Criminal Law And Procedure - Knowledge Set Flashcards

Question

A driver was operating her car on a city street when she was stopped by a police officer for speeding. As the police officer reached the driver's car, he saw her put something into her purse. The officer told the driver, "Ma'am, you were speeding; that's why I stopped you. I'd like your driver's license, and, by the way, what did you just put into your purse?" The driver responded, "It's just a marijuana cigarette, but don't worry, I've only had two and my driving judgment hasn't been impaired." The officer took her purse, removed the "joint," and charged the driver with possession of marijuana as well as speeding. At the driver's trial for marijuana possession, the prosecution seeks to introduce the marijuana cigarette into evidence. The driver's attorney moves to suppress the evidence. The defense motion should be: A Granted, because the cigarette is fruit of the poisonous tree. B Granted, because the police officer did not have a valid search warrant. C Denied, because the police officer's asking about the contents of the driver's purse did not constitute custodial interrogation. D Denied, provided the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Answer 1

C The defense motion should be denied because the driver was not in custody when she made the statement. Persons temporarily detained for routine traffic stops are not in custody for Miranda purposes. Therefore, the driver was not entitled to Miranda warnings, and her statement about the marijuana was not tainted. Her statement thus properly provided the probable cause for the search of her purse. (A) is therefore wrong. (B) is wrong because this case falls within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Under that exception, if the police have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband or fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime, they may search the vehicle, including the driver's belongings, without a warrant. Here, the driver's response established probable cause to search her purse.(D) states the test for a stop, not a search. An automobile search requires probable cause.

Answer 2

D The defendant's confession should be admitted because he waived his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination after receiving Miranda warnings. Miranda v. Arizona requires that a person in custody be informed of his right to remain silent and his right to the presence of an attorney during questioning. A suspect may subsequently waive his rights by making a confession, as long as the waiver was knowing and voluntary. In this case, the defendant received proper Miranda warnings, and there is no indication that he did not understand what his rights were. Although his answers during questioning were initially unresponsive, he never asked for an attorney or indicated that he wished to remain silent, and he voluntarily confessed after a relatively short period of interrogation. Hence, he validly waived his Miranda rights. (A) is incorrect because the police have no duty to inform the defendant that an attorney is attempting to see him. The defendant's ignorance of his attorney's efforts has no bearing on whether he made a knowing waiver of his Miranda rights. (B) is incorrect because the defendant's right to counsel was not violated. Although the defendant does have a separate Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Escobedo v. Illinois because he has already been arrested and charged with the crime, this right would only be violated if the defendant, after being informed of his right to counsel, had requested an attorney or had been prevented from seeing his attorney. Here, he made no request to see an attorney - even when he called his mother - and his attorney was allowed to see him immediately upon her arrival. Thus, he has waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. (C) is incorrect even though it is true that the defendant made a voluntary statement. Due process requires that for confessions to be admissible, they must be "voluntary," based on the totality of the circumstances, and here all of the circumstances indicate that the defendant's confession was voluntary. However, even a voluntary confession will be inadmissible if it was obtained in violation of Miranda rights. (D) is therefore a better choice than (C).

Answer 3

C The court should sustain the objection because the police did not honor the woman's request for an attorney. At any time prior to or during a custodial interrogation, the accused may invoke a Miranda (Fifth Amendment) right to counsel. If the accused invokes this right, all questioning must cease until the accused is provided with an attorney or initiates further questioning himself. Thus, the police questioning of the woman about the robbery was improper, and she can have her statements excluded. (A) is incorrect. After receiving Miranda warnings, if an accused invokes the right to remain silent, the police cannot badger the accused. However, courts have ruled that if the police scrupulously honor the request, they can rewarn the accused and later resume questioning, at least about a different crime. Here, however, the accused did not simply invoke the right to remain silent, but rather requested an attorney. After such a request, as indicated above, all questioning must cease. (B) is incorrect because the accused does not need to reassert the right to an attorney; all questioning must stop until the accused is provided an attorney or resumes the questioning herself. (D) is incorrect. It is stating the rule for impeachment - a confession obtained in violation of a defendant's Miranda rights but otherwise voluntary may be used against the defendant for purposes of impeachment, but there is no such rule for use of the confession for other purposes.

Answer 4

A The court should grant the motion to suppress because a search warrant was required. Absent exigent circumstances, the police executing an arrest warrant may not search for the subject of the warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a separate search warrant for the home. If the police do execute an arrest warrant at the home of a third party without obtaining a search warrant for the home, the arrest is still valid but evidence of any crime found in the home cannot be used against the owner of the home because it is the fruit of an unconstitutional search. Thus, (A) is correct and (D) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect because it is too broad. A person can be arrested at the home of a third party, but the police generally cannot enter the third party's home without consent unless they have a search warrant for the home. (C) is incorrect because, as discussed above, a search warrant is required absent exigent circumstances, which are not present in this case. Here, the probable cause established by the informant's disclosure would have enabled the police to obtain a search warrant.

Answer 5

A The evidence is admissible because the search was valid. Even though the police have validly stopped an automobile, they cannot search the vehicle without meeting the requirements of one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as the automobile exception (which requires probable cause) or consent. The automobile exception comes into play when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. Under the exception, the police may search anywhere in the vehicle in which the item for which they have cause to search may be hidden, including packages in the vehicle. The statement of the man to the police officers gave them probable cause to believe that the car contained evidence of a crime (i.e., that the woman had drugs somewhere in the car). Thus, the requirement for application of the automobile exception was present, providing validity for the warrantless search conducted by the police. Because the search was valid, the evidence found on the woman is admissible. Besides being an incorrect statement of law, (B) is incorrect because it focuses on the woman's knowledge of the contents of the package. Whether the woman knew that heroin (or some other illegal substance) was in the package is irrelevant to the admissibility of the heroin. Even assuming that the woman knew of the contents, the search would not be valid unless there was a ground for the warrantless search. (D) similarly links the woman's knowledge of the package's contents to the admissibility of the evidence. As noted above, the admissibility of the evidence is dependent on the validity of the search that produced the evidence, rather than on the knowledge of the defendant as to the existence of the evidence. (C) is incorrect for three reasons: First, due process does not prohibit granting of immunity to a more culpable defendant. Second, there is no indication that immunity was even granted here (immunity from prosecution may be granted to compel a witness to answer questions. The facts merely state that the man was not arrested; this does not necessarily mean that he was granted immunity). Third, the call of the question relates to the admissibility of the evidence, and a grant of immunity does not relate to the question of the admissibility of the evidence found on the woman; such admissibility is determined by the validity of the search of the woman by the officers.

Answer 6

B The defendant can claim a reasonable expectation of privacy for Fourth Amendment purposes if she was an overnight guest of the owner of the place searched. To raise a Fourth Amendment claim of an unreasonable search or seizure, a person must have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the place searched or the item seized. It is not enough merely that someone has an expectation of privacy in the place searched. The Supreme Court has imposed a standing requirement so that a person can complain about an evidentiary search or seizure only if it violates her own reasonable expectations of privacy. The Court has held that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy any time (i) she owned or had a right to possession of the place searched, (ii) the place searched was in fact her own home, whether or not she owned or had a right to possession of it, or (iii) she was an overnight guest of the owner of the place searched. Thus, the defendant would have standing to challenge the search of the tenant's apartment if she was an overnight guest of the tenant. (A) is incorrect because standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim does not exist merely because a person will be harmed by introduction of evidence seized during an illegal search of a third person's property. The person must establish that her own reasonable expectation of privacy has been violated. (C) is wrong because the fact that the defendant was not the owner or occupier of the apartment does not preclude her from challenging the search. As discussed above, an overnight guest may also have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. (D) is incorrect. Although the defendant may have standing to object to the seizure of items if she claims ownership of them, that is not the only basis for raising a Fourth Amendment claim; she will have standing to object to the search of the apartment under the circumstances in (B) regardless of whether she claims ownership of the methamphetamine.

Answer 7

D The court should deny the defendant's motion because the officer reasonably believed that the defendant's girlfriend lived in the trailer, making the search valid. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search must be excluded from trial. To be valid, searches must be reasonable. The Supreme Court has held that most searches are unreasonable unless the police obtain a warrant before searching. However, there are six categories of searches that the Court has held to be reasonable without a warrant. One such category is searches conducted pursuant to consent. To fall within this exception to the warrant requirement, consent must be given by one who appears to have an apparent right to use or occupy the premises and the search cannot go beyond the scope of the consent given. The consent is valid as long as the police reasonably believed that the person who gave the consent had the authority to do so, and the scope of the consent is limited only to areas to which a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe it extends. Here, the girlfriend's consent was valid because the officer believed that she lived there. His belief appears to be reasonable because she answered the door, knew of the defendant's whereabouts, and readily consented to the search. Therefore, the search was valid under the consent exception and the evidence should not be excluded. (A) is incorrect because consent is not invalid merely because the person who gave it did not actually have authority to do so; the police need only reasonably believe that the person had authority to consent, and as explained above, it was reasonable for the officer to believe that the defendant's girlfriend had authority here. (B) is incorrect because the scope of consent extends to any area where a reasonable person under the circumstances would assume it extends. Because the officer told the girlfriend that he suspected the defendant of dealing drugs, it was reasonable to assume that he was looking for drugs and so would probably look in even small containers. (C) is incorrect because it appears that the defendant's trailer would not fall within the automobile exception. Certain searches of automobiles are excluded from the requirement of a warrant because the Supreme Court has held that people have a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile than in other areas and automobiles are likely to disappear before a warrant can be acquired. The automobile exception extends not only to cars, but also to other vehicles that are readily mobile and as to which there is a lesser expectation of privacy. However, nothing in the facts here indicates that the defendant's mobile home may readily be moved, and because it appears to be the defendant's regular home rather than a vehicle, it is doubtful that the Court would find the requisite lesser expectation of privacy. Therefore, the trailer would not fall within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

Answer 8

B The customer will be successful. To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, most searches must be pursuant to a warrant. The warrant must describe with reasonable precision the place to be searched and the items to be seized. A search warrant does not authorize the police to search persons found on the premises who are not named in the warrant. In Ybarra v. Illinois (1979), a case based on similar facts, the Supreme Court held that "each patron of the tavern had an individual right to be free of unreasonable searches, and presence at a location subject to search does not negate the requirement of probable cause to search the person present." (A) is incorrect because the validity of the statute is not the primary issue. Even in the absence of a statute, the search of the customer by the officer violated the customer's Fourth Amendment rights. (C) is incorrect because, as discussed above, the search warrant did not override the customer's Fourth Amendment rights. While the police would be able to search a person discovered on the premises for whom they had probable cause to arrest, because the search would be incident to a lawful arrest, here they searched the customer prior to an arrest and without probable cause. (D) is irrelevant; if a search is unconstitutional, it does not matter that it was authorized by statute. To the extent that the statute authorizes a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it is unconstitutional.

Answer 9

D The felon should be found guilty of attempted robbery. With the specific intent to commit a robbery, the felon went beyond mere preparation for the offense. Once a person has gone beyond preparation, abandonment is not a defense to attempt. A criminal attempt is an act that, although done with the intention of committing a crime, falls short of completing the crime. The defendant must have the intent to perform an act and obtain a result that, if achieved, would constitute a crime. Also, the defendant must have committed an act beyond mere preparation for the offense. If a defendant has, with the required intent, gone beyond preparation, the general rule is that abandonment is not a defense. Even in those jurisdictions in which abandonment is a defense, such abandonment must be: (i) fully voluntary and not made because of the difficulty of completing the crime or because of an increased risk of apprehension; and (ii) a complete abandonment of the plan made under circumstances manifesting a renunciation of criminal purpose, not just a decision to postpone committing it or to find another victim. Here, the felon intended to take money from the clerk at the market by means of the threat of having a gun (i.e., by simulating a gun). Thus, the felon intended to commit a robbery. In walking up to the market counter while simulating a gun with his hand, the felon committed an act that was a substantial step toward commission of the intended crime, and that strongly corroborated his intent and purpose to commit the crime. All that was missing to complete the crime was for the clerk to turn around and, upon seeing the felon apparently armed, be forced to give up the money. Thus, the felon went far beyond mere preparation for the crime of robbery. Having gone beyond mere preparation, with the intent to commit robbery, the felon is guilty of attempted robbery. And, as explained above, even if the felon abandoned his plan when the customer entered the market, such abandonment will not afford him a defense. Even in those jurisdictions in which abandonment is a defense, the felon will not have a defense because his abandonment apparently occurred when the customer's sudden presence increased the risk of apprehension. Thus, the abandonment was not fully voluntary and did not really manifest a renunciation of criminal purpose. (A) is incorrect because, to be guilty of attempted robbery, events need not have progressed to the point where the defendant has used or threatened to use force. Because the felon had the requisite intent for attempt and went beyond mere preparation by standing at the counter and simulating possession of a gun, he should be found guilty of attempted robbery. (B) is incorrect because, as detailed above, abandonment of an attempt does not afford a defense, and in any event, the felon's abandonment here was not fully voluntary because the felon abandoned his plan due to an increased risk of apprehension. (C) is incorrect because a conviction of attempt does not require entry into a "zone of perpetration." Rather, a defendant (with the requisite intent) need only have committed an act beyond mere preparation. The Model Penal Code and most state criminal codes require that the act constitute a substantial step toward commission of the crime and strongly corroborate the actor's criminal purpose.

Answer 10

B There was an insufficient agreement for conspiracy liability at common law. Conspiracy consists of: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) an intent to enter into an agreement; and (iii) an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement. In addition, most states require an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, although an act of mere preparation will usually suffice. The agreement requirement means that the parties must agree to accomplish the same objective by mutual action. There must be a meeting of at least two "guilty minds"; i.e., between two or more persons who are actually committing themselves to the scheme. If one person in a two-party conspiracy is only feigning agreement, the other person cannot be convicted of conspiracy under the common law bilateral approach. Here, the officer, in his undercover capacity, was simply trying to set up a situation in which the burglar would be caught in the act. Thus, the undercover officer merely pretended to reach an agreement with the burglar to commit a burglary. At no time did the undercover officer actually commit himself to the burglary. Therefore, there could have been no agreement of two "guilty minds." Absent the requisite agreement, the burglar cannot be guilty of conspiracy. (A) is incorrect because, as explained above, there was no agreement sufficient for a conspiracy conviction, since the undercover officer never intended to commit the burglary. (C) is incorrect because completion of the substantive crime is not necessary for a conviction of conspiracy. Consequently, although the actual burglary was not consummated, this would not preclude a conviction of conspiracy to commit burglary. (D) is incorrect because withdrawal is not a defense to a charge of conspiracy. Note that, by withdrawing, a person may limit her liability for subsequent acts of the other members of the conspiracy. However, this question pertains to the burglar's potential guilt for conspiracy. As applied to the conspiracy charge, withdrawal will not afford a defense to the burglar.

Answer 11

B The first robber is guilty of conspiracy but not murder. Conspiracy consists of: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) an intent to enter into an agreement; and (iii) an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement. In addition, most states require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, although an act of mere preparation will usually suffice. The conspiracy was complete when the robbers agreed to commit the robbery and targeted their first victim. The first robber's withdrawal is no defense to the conspiracy charge because a conspiracy is complete as soon as an agreement is made and an overt act is committed. Hence, (A) is incorrect. The first robber is not guilty of murder, however, because of his withdrawal. The murder charge would be based on felony murder, because the second robber caused the foreseeable death of the elderly victim from the heart attack during the commission of the felony. However, a conspirator may limit his liability for subsequent acts of other conspirators by performing an affirmative act that notifies the other members of the conspiracy in time for the other members to have the opportunity to abandon their plans. Here, the first robber told the second robber that he was going home in time for the second robber to abandon his plans. Hence, he is not liable for felony murder arising from the robbery, making (C) and (D) incorrect.

Answer 12

A The husband can be convicted of murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought, which may be (i) intent to kill, (ii) intent to inflict great bodily injury, (iii) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, or (iv) intent to commit a felony. Intentional use of a deadly weapon authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. Here, the husband uttered statements of revenge, confronted the neighbor with a loaded gun, and intentionally shot him when he pulled out a knife—more than enough evidence for a jury to find that the husband had the malice aforethought necessary for murder. Furthermore, none of the issues raised in the other choices will suffice to excuse the killing or reduce it to voluntary manslaughter. (B) is incorrect because the husband will not be able to meet all four tests for establishing the provocation necessary to reduce a killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter. The husband would have to offer evidence that (i) a provocation existed that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person such as to cause him to lose his self-control, (ii) the husband was in fact provoked and lost his self-control, (iii) there was not sufficient time between the provocation and the killing for the passions of a reasonable person to cool, and (iv) the husband in fact did not cool off between the provocation and the killing. The husband can easily establish the first two elements, because discovery of one's spouse in bed with another person is virtually always considered adequate provocation by common law courts. However, the time interval between the provocation and the killing was probably sufficient for a reasonable person to cool off, and the facts strongly suggest that the husband did in fact cool off—he consumed several drinks to build up his nerve and went to a friend's house to get a gun before confronting the neighbor. Thus, a jury would probably reject a claim of voluntary manslaughter here. (C) is incorrect because the husband's voluntary intoxication would not preclude a finding of intent for murder. Because the husband became intoxicated to build up his nerve to kill the neighbor, a court would probably find that his intent at the time he began drinking would apply to his later conduct. Furthermore, voluntary intoxication is no defense to crimes involving recklessness. The husband can still be liable for murder based on a state of mind of reckless indifference to human life—his conduct in becoming intoxicated and then confronting the neighbor with a loaded gun is sufficient to establish that state of mind. (D) is incorrect because the homicide will not be excused on self-defense grounds. A person may use deadly force in self-defense only if (i) he is without fault, (ii) he is confronted with unlawful force, and (iii) he is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. The husband is not without fault, however, because he initiated the assault and prompted the neighbor to pull the knife. His status as the aggressor deprives him of the right to use force in his own defense under these circumstances.

Answer 13

B The court of appeals should rule that the evidence is sufficient to prove that the killing was done with malice aforethought. Under the facts of this case, to support a finding of murder, the trial court would have to find that the shooter acted either intentionally or with malice aforethought. The facts clearly indicate that the shooter did not know of the car, so it cannot be said that he shot at it intentionally, and therefore (A) is not correct. "Malice aforethought" can mean that the defendant is acting with reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. There is little question that shooting a rifle through a front door shows reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. Thus, the question is whether the shooter's intoxication was sufficient to negate this state of mind. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to crimes requiring malice, recklessness, or negligence. In the case of recklessness, if a defendant's lack of awareness results from voluntary intoxication, his conduct will nevertheless be deemed reckless. (C) is not a correct analysis of the issue, because his intentional act was firing the rifle, not shooting at the car. (D) is not the best answer, because although there is the possibility that the prosecution might have been able to show only gross negligence, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of malice aforethought and murder.

Answer 14

D The defendant will be convicted of first degree murder because of his mental state up to and including the moment of the attack. The degree of murder under the statute is determined by the defendant's mental state--whether the killing was intentional and accomplished after premeditation and deliberation. Here, the defendant obtained a lead pipe and waited in a deserted alleyway for the victim, which shows premeditation and deliberation. The defendant's relationship with the victim and the manner of killing may have evidentiary significance with regard to the defendant's mental state, but do not themselves distinguish first from second degree murder. Thus, (A) and (C) are incorrect. The causal relationship between the defendant's act and the death of the victim may determine whether the act is murder, but once that analytical hurdle has been passed, it has no further significance as to the degree of murder. Therefore, (B) is incorrect.

Answer 15

B The lookout's best defense is that the gunman was the only person killed. Under the felony murder doctrine, a killing committed during the course of a felony is murder, malice being implied from the intent to commit the underlying felony. However, under the majority view, criminal liability for murder cannot be based on the death of a co-felon from resistance by the victim or police pursuit. Thus, given that the gunman's death resulted from an act by the clerk, the victim of the robbery, the lookout cannot be found guilty of the felony murder of the gunman, a co-felon. (A) is incorrect because any desire or lack of desire by the lookout to see her co-felon harmed is irrelevant to liability for felony murder. The only mens rea required is the intent to commit the underlying felony. Here, the lookout had the intent to commit robbery, the underlying felony. From this intent, the malice required for murder is implied. (C) is incorrect because the fact that the felony was technically completed before the gunman's death does not prevent the killing from being felony murder. A death caused while fleeing from the crime is considered to have been caused during the commission of the felony. (D) is incorrect because robbery is a felony regardless of the value of the property that is taken.