Crim Pro Flashcards
A witness who was not a defendant invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during a federal criminal trial for insider trading. After being given derivative-use immunity, the witness testified. Several weeks later, the witness was a defendant in a state-law civil fraud proceeding based on his previous testimony in the federal trial. He moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the previous grant of immunity protected him against a future action against him. Will the defendant’s motion be granted?
Correct Answer: No, because the defendant’s immunity does not extend to a subsequent civil trial.
Answer choice D is correct. 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. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while it is true that a witness need not be a defendant in order to be given immunity, such immunity does not extend to use of the witness’s testimony at a subsequent civil trial. Answer choice B is incorrect because immunity, whether transactional or derivative-use immunity, does not apply to subsequent civil actions. Answer choice C is incorrect because immunity is not limited to federal prosecution despite the “separate sovereignty” doctrine. However, it is limited to criminal prosecutions.
A law makes it a crime to “knowingly sell, distribute, or barter a sexually explicit film featuring actors younger than the age of majority.” The owner of an adult video store sold explicit videos in her store that featured 18-year-old actors, but she took reasonable steps to ensure that no videos featuring younger actors were sold in her store. The video store owner, however, incorrectly believed that the age of majority in the jurisdiction was 18; in fact, the age of majority was 19 years old. The owner was arrested and charged with violating the statute in a jurisdiction that has adopted the Model Penal Code. The prosecution does not contest that her error was made honestly. Should she nonetheless be convicted?
Correct Answer: No, because the owner’s error negated the requisite mens rea.
Answer choice C is correct.
If a statute does not state the culpable mind applicable to all material elements of the crime, then the mens rea applicable to one material element is applicable to all material elements unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.
Consequently, the “knowingly” state of mind is applied to both the “sell, distribute, or barter a sexually explicit film” element and the “featuring actors younger than the age of majority” element. Here, the store owner subjectively did not know that the videos she was selling featured performers below the age of majority; thus, she cannot be convicted under the statute. For the foregoing reasons, answer choice B is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect because an honest mistake of law can be a valid defense when the mistake negates the required intent. Answer choice D is incorrect because it applies the “purposely” mental state, when “knowingly,” a lesser mental state, is the mens rea required by the statute.
A series of burglaries was committed while the inhabitants were away from their homes. A police officer, relying in good faith on a valid search warrant for evidence related to these burglaries, knocked on the door of the residence specified in the warrant but did not identify himself as a police officer. Without waiting for the door to be opened by the inhabitants, the officer pried it open with a crowbar, even though he had no specific reason to believe that evidence would be destroyed or that he was in danger. The officer did not find any evidence related to the burglaries, but did find a cache of illegal drugs in plain view. The applicable statute provides that an officer can break into a house “if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance.” Prior to the trial of the homeowner for possession of the illegal drugs found during the search, the homeowner moved to exclude the drugs as evidence. Should the court grant this motion?
You Selected: No, because the officer had a valid search warrant and the drugs were in plain view.
Answer choice B is correct.
When a police officer executing a valid search warrant fails to adhere to a “knock and announce” statute, evidence seized is not subject to the exclusionary rule, despite that failure.
Answer choice A is incorrect because the police officer’s good faith reliance on a valid warrant is irrelevant. The fact that the warrant itself is valid is sufficient to constitutionally justify the search or arrest authorized by the warrant. Answer choice C is incorrect because items that are in plain view, such as the illegal drugs, may be seized by an officer who is executing a valid warrant. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the officer violated the “knock and announce” statute, such a violation does not require the exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant.
Searchs of cars after driver arrested
Answer choice A is correct.
In order to qualify as a lawful search incident to arrest, a search of a car in which the defendant was an occupant must be made at the time that the defendant has access to the car or to uncover evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested.
Cops can search wingspan area for safety and can search that area for fruits (and can obviously get anything within plain view).
A wife discovered that her husband had been having an affair with her best friend for many months. Enraged, the wife decided to invite her best friend over for poolside cocktails, spike her drinks with a strong sedative, and then push her into the pool to drown after she passed out. The best friend agreed to come over, but because the wife was extremely nervous, she took ten times the recommended amount of her prescribed anti-anxiety medication. The best friend arrived to find the wife acting erratically, clearly under the influence of the drugs. However, the wife managed to add the sedative to the best friend’s cocktails, and when she passed out, the wife pushed her into the pool. The best friend drowned. The police eventually arrested and charged the wife with first-degree murder. The jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as a deliberate and premeditated unlawful killing of another human being.
Does the wife have a valid intoxication defense to the first-degree murder charge?
Answer choice D is correct.
Voluntary intoxication is the intentional taking of a substance known to be intoxicating. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a specific-intent crime when the intent was formed before intoxication.
After learning that their neighbor had a safe full of money and other valuables in his home, two friends decided to break into the neighbor’s house and take the money and valuables. They successfully broke into the house and located the safe inside a closet, but were unable to either open the safe or remove it to open later. They did, however, discover several valuable looking hunting rifles in the closet, and decided to take those, instead. They agreed to store the rifles at the first friend’s house while they figured out what to do with them. Later that night, the first friend was examining one of the rifles when it discharged, killing him. Using footage from the neighbor’s home security system, the police were able to identify the two friends, and they arrested the second friend for felony murder.
At trial, which of the following, if established, would be the second friend’s best defense?
You Selected: The second friend did not act maliciously with regard to the first friend’s death.
The second friend was not the principal of the underlying felony.
Correct Answer: The second friend’s felony was not causally connected to the first friend’s death
Answer choice D is correct.
Felony murder is an unintended killing proximately caused by and during the commission or attempted commission of an inherently dangerous felony. To defend against a felony murder charge successfully, the defendant can establish that the death was not a foreseeable result or a natural and probable consequence of the felony (i.e., there was no proximate causation).
Here, the second friend’s best defense is that the first friend’s death was not proximately caused by the burglary. Although they stole the rifles from the home that they attempted to rob, the first friend’s death was not a natural or probable consequence of that robbery. He did not die during the commission of the felony, or while he was fleeing the scene of the crime, which would be foreseeable situations where the first friend might be killed; he died while handling a rifle later that night. Answer choice A is incorrect because if the death had been caused by a victim or police officer, that actually could be a defense; the fact that it was not is not a defense. Answer choice B is incorrect because felony murder does not require the defendant to act maliciously in bringing about the death of the victim. Answer choice C is incorrect because there is no requirement that a defendant be the principal party to a crime to be liable for felony murder. Even if the second friend can successfully argue that he was only an accomplice with regards to the burglary, he would still be liable for the burglary and any other crimes if they were the natural and probable consequence of the accomplice’s conduct.
A college student had been flirting with a teaching assistant who was in his 20s. She invited the assistant to her dorm room to have sexual intercourse. He arrived at 9:00 p.m., and she immediately took his hand and led him to her bed. After they kissed for a few minutes, the assistant began to remove his clothes. The student then said, “I’ve changed my mind. I don’t want to have sex.” The assistant said, “Come on. I really like you.” Even though the assistant tried for a few minutes to persuade her, the student continued to refuse to have sex, and the assistant left. The assistant did not know that the student was a child prodigy and was a 14-year-old college sophomore. She appeared to be older, and the assistant reasonably believed she was probably about 19 years old.
In this jurisdiction, statutory rape is a strict-liability crime defined, in pertinent part, as “having sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 15.”
Should the state charge the teaching assistant with attempted rape under this statutory provision?
You Selected: No, because the assistant did not intend to have intercourse with a person under the age of 15.
Answer choice D is correct.
Although intent is not required for a strict liability crime such as the one detailed here, an attempted crime requires a substantial step and the specific intent to commit the crime. Because the teaching assistant did not have the specific intent to have sex with a person under the age of 15 when he tried to have sex with the student, he cannot be guilty of attempted rape.
Answer choice A is incorrect because any attempt crime requires specific intent, even when the underlying crime is a strict-liability offense. Answer choice B is incorrect because the facts do not suggest that the sexual contact continued after the student changed her mind. Therefore, neither an attempted or completed rape charge is appropriate. Answer choice C is incorrect because consent, which the student later revoked, is not a defense to a strict-liability crime. This answer choice is therefore not determinative, because the student’s consent would not have excused the teaching assistant’s conduct if he had acted with the requisite specific intent for attempting to violate the statute.
Pursuant to a valid warrant properly served, a police officer arrested a woman in her home for larceny. The police officer did not read the woman her Miranda warnings. In his experience, many arrestees made incriminating statements immediately post-arrest, and he was hoping she would do so. He walked with her along the sidewalk to his squad car, holding her elbow because her hands were cuffed behind her back. As they walked, she said, “I didn’t mean to take the perfume. It just fell into my purse.” At the police station, the officer gave the woman Miranda warnings. The woman then told the officer that she wanted to remain silent. She did not say anything further.
The prosecution seeks to admit the woman’s statement regarding the perfume into evidence. She has moved to suppress, arguing (i) that she was not given Miranda warnings before she made the statement and (ii) that the police officer had intentionally manipulated her into making an incriminating statement when she was already under arrest.
How should the court rule on the woman’s motion to suppress?
Correct Answer: Deny the motion.
Answer choice A is correct. The motion should be denied on both grounds. A suspect is entitled to Miranda warnings only if she is in custody and being interrogated. Volunteered statements, however, are not protected by Miranda, as they are, by definition, not the product of interrogation. Therefore, because the woman’s statement was voluntary, it is not protected by Miranda. Accordingly, answer choice B is incorrect. Answer choices C and D incorrect. Although interrogation can include not only express questioning but also any words or actions that the police know or should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response, the mere failure to give Miranda warnings in the hopes that the defendant will talk does not constitute interrogation. Here, the officer did not make any statements or take any other actions that he knew or should have known would elicit an incriminating response from the woman. Although the woman was in custody, she was not being interrogated.
