for burglary. It is a Model Penal Code jurisdiction. Grant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. Which arguments provide Grant with a legal basis to support his motion to dismiss? A: The taking of the fruit was during the day. B: The taking of the fruit was not in a dwelling. C: The taking of the fruit was not originally intended. D: All of the above.

C: The taking of the fruit was not originally intended.

Brian was driving on the highway in Dalworth City. He was driving 70 mph, but apparently the speed limit was only 65 mph. Brian thought that he was actually driving within the speed limit. Officer Friendly pulled him over and issued Brian a ticket for $150. Brian appealed the ticket to traffic court. How should the court rule on Brian's appeal? a)The court should affirm the fine because Brian should have known the speed limit. b)The court should affirm the fine because speeding is a strict liability offense. c)The court should reverse the fine because Brian lacked any knowledge of the speed limit. d)The court should reverse the fine because Brian lacked the requisite mens rea.

The court should affirm the fine because speeding is a strict liability offense.

Nicholas was a meth dealer who cooked his own meth. He knew that most states criminalized the buying cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine unless the buyer signed a log book and provided a state-issued ID. In one state, Nicholas bought a lot of cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine without doing either. However, in that state, a similar type of law barring this type of purchase had recently been repealed. Can Nicholas be charged with an attempt to acquire pseudoephedrine illegally? A: Yes, because factual impossibility is not a valid defense to a charge of attempt. B: Yes, because legal impossibility is not a valid defense to a charge of attempt. C: No, because the repeal made it factually impossibility for Nicholas to have committed an attempt. D: No, because the repeal made it legal impossibility for Nicholas to have committed an attempt

D: No, because the repeal made it legal impossibility for Nicholas to have committed an attempt

Chloe is stopped by the police who discover a jar of white powder. She tells the officers that it is a jar of sea salt that she purchased from a vendor at the seashore. However, when the powder was analyzed, it tested positive as methamphetamine. The prosecutor charged her with knowingly possessing a controlled substance. If the jury believes Chloes version, what will the result be? A: Chloe will be found guilty because she had the general intent to possess methamphetamine. B: Chloe will be found guilty because her mistake was unreasonable. C: Chloe will be found guilty because she was knowingly transporting powder. D: Chloe will be found not guilty.

D: Chloe will be found not guilty.

Hector was a star athlete at Dalworth University in several sports. He injured himself in his most recent game. He went to see Dr. Nick Riviera about his injury. Dr. Nick gave him a steroid to increase his recovery time. Within days of receiving the steroid, Hector got into a fight in the library about an overdue book. He punched the library assistant in the face, breaking his jaw. At Hectors trial for battery, he called an expert witness who testified that Hector was under the influence of a steroid when he committed the battery. Hector requested a jury instruction that the jury should acquit him if it believes that he was under the influence of a steroid at the time of the battery. Dalworth City is a common law jurisdiction. What factor would be most likely to persuade the trial judge to grant Hectors request for his jury instruction? A: Hector was addicted to the steroid and had an uncontrollable urge to take it. B: The library assistant was taunting Hector before Hector hit him. C: The expert testified that a reasonable person using this steroid likely would experience violent outbursts. D: Dr. Nick told Hector that he was providing him with a pain reliever as opposed to a steroid.

D: Dr. Nick told Hector that he was providing him with a pain reliever as opposed to a steroid.

Daphne was so angry with her roommate that she decided to kill her. She decided to poison her with dinner. Daphne showed her roommate a pot of spaghetti and was fixing a poisoned plate for her. The roommate thanked Daphne profusely. Before the roommate serving her the poisoned plate, Daphne changed her mind about killing her. She put the poisoned spaghetti on the kitchen counter and gave the roommate an uncontaminated plate. Daphne forgot about the poisoned plate, but a second roommate came in later and saw it. That roommate heated up the spaghetti and ate it causing her to die. Deputy Fife began investigating the death and gathered evidence leading to Daphne as a suspect. The district attorney was considering with what offenses to charge Daphne in a common law jurisdiction. Consider the following charges: I . Attempted murder. II. Involuntary Manslaughter. III. Murder. For which of the above crimes can the district attorney convict Daphne? A: II only. B: III only. C: II and III only. D: I, II, and III.

D: I, II, and III.

Akeem was walking through Dalworth Central Station to catch a train. He dropped his cell phone while getting his ticket. As he stood up after picked up his cell phone, he nearly collided with a woman who was walking by him. The woman was quite startled and screamed. She started yelling for the police and registered a complaint with Deputy Fife. Deputy Fife referred the womans complaint to consideration by the Dalworth City District Attorney. Dalworth City is a common law jurisdiction. The District Attorney is considering whether to charge Akeem with assault or battery. With what crime should the District Attorney charge Akeem? A: Assault only. B: Battery only. C: Both assault and battery. D: Neither assault nor battery.

D: Neither assault nor battery.

Bunny borrowed $1000 from a friend with the plan to pay her back in a month. Bunny then went and spent all of the money on marijuana that she bought from the Dude. Bunny expected to double her money by selling this marijuana. Instead, Bunny smoked it all and was unable to repay her friend. Because Bunny had no money to repay her friend, she fled Dalworth City. Her friend filed a complaint with the district attorney. Dalworth City is a common law jurisdiction. With which crime can the District Attorney charge Bunny? A: Larceny by trick only. B: Theft by false pretenses only. C: Either larceny by trick or theft by false pretenses. D: Neither larceny by trick nor theft by false pretenses.

D: Neither larceny by trick nor theft by false pretenses.

Frank ripped off the gas meter from the wall outside his room to steal the coins used to operate it. As a result, gas seeps into his neighbors apartment and almost asphyxiated this neighbor. The prosecution charged Frank with reckless homicide. Frank testified at trial that he did not realize that breaking a gas meter would cause gas to seep into the neighbors apartment or anywhere else. If the jury believed Frank, should he be convicted of reckless homicide? Original Order: 1 A: Yes, because an ordinary person would have realized that breaking a gas meter would allow the gas to seep into his neighbors apartment. B: Yes, because Frank should have considered the risks to his neighbor when he broke the gas meter. C: No, because Frank did not have the purpose to kill his neighbor. D: No, because Frank never realized that he might harm his neighbor.

D: No, because Frank never realized that he might harm his neighbor.

Joe Biden when to a party with a friend. He drank a glass of fruit punch that he was told had some rum in it. Apparently, someone had placed PCP in the punch and it caused Joe to freak out. When the host approached him about leaving the party, Joe was in such an aggravated state of mind due to the PCP that he stabbed the host to death with a carving knife that was on a table nearby. Should the prosecutor charge Joe with murder? A: Yes, because involuntary intoxication was not a defense to the crime of murder. B: Yes, because Joe become voluntarily intoxicated by drinking the punch. C: No, because the spiking of the punch constituted contributory negligence. D: No, because Joe was involuntarily intoxicated.

D: No, because Joe was involuntarily intoxicated.

Nuk Nuk was a drug dealer who was selling crack cocaine in Dalworth City. Officer Friendly was working as an undercover police officer. He approached Nuk Nuk about buying 100 grams of crack. Nuk Nuk did not have that much crack on him so they agreed to meet three days later. After Officer Friendly left, several Dalworth City police officers swarmed and arrested him. The district attorney indicted Nuk Nuk for conspiracy to sell crack cocaine. Dalworth City is in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction. Nuk Nuk filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. How should the trial court rule on Nuk Nuks motion to dismiss? A: The court should grant the motion because it was a unilateral conspiracy. B: The court should grant the motion because mere presence is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. C: The court should deny the motion because Nuk Nuk took a substantial step in a conspiracy with Deputy Fife. D: The court should deny the motion because it was a unilateral conspiracy.

D: The court should deny the motion because it was a unilateral conspiracy.

Taylor was driving to work when she went through a school zone. Dalworth City had an ordinance mandating that it was a $500 fine for anyone who drives in excess of the posted speed limit in a school zone is guilty of a misdemeanor.Typically the speed limit was 30 m.p.h. on the street in front of the school. However, unbeknownst to Taylor, the speed limit was only 15 m.p.h. because she was driving in an active school zone. At that time, Taylor was driving 25 m.p.h. when Officer Friendly pulled her over. Taylor received a $500 citation. She filed a motion to dismiss her citation before the trial court. How should the trial court rule on Taylors motion to dismiss? A: The court should grant the motion to dismiss because she needed to have knowledge about the speed limit. B: The court should grant the motion to dismiss because she lacked mens rea. C: The court should deny the motion to dismiss because she had mens rea. D: The court should deny the motion to dismiss because did not need to have knowledge about the speed limit.

D: The court should deny the motion to dismiss because did not need to have knowledge about the speed limit.

An athlete hires a doctor to serve as his personal physician. The athlete has a hard time sleeping so the doctor prescribes a very strong sedative. Because it does not work immediately, the athlete takes a double dose along with some other pills and dies of an overdose. The doctor was upset because the athlete had told her that he would take the correct dosage. If the doctor is prosecuted for the athletes death, what is the likely outcome? A: The doctor will be convicted because she was the actual cause of the athletes death. B: The doctor will be convicted because the athlete acted out of desperation. C: The doctor will not be convicted because she was not the but forcause of the athletes death. D: The doctor will not be convicted because the athlete acted on his own in disregard of the doctors advice.

D: The doctor will not be convicted because the athlete acted on his own in disregard of the doctors advice.

In criminal law, which of the statements below best defines vicarious liability? A: The liability that occurs for offenses committed by persons who aid and abet the commission of the principal offense. B: The liability that occurs when a person agrees to act in concert with another toward a goal involving criminal conduct. C: The liability that occurs when a person may be convicted as an accessory before or after the fact D: The liability that occurs when a person may be convicted, without personal fault, for the criminal conduct of another person.

D: The liability that occurs when a person may be convicted, without personal fault, for the criminal conduct of another person.

Wendell joined a street gang. One night while they were walking in their neighborhood, they came across a member of a rival gang. Two members of Wendells gang attacked the rival gang member and started beating on him with a bat and a pipe. Wendell just stood and watched. After they stopped the beating, Wendell told them to run because he heard police sirens. Ultimately, the rival gang member died from his injuries. The district attorney charged Wendell with being an accomplice to manslaughter in the death of the rival gang member. What is the likely outcome if Wendell goes to trial on the charge? A: Wendell likely will be acquitted because he did not intend for the rival gang member to die. B: Wendell likely will be acquitted because he did not encourage his gang members to beat the victim. C: Wendell likely will be convicted because he did not stop his gang members from beating the victim. D: Wendell likely will be convicted because he told his gang members to run away.

D: Wendell likely will be convicted because he told his gang members to run away.

Consider the following statements regarding whether the evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible. Which of the following statements is correct? A: Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible to negate mens rea for a specific intent offense. B: Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible to negate mens rea for a general intent offense. C: Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible to negate mens rea for both specific intent and general intent offenses. D: Evidence of voluntary intoxication is not admissible to negate mens rea for either specific intent or general intent offenses.

Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible to negate mens rea for a specific intent offense.

Frank ripped off the gas meter from the wall outside his room to steal the coins used to operate it. As a result, gas seeped into his neighbor's apartment and asphyxiated this neighbor. The prosecution charged Frank with reckless homicide based on his action. At his trial, Frank testified that he did not realize that breaking a gas meter would cause gas to seep into the neighbor's apartment or anywhere else. If the jury believed Frank, should he be convicted of reckless homicide? a)Yes, because an ordinary person would have realized that breaking a gas meter would allow the gas to seep into his neighbor's apartment. b)Yes, because Frank should have considered the risks to his neighbor when he broke the gas meter. c)No, because Frank did not have the purpose to kill his neighbor. d)No, because Frank never realized that he might harm his neighbor.

No, because Frank never realized that he might harm his neighbor.

Khalil's cousin drops him off at the Denver airport. Khalil smells marijuana, but does not think about it because his cousin smokes it all the time. However, his cousin had placed an ounce in Khalil's suitcase without his knowledge. A TSA drug dog alerts to Khalil's suitcase when he arrives in Dalworth City. The prosecutor charged Khalil with simple possession of marijuana. Should Khalil be found guilty of simple possession of marijuana? a)Yes, because Khalil owned the suitcase with the marijuana. b)Yes, because Khalil had marijuana in his suitcase. c)No, because Khalil did not know that the marijuana was in his suitcase. d)No, because only Khalil's cousin could have possessed the marijuana.

No, because Khalil did not know that the marijuana was in his suitcase

Henry attacked a tourist at a national park, leaving her bleeding in grass. A park ranger saw her in the grass, but does not rescue her because there are bears in the area and he had forgotten to bring his government-issued rifle. As a result, the tourist bled to death from her wounds when prompt assistance from the park ranger likely would have saved her life. Henry was charged with murder. At trial, Henry argued that the ranger's failure to act was an omission that relieved him of criminal liability for the tourist's death. Is Henry's argument likely to succeed? a)Yes, because Henry was not the proximate cause of the tourist's death. b)Yes, because the ranger could have saved the tourist. c)No, because the ranger did not have a duty to save the tourist. d)No, because the ranger's failure to act was not a superseding, intervening act.

No, because the ranger's failure to act was not a superseding, intervening act.

A defendant is charged with an offense under a statute that provides as follows: "Any person who, while intoxicated, appears in any public place and manifests a drunken condition by obstreperous or indecent conduct is guilty of a misdemeanor." At trial, the evidence shows that the defendant was intoxicated when police officers burst into his house and arrested him pursuant to a valid warrant. It was a cold night, and the officers hustled the defendant out of his house without giving him time to get his coat. The defendant became angry and obstreperous when the officers refused to let him go back into the house to retrieve his coat. The officers left him handcuffed outside in the street, waiting for a special squad car to arrive. The arrest warrant was later vacated. Can the defendant properly be convicted of violating the statute? (A) No, because the defendant's claim of mistreatment is valid. (B) No, because the statute requires proof of a voluntary appearance in a public place. (C) Yes, because the defendant voluntarily became intoxicated. (D) Yes, because the defendant voluntarily behaved in an obstreperous manner.

No, because the statute requires proof of a voluntary appearance in a public place.

Dalworth passed a statute that established strict liability, barring the employment of anyone who did not have legal status to be in the United States. Everett was the foreman for a constructive company. It was the companys policy to promote diversity when hiring people. Everett hired a person who was a diversity candidate, but also did not have legal status to be in the United States. The person provided Everett with false paperwork authorizing him to be in and work in the United States. With a little examination, it was apparent that the documents were fakes, but Everett did not examine them closely. Everett was unaware that the worker was undocumented. The district attorney indicted Everett pursuant to this statute. Everett moved to dismiss the indictment. How should the trial court rule on Everetts motion to dismiss? A: The court should grant the motion because the worker gave Everett false paperwork. B: The court should grant the motion because Everett was trying to comply with the companys diversity program. C: The court should deny the motion because Everett hired the worker. D: The court should deny the motion because Everett should have examined he workers documents better.

The court should deny the motion because Everett hired the worker.

Ben is a student with a peanut allergy, who had an allergic reaction at school. There are several adults at the school. Erika is the mother of Ben's classmate. Maria is a reporter who is visiting the school to do a newspaper story about the school. Wendy is the school nurse. Anna is Ben's teacher. All four of these adults see Ben having the allergic reaction, but none of them assist Ben by administering a shot of adrenaline. Consequently, Ben dies. The prosecutor is considering homicide charges. Who should the prosecutor charge? a)The prosecutor should charge only Erika and Wendy. b)The prosecutor should charge only Maria and Anna. c)The prosecutor should charge only Wendy and Anna. d)The prosecutor should charge all of them.

The prosecutor should charge only Wendy and Anna.

Police discovered 5 plastic bags of marijuana in David's room at the fraternity house. A frat brother had put it in David's room a couple of days earlier in a mailing envelope addressed to a former frat brother. The state statute made it a felony to knowingly possess marijuana. David told the investigating police officer that he did not know what the envelope contained and did not ask his frat brother about it. What must the prosecutor establish to convict David for felony possession of marijuana? a)The prosecutor must establish that David knew or believed that the envelope contained marijuana. b)The prosecutor must establish that David knew or believed that the envelope contained marijuana, and that David handled the envelope. c)The prosecutor must establish that David should have known that the envelope contained marijuana, and that David handled the envelope. d)The prosecutor does not need to establish anything else to obtain a conviction.

The prosecutor must establish that David knew or believed that the envelope contained marijuana.

A police officer encountered a methamphetamine addict at a park. The addict did not have any methamphetamine on him, but he was carrying a pipe that he used to smoke methamphetamine in support of his addiction. The officer charged the addict with possession of drug paraphernalia pursuant to a state law criminalizing such possession. Is the addict likely to be found guilty of this offense? a)Yes, because he is being charged for his conduct as opposed to his addiction. b)Yes, because his status as a methamphetamine addict is not protected. c)No, because he cannot be charged for his status of being a methamphetamine addict. d)No, because he has a constitutional right to be free of persecution for being an addict.

Yes, because he is being charged for his conduct as opposed to his addiction.

The defendant did not testify, but his sister did. She testified that on March 5, at the time of the robbery, the defendant was with her in a city 300 miles away. On cross-examination, the sister admitted having given a statement to the police in which she had said that the defendant was not with her on March 5, but she claimed that the earlier statement was mistaken. The court instructed the jury that in order to convict the defendant, they had to find all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the defendant's claim of alibi, which of the following additional instructions would be proper? a)Alibi is a matter of defense and so must be established by the defendant; however, the burden of persuasion is by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. b)Before you may consider the defendant's claim of alibi, you must decide whether he has produced sufficient evidence to raise the issue. c)If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the convenience store at about 11 p.m. on March 5, you must find him not guilty. d)If the defendant's evidence has caused you to have a reasonable doubt as to whether he was the robber, you must find him not guilty.

a)If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the convenience store at about 11 p.m. on March 5, you must find him not guilty.

Rick was very drunk at a huge graduation party he threw at his house. Officer Friendly went to Rick's house due to a noise complaint, and Rick answered the door. It was apparent to Officer Friendly that Rick was very drunk. Officer Friendly asked him to step outside, or the police would raid his house. When Rick walked over to the street to talk with Officer Friendly at the police car, she charged Rick with public intoxication. Should the district attorney prosecute Rick for public intoxication? a)Yes, because Rick satisfied the actus reus requirement when he got drunk. b)Yes, because the law does not have an actus reus requirement. c)No, because an actus reus requirement will not be inferred by the courts, and Rick's conduct did not constitute a violation of the law. d) No, because even if the court infers an actus reus requirement, Rick did not violate the law

a)No, because an actus reus requirement will not be inferred by the courts, and Rick's conduct did not constitute a violation of the law.

Ben heard that Larry planned to burglarize a department store. Ben put burglary tools behind the store, intending to assist Larry in the burglary. That night, Larry never saw the burglary tools because he broke into a side door. Ben is arrested and charged in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction. Is Ben likely to be criminally liable for placing the burglary tools behind the store? a)Yes, as an accomplice to Larry's burglary. b)Yes, for attempted burglary. c)No, because Ben did not in fact aid Larry. d)No, because Ben did not have any prior agreement or understanding with Larry.

a)Yes, as an accomplice to Larry's burglary.

Falcone sells a sugary substance called lactose. Lactose can be used to supplement baby formula or as a cutting agent to dilute drugs. Approximately 75 percent of Falcone's sales are to Gordy who, as Falcone knows, uses the lactose to dilute and package illegal drugs. Falcone knows he can charge Gordy a little more than other customers because he isn't likely to complain to the authorities. Thus, over the course of a year, Falcone makes numerous sales of large quantities of lactose to Gordy. Gordy and Falcone are charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs and distribution of drugs. Is Falcone guilty of the conspiracy? a)Yes, because he had the necessary mens rea for conspiracy. b)No, because it is not per se illegal to possess or sell lactose. c)Yes, because he was reckless in selling lactose to a drug dealer. d)No, because he was in an official partnership with Gordy.

a)Yes, because he had the necessary mens rea for conspiracy.

Julia broke into the home of her neighbor, an old enemy, and was going to shoot him while he was sleeping. Julia was unaware that her husband had earlier unloaded her gun, for fear that she would do something rash and kill someone. The neighbor awoke and saw Julia, so he ran out of his house. Can Julia be convicted of attempted murder even though the gun was unloaded? a)Yes, the fact that the gun was unloaded does not preclude a conviction of attempt. b)Yes, because Julia broke into the neighbor's house, she must have meant to kill him. c)No, because Julia may have only wanted to scare the neighbor. d)No, because there was no way under these circumstance that Julia could have killed the victim.

a)Yes, the fact that the gun was unloaded does not preclude a conviction of attempt.

Sally, on her way home from finding out from the private investigator that her husband was having an affair, was so upset that she ran a red light going 75 MPH in a 25 MPH speed zone. By pure coincidence, the car she crashed into was her husband's car. He was severely injured, but ultimately made a miraculous recovery. Can Sally be convicted of the crime of attempted involuntary manslaughter? a)No. Running a red light, even at such a high speed, is not reckless enough for a conviction of either involuntary manslaughter or the attempt offense. b)No. Sally lacks the requisite mens rea for the charge. c)Yes. Sally's actions would have constituted involuntary manslaughter had her husband died from his injuries. d)Yes. Sally must have subconsciously intended to hit her husband, so the intent required for intent is met.

b)No. Sally lacks the requisite mens rea for the charge.

A state law bars the sale of firearms to anyone under the age of 18 years old. That state's courts have interpreted the law to be a strict liability offense and vicarious liability for the sale to anyone underage. Monica, a gun store owner, advised all of her employees to check for identification of all sales of firearms. Eric went into Monica's store and asked for a Glock. The sales clerk asked Eric how old he was, and he replied that he was 22. Eric was actually only 17, but looked much older. After the sales clerk sold Eric the gun, the district attorney charged Monica with selling firearms to minors. After Monica is convicted, she appeals How should the appellate court rule Monica's appeal? a)The court should affirm even though Monica had instructed her sales clerks not to sell a firearm to a minor. b)The court should affirm even though the sales clerk did not intend to sell a firearm to a minor. c)The court should reverse because the sales clerks inquired about Eric's age. d)The court should reverse because Eric lied about his age.

b)The court should affirm even though the sales clerk did not intend to sell a firearm to a minor.

Jack wanted to add a bathroom onto his house. He went to the Dalworth City zoning ordinance office to see if he needed a permit. Wendy, an administrative assistant, was the only person in the office and she had only been working in there for five weeks, which Jack knew. When Jack asked Wendy if he needed a permit to build his new bathroom on the backside of his house, she told him he did not need a permit. Wendy was incorrect as Dalworth City had an ordinance requiring a permit. Dalworth City is a Model Penal Code jurisdiction. The city inspector cited Jack for his construction without a permit. Jack appealed the $1000 citation to the city judge. How should the city judge rule on Jack's citation? a)The judge should affirm the citation because Dalworth City had an ordinance requiring a permit. b)The judge should affirm the citation because Wendy lacked authority to interpret the ordinance. c)The judge should reverse the citation because Jack solicited information from the proper governmental authority. d)The judge should reverse the citation because Wendy told him that he did not need any permit.

b)The judge should affirm the citation because Wendy lacked authority to interpret the ordinance.

Jim decided to kill himself by jumping off the train trestle over the river. After walking out to the middle of the trestle, but before jumping, Bill saw Jim. Bill shot Jim causing him to fall off the trestle to his death. The autopsy was inconclusive as to whether the fall or Bill's shot killed Jim. Did Bill cause Jim's death? a)Yes, because Bill had sufficient intent to kill Jim. b)Yes, because Bill was the actual cause of Jim's death. c)No, because Jim would have died still if Bill had not shot him. d)No, because Jim's death was caused by his suicide.

b)Yes, because Bill was the actual cause of Jim's death.

Bart went into a gas station and pulled out a gun to rob it. The attendant suffered a heart attack. The ambulance was delayed getting the paramedics to the scene so the attendant died. The attendant likely would have survived with proper medical care. The district attorney charged Bart with reckless homicide in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction. Did Bart cause the attendant's death? a)Yes, the death was not too abnormal. b)Yes, the death was not too remote or accidental. c)No, the delayed ambulance was an intervening cause that broke the chain of causation. d)No, the attendant's heart was unforeseeable.

b)Yes, the death was not too remote or accidental.

Hicks has heard that Rowe has set out to kill his old enemy, Colvard. When Hicks sees Rowe approach Colvard, Hicks yells to Colvard, "Take off your hat and die like a man." As Colvard starts to take off his hat, Rowe shoots him dead. Rowe is then shot by the police and Hicks is prosecuted for Colvard's murder as an accomplice. Hicks is most likely a)guilty because his words may have had the effect of encouraging Rowe to shoot Colvard. b)guilty if he intended his words to encourage Rowe to shoot Colvard. c)guilty if Rowe would not have shot Colvard unless Hicks had yelled his words. d)not guilty because mere words are not enough to aid and abet a murder.

b)guilty if he intended his words to encourage Rowe to shoot Colvard.

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.

Warner and his buddy, Trent, have decided to rob the bank. Warner is very nervous about the caper, so Trent suggests that they drink a few beers before they get started. By the time they rob the bank, nothing is bothering Warner. Boosted by his liquid courage, Warner robs the bank. Is Warner entitled to an intoxication defense? a)Yes, because he might not have robbed the bank if he had been sober. b)Yes, because Trent was the one who suggested that they drink before the robbery. c)No, because he had already formed the intent to rob before he drank. d)No, because voluntary intoxication is never a defense.

c)No, because he had already formed the intent to rob before he drank.

Xavier is a police officer with the city police department. State law bars concealed weapons, but creates an exception for "law enforcement officers" employed by the state. Xavier is charged with unlawfully possessing a concealed weapon. He argued that he reviewed the statute before he started concealing his weapon and believed that he was covered by the exception. Does Xavier have a mistake of law defense? a)Yes, because Xavier made a good faith effort to learn the law. b)Yes, because Xavier should have been covered by the law's exception and be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. c)No, because misreading the law is not a defense. d)No, because mistake of the law is never a defense.

c)No, because misreading the law is not a defense.

Robert and Douglas went riding on Robert's motor boat. Robert said that there was a great area by a rocky outcrop to enjoy water skiing. Douglas, concerned, pointed out the signs near the outcrop which read, "DANGER - Do not swim, boat, or water ski." Robert insisted and drove the boat toward the rocks. After drinking several beers they had onboard, Douglas decided to try waterskiing. Because Douglas had become drunk, he improperly attached the water skis, lost control, and drowned. Is Robert guilty of involuntary manslaughter? Is Robert guilty of involuntary manslaughter? a)Yes, because Robert insisted on illegally boating in a dangerous location. b)Yes, because Robert is responsible for all results of his illegal act. c)No, because the cause of Douglas' drowning was his intoxication. d)No, because Douglas was contributorily negligent in assessing the risk.

c)No, because the cause of Douglas' drowning was his intoxication.

Austin Powers intends to steal trade secrets from his competitor at a trade conference. He intentionally buys a briefcase that looks identical to his competitor's so that he can swap briefcases during their meeting and obtain valuable information. However, Austin accidentally picks up his own briefcase and leave the meeting. He is charged with attempted theft of the trade secrets. Which of the following is correct? a)Powers has a mistake of fact defense because he mistakenly picked up the wrong briefcase. b)Powers has a pure legal impossibility defense because it is not illegal to take one's own property. c)Powers has no impossibility defense under the Model Penal Code because if the circumstances were as he believed them to be, he would have taken his competitor's briefcase. d)Powers is not guilty of attempt because it was factually impossible for him to steal his own briefcase.

c)Powers has no impossibility defense under the Model Penal Code because if the circumstances were as he believed them to be, he would have taken his competitor's briefcase.

Melissa bought food stamps from an undercover agent in Dalworth City. She was going to provide the food stamps with the homeless so that they could eat. The district attorney charged Melissa with a statute criminalizing "whoever knowingly uses, acquires, or possesses food stamps without authorization" in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction. Melissa asserted that she did not know she could not buy the food stamps. She requested a jury instruction that would require the prosecution to prove that she knowingly violated the law. The trial judge rejected this requested instruction. A jury found her guilty. Melissa appealed her conviction. How should the appellate court rule on Melissa's appeal? a)The court should affirm the conviction because mistake of law is not a valid defense. b)The court should affirm the conviction because ignorance of the law is not excuse. c)The court should reverse the conviction because Melissa was entitled to the jury instruction. d)The court should reverse the conviction because Melissa had a good motive for buying the food stamps.

c)The court should reverse the conviction because Melissa was entitled to the jury instruction.

Alexander, Polly, and Quentin have conspired to rob a bank. As they are driving to the robbery, Polly gets cold feet. She tells Alexander and Quentin to drop her off on their way to the bank because she changed her mind about the robbery. After they drop her off, Alexander and Quentin proceed to rob the bank. However, they are foiled in their attempt when the police happen upon the robbery and stop it. Alexander, Polly, and Quentin are charged with conspiracy to rob the bank and attempted robbery. Polly claims she withdrew from the conspiracy so she is not guilty of any crimes. Assuming Polly voluntarily and completely withdrew from the conspiracy, which of the following is true? a)Under the Model Penal Code, Polly is not guilty of any crime because she withdrew from the conspiracy. b)Under the common law approach, Polly is not guilty of any crime because she withdrew from the conspiracy. c)Under the Model Penal Code, Polly is only guilty of conspiracy, but not guilty of the attempted robbery. d)Under both the Model Penal Code and common law, Polly is guilty of conspiracy and attempted robbery.

c)Under the Model Penal Code, Polly is only guilty of conspiracy, but not guilty of the attempted robbery.

Bob wanted to rob an armored car when it delivered money to a supermarket. Frank watched the armored car deliver money for a week before providing Bob with times and routines of the delivery. Neal was Bob's lookout on the day of the robbery. After the heist, Leon met Bob and took the money to hide it in a storage facility. At common law, who can be charged as principals? a)Bob should be charged as a principal in the first degree, and Leon should be charged as a principal in the second degree. b)Neal should be charged as a principal in the first degree, and Frank should be charged as a principal in the second degree. c)Neal should be charged as a principal in the first degree, and Leon should be charged as a principal in the second degree. d)Bob should be charged as a principal in the first degree, and Neal should be charged as a principal in the second degree.

d)Bob should be charged as a principal in the first degree, and Neal should be charged as a principal in the second degree.

Manuel asks Franco to help him burn down city hall. Franco thinks Manuel is kidding and answers flippantly, "sure." A police officer, who overhears the conversation, immediately arrests both of them and charges them with conspiracy to commit arson. Is Franco guilty of conspiracy? a)Yes, because he agreed to burn down city hall. b)Yes, because he was on notice that Manuel wanted to burn down city hall. c)No, because it only takes one person to burn down city hall. d)No, because Franco was just kidding when he answer, "sure."

d)No, because Franco was just kidding when he answer, "sure."

Jessica is friends with both Alicia and Monica. The three of them regularly go to the mall after school. One day, Alicia and Monica decide that they are going to steal some makeup when they go to the mall. Jessica does not say anything about their plan and goes to the mall with them. Alicia and Monica get caught shoplifting and are arrested. Jessica is arrested too. Pursuant to the Model Penal Code, can Jessica be charged as an accomplice? a)Yes, because Jessica intended to encourage Alicia and Monica to steal the makeup. b)Yes, because Jessica encouraged Alicia and Monica to steal the makeup. c)No, because the Model Penal Code merged the distinctions between principals and accessories. d)No, because Jessica's mere presence at the crime scene does not establish accomplice liability.

d)No, because Jessica's mere presence at the crime scene does not establish accomplice liability.

Sheila when to a party with a friend. She drank a glass of sangria. Apparently, someone had placed LSD in the sangria and it caused Sheila to freak out. When the host approached her about leaving the party, Sheila was in such an aggravated state of mind due to the LSD that she stabbed the host to death with a knife that was nearby. Should the prosecutor charge Sheila with murder? a)Yes, because involuntary intoxication was not a defense to the crime of murder. b)Yes, because Sheila become voluntarily intoxicated by drinking the sangria. c)No, because the spiking of the sangria constituted contributory negligence. d)No, because Sheila was involuntarily intoxicated.

d)No, because Sheila was involuntarily intoxicated.

Reggie was attempting to sell tickets to the Dallas Cowboy football game just outside the stadium even though he believed that there is an Arlington city ordinance criminalizing the sale of tickets within 100 yards of the stadium. An officer arrested Reggie with his tickets and charged him with attempted scalping of tickets. As it turns out, the law criminalizing the sale of tickets within 100 yards of the stadium was repealed the previous year. Was Reggie guilty of attempted scalping of tickets? a)Yes, because he tried to violate the law. b)Yes, because he had the mens rea to commit the offense. c)No, because he did not intend to violate the law. d)No, because it was legally impossible to scalp tickets.

d)No, because it was legally impossible to scalp tickets.

An athlete hires a doctor to serve as his personal physician. The athlete has a hard time sleeping so the doctor prescribes a very strong sedative. Because it does not work immediately, the athlete takes a double dose along with some other pills and dies of an overdose. The doctor was upset because the athlete had told her that he would take the correct dosage. If the doctor is prosecuted for the athlete's death, what is the likely outcome? a)The doctor will be convicted because she was the actual cause of the athlete's death. b)The doctor will be convicted because the athlete acted out of desperation. c)The doctor will not be convicted because she was not the "but for" cause of the athlete's death. d)The doctor will not be convicted because the athlete acted on his own in disregard of the doctor's advice.

d)The doctor will not be convicted because the athlete acted on his own in disregard of the doctor's advice.

Rachel wanted to put out a hit on her archenemy. After talking with the right people, she got in touch with Zack. Rachel offered to pay Zack $25,000 to kill her archenemy. Unfortunately for Rachel, Zack was an undercover cop who promptly arrested her. Rachel was charged with conspiracy to commit first degree murder. In a common law jurisdiction, how is the jury most likely to rule? a)The jury will find Rachel guilty because she had the intent of killing her archenemy. b)The jury will find Rachel guilty because she offered to pay Zack to kill her archenemy. c)The jury will find Rachel not guilty because neither Rachel nor Zack had taken a substantial step toward killing the archenemy. d)The jury will find Rachel not guilty because there was no actual agreement.

d)The jury will find Rachel not guilty because there was no actual agreement.

Joshua illegally smuggles aliens across the border. His partner, Maria, gives Joshua the names of aliens who are willing to pay to be brought across the border. They share the fee paid by the aliens. Maria has recently come to Joshua with the names of more potential customers. Joshua checks the weather report to see when the moon will be new because it is easier to smuggle people without any moonlight. Maria and Joshua are arrested before either one of them can do anything else. Are Maria and Joshua guilty of conspiracy? a)No, because they have not actually started to transport the aliens. b)No, because they have not taken a substantial step toward transporting them. c)No, because it was not illegal for Joshua to check the weather reports. d)Yes, because they both agreed to smuggle the aliens and there was a least one overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy.

d)Yes, because they both agreed to smuggle the aliens and there was a least one overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy.

Margaret is stopped at the border as she returns from a recent visit to Tijuana, Mexico. Seeing a small jar of white powder on the seat next to her, the police ask Margaret what is in the jar. She tells them that it is some special talcum powder her friends gave her to deal with her terrible skin condition. When the police test the contents in the jar, it turns out to be cocaine. Margaret is charged with "knowingly possessing a controlled substance." If the jury at trial believes Margaret's story, she is a)guilty because she should have known the jar contained cocaine. b)guilty because she knew she was transporting a powder. c)guilty because her mistake was unreasonable. d)guilty because of the deliberate ignorance defense. e)not guilty.

e)not guilty

James Chow, a 21-year-old college junior, is arrested for driving under the influence on his way home from a weekend fraternity party. James pleads guilty to the offense, but the judge sentences him to the maximum six months in the county jail. At the sentencing hearing, the judge addresses James regarding the sentence: "I'm doing this to teach you a lesson, so that for the rest of your life you'll never get behind the driver's wheel if you've been drinking." Which of the following theories of punishment has the court primarily relied on in sentencing? a)retribution. b)general deterrence. c)specific deterrence. d)rehabilitation. e)incapacitation.

specific deterrence.