Crim Law

Question 1

Regulatory Offense

Answer 1

The crime in question is a regulatory offense. Such offenses, particularly when public health or safety is concern, are usually strict-liability offenses that do not require a specific mens rea.

Question 2

Accomplice Liability

Answer 2

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. If the principal commits crimes other than the crimes for which the accomplice has provided encouragement or assistance, an accomplice is liable for the other crimes if they are the natural and probable consequences of the accomplice’s conduct.

Question 3

Merger

Answer 3

an underlying felony will generally merge into the crime of felony murder. In this case, the robbery conviction would merge into the felony murder conviction.

under the doctrine of merger. Rather, the battery would merge into the more serious crime of robbery.?

I don’t understand merger.

Question 4

Larceny by Trick

Answer 4

A defendant is guilty of larceny by trick if she obtains possession (but not title) to property owned by another through fraud or deceit, with the intent to permanently deprive the victim of that property, resulting in the conversion of the property.

Question 5

Wharton Rule

Answer 5

Under the Wharton Rule, if a crime requires two or more participants (e.g., adultery) there is no conspiracy unless more parties than are necessary to complete the crime agree to commit the crime.

Question 6

Wharton Rule

Answer 6

Under the Wharton Rule, if a crime requires two or more participants (e.g., adultery) there is no conspiracy unless more parties than are necessary to complete the crime agree to commit the crime.

Question 7

Attempt in Common Law

Answer 7

An attempt requires a specific intent to commit a criminal act coupled with a substantial step taken toward the commission of the intended crime. At common law, once the defendant has taken a substantial step toward the commission of the offense, the defendant may not legally abandon the attempt to commit the crime because of a change of heart. Upon the completion of a substantial step, the crime of attempt is completed; there can be no abandonment or withdrawal.

Question 8

Factual Impossibility and Attempts

Answer 8

A factual impossibility occurs when, at the time of the attempt, the facts make the intended crime impossible to commit although the defendant is unaware of this when the attempt is made. However, factual impossibility is not a defense to the crime of attempt.

Question 9

Felony Murder and Duress

Answer 9

A defendant charged with felony murder may claim duress as a defense to the underlying felony and avoid conviction for felony murder

Question 10

Conspiracy and single trial?

Answer 10

At common law, a conspirator cannot be convicted of conspiracy if all other conspirators are acquitted at the same trial, because there must be more than one conspirator to have a conspiracy.

Question 11

Foreseeability and Merger. Fuck Merger

Answer 11

To prove a homicide, the prosecution must show that the defendant was the actual and proximate cause of the victim’s death. If the victim would not have died but for the defendant’s act, then the defendant’s act is the actual cause of the killing. To prove proximate cause, the death must be foreseeable. A defendant’s conduct is deemed to be foreseeable if death is the natural and probable result of the conduct. Actions by a third party (e.g., negligence by the doctor treating the victim) are generally foreseeable. In this case, the boss’s wife was the actual and proximate cause of the colleague’s death, and thus would be guilty of murder of the colleague. Although the crimes of murder and attempted murder would usually merge, they only merge as to the same person.

Question 12

Larceny and Attempt. Ugh

Answer 12

he gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. Therefore, the gardener’s mistaken belief that he was stealing a more valuable kind of heirloom parsley is not a defense because it did not negate his intent to steal. Additionally, even though surplus parsley plants from the greenhouse were being given away for free, the plants on display in the store were not. Therefore, the gardener has committed a larceny regardless of whether he saw the sign because he was unlawfully taking the property of the garden center with the intent to permanently deprive the store of the parsley plants.

Question 13

Consent

Answer 13

Fraudulent conduct does not negate consent in most situations.

Question 14

robbery vs. Larceny

Answer 14

Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or intimidation. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the person of the property.

Seriously fuck crime law

Question 15

Essay answer for Mental Insanity

Answer 15

In the majority of jurisdictions, the defendant has the burden of proving insanity. The level of proof required in this jurisdiction is a preponderance of the evidence. Insanity includes mental abnormalities that may affect legal responsibility.

Question 16

Depraved Heart vs Involuntary Mansalughter

Answer 16

In most states, a killing that results from reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life is a depraved-heart murder. Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional homicide committed with criminal negligence or during an unlawful act. Criminal negligence is grossly negligent action that puts another person at a significant risk of serious bodily injury or death. It requires more than ordinary tort negligence, but less than the conduct required for depraved-heart murder. Under the Model Penal Code, the defendant must have acted recklessly, which is a “gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation,” and must have been actually aware of the risk his conduct posed.

Question 17

Murder and Intent to Commit Seriously Bodily Injury

Answer 17

At common law, a defendant could be convicted of murder not only for an intentional killing, but also for causing another’s death by actions intended to cause serious bodily injury short of death.

Question 18

Conspiracy and proof of evidence?

Answer 18

A conviction of conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit a crime and, in some jurisdictions or under some statutes, proof of an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The conspiratorial agreement need not be proven through direct evidence, as long as the circumstantial evidence taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution is sufficient to allow a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiratorial agreement.

Question 19

Accomplice Liability Maj or Min

Answer 19

at common law, an accomplice could be convicted of a crime only if the principal was also previously convicted of the crime. A small minority of jurisdictions still subscribe to this approach. By modern statute, however, and in a majority of jurisdictions (including the jurisdiction here), an accomplice may be convicted of a crime even if the principal is not tried, is not convicted, has been given immunity from prosecution, or is acquitted.

Question 20

Do you have to actually aid in accomplice liability?

Answer 20

Yes. The girlfriend is guilty as an accomplice because she provided aid to the man with the intent of helping him break into the shed and steal the mower; the fact that the man ultimately used an alternative means to accomplish his crimes does not eliminate the girlfriend’s accomplice liability.

Question 21

Kidnapping and Movement during another crime

Answer 21

One of the elements of kidnapping is the perpetrator must hide the victim for a substantial period of time or move the victim at least a short distance. If the kidnapping occurs incident to another crime (e.g., robbery), then the movement must be more than is necessary for the commission of that crime in order for the perpetrator to be liable for both kidnapping and the separate offense.

Question 22

Conspiracy Withdrawal. I need to know this better

Answer 22

Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose with the intent to accomplish that purpose. The majority rule requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the majority rule, withdrawal is possible between the date of the agreement and the commission of the overt act. Upon completion of the overt act, the conspiracy is formed and withdrawal is no longer possible. In this case, the conspiracy was complete when the sister purchased the gun and laid in wait for the husband, and thus her later actions were insufficient to withdraw from the conspiracy. An attempt requires a specific intent to commit a criminal act coupled with a substantial step taken toward the commission of the intended crime, which fails to be completed. Certain acts, such as lying in wait for the victim or possessing materials required for the crime, may constitute a substantial step if they corroborate the defendant’s criminal purpose. In this case, the sister purchased a gun and then waited in the garage to shoot the husband, and thus completed a substantial step toward murder.

Question 23

False Pretenses and Forgery

Answer 23

False pretenses requires obtaining title to the property of another person through the reliance of that person on a known false representation of a material past or present fact, and the representation is made with the intent to defraud. Here, the apprentice made a false representation about who created the sculpture with the intent to cause a person to pay a higher amount of money for the sculpture than would have been paid if the person knew that the apprentice made the sculpture. This material misrepresentation induced the buyer at the auction to transfer $75,000 to the apprentice. Thus, the apprentice is guilty of false pretenses, and answer choices B and D are incorrect. Forgery is the making of a false writing with apparent legal significance and with the intent to defraud. Making includes creating, altering, or fraudulently inducing another to sign a document when that person is unaware of the significance of the document. Here, the apprentice used a document to authenticate her sculpture as that of the deceased sculptor. However, the apprentice made no changes to the document.

Question 24

Depraved Heart murder vs felony murder

Answer 24

In this jurisdiction, all murders that do not fall into the categories of first or third degree are murders in the second degree. The student’s actions in firing a gun in the classroom showed a wanton and willful disregard of an unreasonable risk to human life, which amounts to a depraved heart killing.

Question 25

Legal Impossibility

Answer 25

legal impossibility is a defense to any crime when the intended act is not a crime.

Question 26

Accomplice when the crime needs two people

Answer 26

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. However, a person is not guilty as an accomplice when that person’s action is itself an essential element of the crime. When the crime requires another party (i.e., the crime of distributing drugs requires a purchaser), the other party is not, simply by engaging in the criminal act, guilty of the crime as an accomplice

Question 27

Involuntary Manslaughter generally

Answer 27

Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional homicide committed with criminal negligence or during an unlawful act. Malum prohibitum refers to wrongs that are merely prohibited (i.e., not inherently immoral or hurtful, but wrong because of a statute), such as a parking violation, smuggling, or failure to obtain a license. A homicide resulting from a wrong that is malum prohibitum will constitute involuntary manslaughter only if the unlawful act was willful or constituted criminal negligence.

Question 28

Fitness to Stand Trial

Answer 28

A defendant’s incompetency is a bar to trial. The judge has a constitutional duty to investigate and determine the competence of the defendant to stand trial if such evidence is apparent to the judge. The test for whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is the same test for determining whether the defendant is competent to plead guilty: whether the defendant comprehends the nature of the proceedings against him and has the ability to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.

Question 29

M’Naghten test and generally just a mental disease or defect prompt

Answer 29

Under the M’Naghten NGRI test (“test”), a defendant is not guilty if, because of a defect of reason due to a mental disease, the defendant did not know either (i) the nature and quality of the act, or (ii) the wrongfulness of the act. However, loss of control because of mental illness is not a defense under this test.

Go into both of those in your actual answer.

Question 30

Accessory Differences

Answer 30

The difference between an accessory before the fact and a principal in the second degree is presence. An accomplice who is physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime is a principal in the second degree. For example, a getaway driver some distance from the scene is deemed constructively present and will be considered a principal in the second degree. An accomplice who is neither physically nor constructively present during the commission of the crime, but who possesses the requisite intent, is an accessory before the fact.

Question 31

Factual impossibility

Answer 31

Impossibility is not a defense to a charge of attempt if the crime attempted is factually impossible to commit due to circumstances unknown to the defendant. In other words, if the facts were what the woman here believed them to be, there would have been a crime.

Question 32

Robbery, who does the threat need to be against?

Answer 32

Although robbery does require that the defendant take property through force or intimidation, the threat of immediate serious physical injury need not be made against the victim himself, but may be made against another person who is present when the threat is made. Moreover, the other person against whom serious physical harm is threatened need not be related to the victim.

Question 33

Robbery and a claim of right

Answer 33

Both robbery and larceny are specific-intent crimes. Accordingly, an honest mistake of fact can constitute a defense to either crime even though that mistake is unreasonable. However, when a defendant uses force or intimidation to gain possession of the property from the person or presence of the victim, a claim of right cannot serve as a justification for the crime of robbery.

Question 34

Transferred provocation

Answer 34

Voluntary manslaughter is murder committed in response to adequate provocation (i.e., in the “heat of passion”); that is, the defendant was provoked by a situation that could inflame the passion of a reasonable person to the extent that it could cause that person to momentarily act out of passion rather than reason. Generally, a serious battery constitutes adequate provocation. Here, the attack on the father’s daughter, which resulted in her overnight hospitalization, constitutes a serious battery. Under the doctrine of transferred provocation, when a defendant accidentally kills the wrong person, he will be guilty of voluntary manslaughter if that would have been his crime had he killed the provoker.