Crim Flashcards
A bank teller confessed to his colleague that he was concerned about being fired. The colleague suggested that he had similar concerns himself and had been thinking of how he might acquire extra cash in case he lost his job. The teller suggested a plan to take several hundred dollars from their supervisor’s cash drawer, because the supervisor often forgot to lock the drawer when he went to lunch. After the teller took the cash, he would hand it off to his colleague during his lunch break, and the colleague would bring the money to his car to avoid having money on his person at work. The next day, the teller noticed that his supervisor had neglected to lock his cash drawer at lunch, and he carried out the plan. The colleague waited outside the bank, and then took the cash from the teller on his lunch break. He then hid some of the money in a separate stash he intended to apportion to himself only, without the teller’s knowledge, but he otherwise followed the plan exactly as he and the bank teller had discussed. In a case against the colleague, which of the following charges would most likely be successfully prosecuted?
Answer choice D is correct. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property. Under the majority and MPC rule, an accomplice is a person who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, aids or abets a principal prior to or during the commission of the crime. The accomplice’s assistance to the principal may be verbal encouragement, financial assistance, or physical assistance, provided that the accomplice has the requisite intent to encourage or assist in the commission of the crime. An accomplice is responsible for the crime to the same extent as the principal. In this case, although the colleague did not actually take the money from the supervisor, he aided and abetted the teller in larceny by transferring the money to the car, and thus would be guilty to the same extent as the teller. The colleague also committed larceny against the teller, as stolen property taken from a thief can constitute larceny. That is, a second thief is guilty of larceny when he steals the property from the first thief, unless the second thief had superior possessory interest in the property.
In a single growing season, a virulent parasite infected a large number of acres of wheat across a state. In response to the crisis, Congress established a program by which affected wheat farmers could sell their infected acres to the federal government for fair compensation. Many farmers opted into the program, and the federal government obtained thousands of acres of wheat fields. Congress then established a second program by which the acquired land was leased out to corn and soybean farmers, as studies had shown that these crops could replenish soil after it had been used to grow wheat. Due to the low cost of leasing the land, the farmers were able to sell the crops on the local market at a lower price than other farmers for a substantial profit. Corn and soybean farmers who farmed other land in the state bought an action challenging the constitutionality of the program leasing land to soybean and corn farmers. Which of the following provides the strongest constitutional support for the challenged program?
Answer choice B is correct. Article IV, Section 3 gives Congress the “power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” There is no express limit on Congress’s power to dispose of property owned by the United States. Here, the property power of Article IV enables Congress to lease federal property to whomsoever it wishes. Answer choice A is incorrect because, for this program to be authorized by congressional authority over interstate commerce, there must be evidence that the program affects conduct that has an aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Here, it is unclear whether there is activity that has an aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Moreover, because the Federal Property Clause requires no such proof, it is a stronger source of authority for this program.
A husband and his friend agreed to kill the husband’s wife and split the insurance proceeds the man received following the wife’s death. The friend helped the husband obtain a handgun to commit the murder, but on the night of the planned murder, the friend decided that she could not go through with it. Afraid that the husband would kill her if she went to the police, she did not contact them. Instead, she called the husband and told him that she could not go through with the crime and urged him not to kill his wife. The husband ignored her and went through with the killing. The husband and friend were subsequently arrested and the friend was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Should the friend be convicted?
Correct Answer: Yes, because withdrawal is not a valid defense to conspiracy.
Answer choice D is correct. Withdrawal is not a defense to conspiracy. The modern majority view of conspiracy is that the crime is complete at the moment an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy has been completed. Here, the friend helped the husband obtain a handgun; at that moment, the conspiracy was complete and withdrawal was not possible. At common law, the conspiracy is complete as soon as the parties enter into the agreement. Accordingly, as soon as the man and his friend agreed to kill the man’s wife, a common-law conspiracy was complete. Answer choice A is therefore incorrect. Answer choice B is incorrect because conspiracy requires that the conspirator had the intent to agree and the intent to commit the criminal objective at the time of the agreement, not at the time that the criminal objective is accomplished. Answer choice C is incorrect An overt act is a necessary element of a conspiracy in the majority of jurisdictions and under the MPC. However, it is only one of the required elements of a conspiracy. Additionally, at common law, no overt act is required for the conspiracy to be complete. Either way, once all of the elements of conspiracy have been met, withdrawal is not a valid defense.
A man decided to master the art of throwing knives. He practiced for several years, until he had perfected his skills and was able to hit a spot no larger than a dime with confidence. After demonstrating his prowess to a friend, the man convinced the friend to stand against a wall while the man threw knives at her. The man threw three knives extremely close to the friend, but the fourth knife struck the friend, injuring her slightly. Although the friend’s injury was minor, unbeknownst to the man, she had a rare blood disorder that caused her to bleed to death. The crimes below are listed in ascending order of seriousness. What is the most serious common law crime for which the man can be convicted?
You Selected: Murder
Answer choice D is correct. The man may be convicted of depraved heart murder. Depraved heart murder is a killing that results when the defendant acts with reckless indifference to a known and unjustifiably high risk. For this type of murder, the man need not have had the intent to cause either death or serious bodily injury. The woman’s consent to the act that led to her death is not a defense. Nor is the fact that the woman’s death would not have happened but for her rare medical condition, or the man’s lack of awareness of that condition. Because the man may be convicted of murder, the less serious crimes listed in answer choices A, B, and C are incorrect.
Depraved Heart Murder
reckless indifference to a known and unjustifiably high risk
A car was parked in front of a man’s house for a week without being moved. The man honestly but unreasonably believed that the car had been abandoned. He found a spare key attached to the underside of the car and, using that key, drove the car into his driveway, intending to make it his own. Several days later, the car’s owner returned. Seeing his car in the man’s driveway, the owner notified the police. The man was charged with larceny. Taking abandoned property is not a crime under the laws of the jurisdiction. Should the man be convicted of larceny?
Correct Answer: No, because the man’s mistake was honestly made.
Answer choice B is correct.
The man’s mistake was connected with the ownership status of the car, and not the law of larceny in the jurisdiction. Thus, his mistake was one of fact and not of law. Larceny is a specific intent crime, and an honest mistake of fact, whether reasonable or not, serves as a defense to a specific intent crime because such an honest mistake negates the required mens rea. Consequently, the man should not be convicted of larceny.
General intent crimes can only be defended with reasonable mistakes of fact.
Answer choice A is incorrect because, although taking abandoned property is not a crime, the car had not been abandoned. Answer choice C is incorrect because the mistake was of fact, not of law. Answer choice D is incorrect because an honest but unreasonable mistake of fact serves as a defense to a specific intent crime.
False pretenses
The crime of false pretenses occurs when an individual
(i) obtains title to property
(ii) of another person
(iii) through the reliance of that person
(iv) on a known false representation of a material past or present fact
(v) and the representation is made with the intent to defraud.
Forgery
(i) falsifying document
(ii) with legal significance
Larceny by trick
Gets the person possession not title.
Involuntary Manslaughter
A defendant can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter when he acts with criminal negligence—reckless action that puts another person at a significant risk of injury or death. It requires more than the ordinary negligence required for tort liability but something less than the extremely negligent conduct required for depraved heart murder.
A defendant was convicted of bank robbery in federal court. Subsequently, the defendant was indicted in the state where the bank was located for the crimes of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The defendant moved to dismiss the state prosecution of these offenses on double jeopardy grounds. Should the defendant’s motion be granted?
Correct Answer: No, as to either offense.
Answer choice D is correct.
Under the “Dual Sovereignty” doctrine, prosecution of a defendant by the federal government for a crime arising out of an event does not prevent a state from prosecuting the defendant for a crime arising out of the same event. (Note: Under this doctrine, the reverse is also true.) Double Jeopardy only applies to the same soverign prosecuting the person again.
Under Blockburger, robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery are separate offenses. Each contains an element that the other does not.
Consequently, prosecution of the defendant for either robbery or conspiracy to commit robbery by the state is not prohibited by double jeopardy. For these reasons, answer choices A, B, and C are incorrect.
A woman took her car to an unscrupulous auto mechanic’s garage for a tune-up. The woman’s car had a new and expensive set of tires that the mechanic coveted. The woman left her car at the garage overnight. Later that night, after the woman had left the premises, the mechanic took the tires off the woman’s car, put them into a back room of his garage, and replaced the tires with a cheap, old set. That same evening, the woman’s friend told her about the mechanic’s unscrupulous nature, and that he had a habit of stealing tires. The woman went back to the garage the next morning. Noticing that the tires on her vehicle were different, she demanded that the new, expensive tires be put back on the vehicle. The mechanic complied, and the woman left the premises. The woman reported the mechanic to the police, and the mechanic is charged with larceny. Based on the foregoing facts, should he be convicted of the crime?
Correct Answer: No, because the car was left with the mechanic by consent.
Answer choice C is correct.
For a larceny, the initial taking and asportation of another’s property must be trespassory; that is, the defendant must not be legally entrusted with the property.
Here, the woman entrusted the mechanic with her vehicle (and the tires on the vehicle). Thus, the initial taking of the tires was not trespassory, and the mechanic’s crime was embezzlement, not larceny. Answer choices A and B are incorrect because, while both correctly apply elements of larceny, they incorrectly state that the mechanic should be convicted. Because the mechanic had the intention of permanently depriving the woman of the tires at the time of the taking, answer choice D is incorrect. That he later returned them to the woman is of no matter.
Answer choice A is correct.
Robbery is defined as (i) larceny, (ii) from the person or presence of the victim, (iii) by force or intimidation.
Robbery is larcency through force, fear, or intimidation.
The force used by a defendant must be more than the amount necessary to effectuate taking and carrying away the property. Force can include giving a victim drugs in order to induce unconsciousness and thereby permit the larceny to occur.
