Criminal Law Flashcards
Smart approached Johnson and inquired about hiring someone to kill his girlfriend’s parents. Unknown to Smart, Johnson was an undercover police officer who pretended to agree to handle the job and secretly taped subsequent conversations with Smart concerning plans and payment. A few days before the payment was due, Smart changed his mind and called the plan off. Nevertheless, Smart was charged with solicitation to commit murder.
Should Smart be convicted?
(A) Yes, because Johnson agreed to commit the offense.
(B) Yes, because the offense was completed before his attempt to withdraw.
(C) No, because he withdrew before payment and commission of the act.
(D) No, because no substantial acts were performed.
B
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 acts toward commission of the crime.
(B) No, because he was illegally arrested.
(C) Yes, because by objective standards an agreement between them had occurred.
(D) Yes, because his intention to obtain the cocaine was unequivocally expressed.
A
Beth wanted to make some money, so she decided to sell cocaine. She asked Albert, who was reputed to have access to illegal drugs, to supply her with cocaine so she could resell it. Albert agreed and sold Beth a bag of white powder. Beth then repackaged the white powder into smaller containers and sold one to Carol, an undercover police officer, who promptly arrested Beth. Beth immediately confessed and said that Albert was her supplier. Upon examination, the white powder was found not to be cocaine or any type of illegal substance.
If Albert knew the white powder was not cocaine but Beth believed it was, which of the following is correct?
(A) Both Albert and Beth are guilty of attempting to sell cocaine.
(B) Albert is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is not.
(C) Albert is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but Beth is.
(D) Neither Albert nor Beth is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine.
C
A drug dealer agreed with another individual to purchase heroin from the individual in order to sell it on a city street corner. Unknown 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 all the elements of conspiracy were present and cannot take advantage of a mistake of fact or law.
B
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of the crime charged?
(A) Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner’s car for the evening by falsely promising to return it, although he does not intend to do so . Two days later, he changes his mind and returns the car. Defendant is charged with larceny by trick.
(B) Without the permission of Owner , Defendant takes Owner’s car with the intention of driving it three miles to a grocery store and back. Defendant is charged with larceny.
(C) Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner’s car for the evening by misrepresenting his identity and falsely claiming he has a valid driver’s license. He returns the car the next day. Defendant is charged with obtaining property by false pretenses.
(D) With permission, Defendant, promising to return it by 9:00 p.m., borrows Owner’s car. Later in the evening, Defendant decides to keep the car until the next morning and does so. Defendant is charged with embezzlement.
A
Defendant was tried for robbery. Victim and Worth were the only witnesses called to testify. Victim testified that Defendant threatened her with a knife, grabbed her purse, and ran off with it. Worth testified that he saw Defendant grab Victim’s purse and run away with it but that he neither saw a knife nor heard any threats.
On this evidence the jury could properly return a verdict of guilty of
(A) larceny only.
(B) robbery only.
(C) both robbery and larceny.
(D) either robbery or larceny.
D
A woman decided to steal a necklace that belonged to her neighbor. She knew where the neighbor kept the necklace because she had been in the neighbor’s house on many occasions when the neighbor had taken off the necklace and put it away in a jewelry box in the bathroom. One night, the woman went to the neighbor’s house. The neighbor was away and the house was dark. The woman opened the bathroom window, saw the jewelry box on the counter, and started to climb inside . As her leg cleared the window sill, the neighbor’s cat let out a loud screech. Terrified, the woman bolted back outside and fled. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness.
What is the most serious crime committed by the woman?
(A) Burglary.
(B) Attempted burglary.
(C) Attempted larceny.
(D) No crime.
A
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of common-law murder?
(A) Using his fist, Defendant punches Walter in the face. As a result of the blow, Walter falls and hits his head on a concrete curb, suffers a concussion, and dies.
(B) During an argument, Harry slaps Defendant. Angered, Defendant responds by shooting and killing Harry.
(C) Defendant drives his car through a red light and strikes and kills a pedestrian who is crossing the street.
(D) Angered because his neighbor is having a noisy party, Defendant fires a rifle into the neighbor’s house. The bullet strikes and kills a guest at the party.
D
A state statute defines murder in the first degree as “knowingly causing the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.” Second-degree murder is defined as “knowingly causing the death of another person.” Manslaughter is defined as at common law. Deliberation is defined as “cool reflection for any length of time, no matter how brief.” The defendant, despondent and angry over losing his job, was contemplating suicide. He took his revolver, went to a bar, and drank until he was very intoxicated. A customer on the next stool was telling the bartender how it was necessary for companies to downsize and become more efficient in order to keep the economy strong. The defendant turned to him and said, “Why don’t you shut the hell up.” The customer responded, “This is a free country and I can say what I want,” all the while shaking his finger at the defendant. The finger-shaking, combined with his already bad disposition and the alcohol, enraged the defendant. Trembling with fury, he snatched his revolver from his pocket and shot and killed the customer.
What crime did the defendant commit?
(A) Manslaughter, because there was a reasonable explanation for his becoming enraged.
(B) Murder in the first degree, because deliberation can take place in an instant.
(C) Murder in the first degree, because he contemplated taking a human life before becoming intoxicated.
(D) Murder in the second degree, because he knowingly caused the customer’s death without deliberation.
D
In a criminal trial, the evidence showed that the defendant’s neighbor tried to kill the defendant by stabbing him. The defendant ran to his room, picked up a gun, and told his neighbor to back off. The neighbor did not, but continued her attack and stabbed him in the arm. The defendant then shot the neighbor twice. The neighbor fell to the floor and lay quietly moaning. After a few seconds, the defendant fired a third shot into the neighbor. The jury found that the neighbor died instantly from the third shot and that the defendant was no longer in fear of being attacked by her.
The defendant could properly be convicted of which of the following degrees of criminal homicide, if any?
(A) Attempted murder only.
(B) Manslaughter only.
(C) Murder or manslaughter.
(D) No degree of criminal homicide.
C
