Crim/Crim Pro Flashcards
A man and his girlfriend spent the afternoon at the beach, where each of them consumed a significant quantity of alcohol. The man saw one of the town’s wealthiest residents arrive at the beach, spread out a beach towel, put down a large cloth bag on the towel, drop what looked like a wallet into the bag, and run into the ocean. The man told his girlfriend what he had seen the wealthy man do. She didn’t respond, but walked over to the bag and opened it. The bag did not contain the man’s wallet, but it did contain an expensive ring. She took the ring, and closed the bag. The wealthy man’s companion, who was just coming onto the beach, observed the girlfriend’s actions. The girlfriend was arrested. Soon thereafter, the man was arrested as well. The man is charged with conspiracy to commit larceny, among other crimes. The applicable jurisdiction has adopted a conspiracy statute based on the Model Penal Code. Which of the following is the weakest argument that the man can advance in defense of the charge?
The man did not perform an overt act to advance the conspiracy.
An overt act need not necessarily be performed by the defendant, but may be performed by any party to the conspiracy. The girlfriend’s act of searching through the wealthy man’s bag suffices.
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?
Murder.
The man may be convicted of depraved heart murder. Depraved heart murder is a killing that results when the defendant recklessly acts with extreme indifference to human life. 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.
Police officers have a reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause, that the defendant committed a robbery. The police officers, acting without a warrant, went to the defendant’s home and requested that he come to the stationhouse for fingerprinting. The defendant refused until the police officers threatened him with arrest. The defendant, reasonably believing that he was not free to deny the officers’ request, accompanied the police officers to the stationhouse, where he was fingerprinted. His fingerprints matched those taken from the scene of the crime. Consequently, the defendant was arrested and charged with the robbery. At his trial, the defendant moved to suppress the fingerprint evidence. Should the judge grant this motion?
Yes, because the police officers’ action constituted an unlawful seizure and evidence seized as a consequence must be excluded.
The police officers could not compel the defendant to come to the stationhouse for fingerprinting in the absence of probable cause. Reasonable suspicions alone are insufficient. A seizure takes place when, in view of all the circumstances, a reasonable person concludes that he is not free to leave. Here, an illegal seizure took place because the police officers lacked probable cause. Consequently, the evidence seized was the poisonous fruit of the defendant’s illegal seizure.
One summer night, a man attended a party at one of the most lavish homes in town. Midway through the party, the man asked the host if he could use the restroom, and the host directed him to a restroom on the second floor of the house. After using the restroom, the man became curious about the other rooms upstairs, and wondered if they were as beautiful as the rest of the house. His curiosity got the best of him, and he turned the handle and opened a door, which turned out to be the master bedroom. He stepped inside the room and immediately saw a large pearl necklace on the vanity table. He walked over to the table, grabbed the pearls, put them in his pocket, left the room, and went downstairs. Later in the evening, the party host saw the pearls slip out of the man’s pocket. She immediately confronted the man and called the police. If the man is later charged with common-law burglary, what is the man’s best defense to the charge?
The man did not intend to steal anything when he entered the room.
At common law, burglary is defined as the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. When the man opened the door to the bedroom, he was merely curious to see the room, and did not intend to steal anything. Thus, a required element of burglary is lacking and he cannot be convicted of the crime.
Does the Model Penal Code require an overt act for conspiracy?
YES
What is derivative-use immunity?
Derivative-use immunity protects a witness from the use of the witness’s own testimony, or any evidence derived from that testimony, against the witness in a subsequent prosecution, but does not protect him from its use in a civil suit.
An indigent defendant was indicted for driving under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor. The lawyer who had been appointed to represent the defendant suffered a fatal heart attack on his way to the courthouse on the day scheduled for the trial. In discussing the absence of the defendant’s lawyer with the defendant, the trial judge learned from the defendant that he intended to plead guilty. The judge indicated that, in exchange for the defendant’s guilty plea, the defendant would not serve time in prison. The defendant agreed and was sentenced to two months in prison, with the sentence suspended. The defendant appealed his conviction, contending that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at trial. Should the judge reverse the defendant’s conviction?
Yes, because the defendant was convicted of a crime for which a sentence of incarceration was imposed.
A defendant has the right to the assistance of counsel at any trial that results in incarceration, even when that sentence is suspended.
Crime of 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. All elements of the crime are implicated in the man’s conduct of paying the discounted price for the suit—he obtained legal title to the suit through fraudulent means.
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?
No, as to either offense.
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.) 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.
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?
No, because the car was left with the mechanic by consent.
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.
A man asked a friend to burn down the man’s residence so the man could collect the fire insurance proceeds. The friend stated that she would be willing to set fire to the residence for $20,000. The man offered $10,000, but the friend refused. Later, the man set fire to an office building that he owned in order to collect the fire insurance proceeds. The man honestly, but unreasonably and incorrectly, believed that there was no one in the building when he set the fire. There was a person in the office building at the time of the fire who escaped unharmed. The man is charged with solicitation and arson. The relevant statute defines arson as “the malicious burning of any dwelling or occupied structure.” Can the man be convicted of these crimes?
Yes, as to both solicitation and arson.
The man can be convicted of solicitation because he asked his friend to commit the crime of arson with the intent that the friend would do so. While solicitation to commit a crime is a completed crime in itself, it merges into the completed crime being solicited. However, the completed crime here was a different crime from the crime solicited because it involved the burning of a different structure, so the solicitation conviction stands. The man can be convicted of arson because he burned down his office building at a time when a person was inside. The fact that the person inside was not harmed is irrelevant. The man’s unreasonable mistake as to the person’s presence in the building is not a defense to a malice crime.
A defendant is on trial for robbery. A witness picked the defendant’s picture out of a photo array that was conducted by a police officer at the police station after the defendant’s arrest. The photo array was impermissibly suggestive. No counsel was present for the defendant at the photo array. Later, at trial, the witness identified the defendant. Because of the witness’s extended opportunity to view the defendant at the time of the crime, this identification was reliable. The defendant moves to suppress the identification. Should the court grant this motion?
No, because the identification was reliable.
In order for a witness to be prevented from identifying the defendant in court due to a previous impermissibly suggestive photo array, the witness’s in-court identification must be unreliable, which is not the case here.
Arriving home from work, a husband found his wife engaged in sex with his best friend. The husband flew into a rage and verbally threatened to shoot both of them, although he did not own a gun. The best friend quickly left and the husband eventually calmed down and regained his self-control after his wife promised not to see the best friend again. Nevertheless, the husband left the house to purchase a handgun. After making his purchase, he stopped by a local bar and became inebriated. In the meantime, the best friend returned to drop off the husband’s favorite hat, which the husband had left at the best friend’s house the day before. Only the wife was home, but as the wife was giving the best friend a goodbye hug, the husband returned home, still inebriated. As both the wife and the best friend attempted to explain the innocent nature of their being together, the husband, his shock over their relationship returning, pulled the trigger. His shot missed the best friend and instead killed the wife. The husband was charged with common law murder of his wife. Which of the following would be his best argument against the charge?
The sight of his best friend and his wife together again reignited his feelings regarding his wife’s adultery.
Adequate provocation reduces common law murder to voluntary manslaughter. Although the discovery of his wife’s adultery would likely have been adequate provocation, the husband cooled off long enough to gain his self-control before finding his wife and his best friend together a second time. Merely seeing his wife embrace his best friend would not constitute adequate provocation. However, assuming this second incident rekindled the passions that had been inflamed by the earlier incident, the husband could reclaim the partial defense of adequate provocation.
