Criminal Law And Procedure Learning Questions - Set 2 Flashcards
The fact that the defendant committed a particular act is sufficient for the jury to infer that he acted with:
A
Malice
B
General intent
C
Specific intent
D
Negligence
B
A jury can infer the required general intent merely from the doing of the act. It is not necessary that evidence specifically proving the general intent be offered by the prosecution.
However, a jury cannot infer that the defendant acted with specific intent by the doing of the act. (That said, the manner in which an act is done may provide circumstantial evidence that the defendant acted with specific intent.)
Malice is established by showing that the defendant recklessly disregarded an obvious or high risk that a particular harmful result would occur.
Negligence is established by showing that the defendant failed to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances existed or a result would follow, and such failure constituted a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances.
Which of the following are specific intent crimes?
A
False imprisonment, kidnapping, and battery
B
Solicitation, assault, and burglary
C
Assault, battery, and first degree murder
D
Larceny, robbery, and arson
B
Solicitation, assault (attempted battery type) and burglary are specific intent crimes. Solicitation requires the intent to have the person solicited commit the crime. The attempted battery type of assault, like all attempt crimes, requires the specific intent to commit the crime attempted. Burglary requires the specific intent to commit a felony at the time of entry into the dwelling of another.
Assault (attempted battery type) is a specific intent crime. First degree murder is a specific intent crime, in that it requires the intent to kill after premeditation and deliberation. However, battery is a general intent crime.
False imprisonment, kidnapping, and battery are all general intent crimes.
Larceny and robbery are both specific intent crimes that require the intent to permanently deprive another person of his interest in the property taken. However, arson is a malice crime.
Under the Model Penal Code, consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk indicates a person acted __________.
A knowingly
B recklessly
C purposefully
D negligently
B
A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. Recklessness is one of the four categories into which the Model Penal Code classifies the mental component of a criminal offense (i.e., the element of fault). A person acts purposefully when it is his conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result. A person acts knowingly when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist. A person acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances.
The Model Penal Code defines acting purposefully as when:
A
The defendant is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist
B
It is the defendant’s conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result
C
The defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation
D
The defendant fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances
B
A person acts purposefully when it is his conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result.
A person acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances.
A person acts knowingly when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist.
A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. Recklessness is one of the four categories into which the Model Penal Code classifies the mental component of a criminal offense (i.e., the element of fault).
Acting pursuant to a valid search warrant, the police entered and searched the defendant’s garage and discovered a cardboard box containing cocaine in the rafters storage area. The box was securely taped and bore a freight label addressed to the defendant’s friend. At his trial for violation of the jurisdiction’s statute making it a felony to knowingly possess cocaine, the defendant testified that his friend had brought him the package a week before it was seized by the police, telling him that he needed to store it in the defendant’s garage. The defendant also testified that he had not asked the friend what it contained.
What additional facts must the prosecution prove to establish the defendant’s liability for the charged felony?
A That he knew or believed that the box contained cocaine and had moved or handled the box.
B That he knew or believed that the box contained cocaine.
C That he should have known that the box contained cocaine and had moved or handled the box.
D No additional facts.
B
The defendant should be found guilty of the charged felony if he knew or believed that the box contained cocaine. The defendant is being tried for “knowingly” possessing cocaine. A person does not act knowingly unless he is aware that his conduct is of the proscribed nature or that the proscribed circumstances exist. Thus, the defendant could not have acted knowingly unless he knew or believed that the box contained cocaine. (A) is incorrect because criminal statutes that penalize the possession of contraband generally require only that the defendant have control of the item for a long enough period to have had an opportunity to terminate the possession. Thus, the defendant need not have moved or handled the box. (C) is incorrect for the same reason as (A), and also because the defendant’s failure to know when he should have known would constitute negligence—failure to be aware of a substantial risk that prohibited results will follow or that circumstances exist—and negligence is not sufficient to establish knowledge. Note, however, that a defendant may not consciously avoid learning the true nature of the item possessed; knowledge may be inferred when the defendant is aware of a high probability of the true nature of the item and deliberately avoids learning the truth. (D) is incorrect because, as discussed above, the statute requires that the defendant knew or believed that the box contained cocaine.
An employee of the state government always received his state paycheck on the last workday of the month. The employee was not a good money manager, and just barely managed to make it from paycheck to paycheck each month. On the second to the last workday of the month, the employee had $45 in his checking account, and, needing to buy a birthday gift for his sister, he wrote a check to a gift boutique for $100. He knew that he would be receiving his paycheck the next day, so he could deposit the paycheck before the check would be sent to the bank.
However, unbeknownst to the employee, the state legislature was having a budget impasse. Because the state constitution prohibited any deficit spending, state employees were not paid as usual. Without a paycheck to deposit, the check written to the gift boutique was returned for insufficient funds. The merchant complained to the police, who arrested the employee and charged him under a statute that prohibited “issuing a check knowing that it is drawn against insufficient funds, with intent to defraud the payee of the check.”
What should be the outcome of the employee’s prosecution?
A Not guilty, because the employee intended to deposit his paycheck the next day.
B Not guilty, because it was reasonable for the employee to expect that he would receive his paycheck as usual.
C Guilty, because the employee knew when he wrote the check that he did not have sufficient funds in his account to honor it.
D Guilty, because reliance on a future source of income does not vitiate the employee’s violation of the statute when he wrote the check.
A
Given that the employee intended to deposit his paycheck before the checks cleared, he lacked the intent to defraud required by the statute. The statute under which the employee is being prosecuted is a variation of the offense of false pretenses. As with false pretenses, the statute requires a specific intent, i.e., an intent to defraud. If the employee intended to deposit sufficient funds to honor the check before it reached his bank, then the employee did not intend to defraud the gift boutique. Thus, the employee lacked the specific intent that is a necessary element of the crime charged. (B) is incorrect because the employee’s expectation that he would receive his paycheck as usual need not have been reasonable. Even if such an expectation were unreasonable, the employee would not be guilty if he did not intend to defraud the payees, as required by the statute. (C) is incorrect because it would result in a verdict of guilty without requiring intent to defraud. Knowledge that the check was drawn against insufficient funds is just one element of the statute. The intent to defraud is also required to convict under the applicable statute. (D) also incorrectly assumes that the employee violated the statute merely by knowingly writing a check on insufficient funds. As explained above, the requisite intent to defraud is absent. Thus, there is no “violation” to be vitiated.
A thief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. After making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. A short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. He fell to the ground and severely injured his back. The thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for “maliciously causing serious physical injury to another.” The thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. After a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges.
If he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule?
A Affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury.
B Affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice.
C Reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone.
D Reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.
B
The court should affirm the thief’s conviction. Crimes imposing a mens rea of malice generally do not require the proof of intent that specific intent crimes require. It is sufficient if the defendant recklessly disregarded an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result would occur. Here, the facts presented were sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that the thief knew of the probability that the ladder would collapse without the braces when someone climbed down it, and acted in reckless disregard of that risk by removing the braces. (A) is incorrect because the fact that the thief was committing larceny when he removed the braces does not establish malice for purposes of the malicious injury charge. Even if his conduct were otherwise legal, he could be liable for that charge if he acted with reckless disregard of the high risk of injury. (C) is incorrect because, as discussed above, it is generally not necessary to show an intent to injure for a crime requiring a mens rea of malice; reckless disregard of an obvious risk will usually suffice. (D) is incorrect because crimes requiring a mens rea of malice do not refer to malice in the dictionary sense; a showing of ill will or hatred of the victim is not required.
The defendant and the victim got into a minor verbal altercation, concluding with the defendant lightly shoving the victim. The victim lost his balance and struck his head on the pavement, causing serious bodily injury. The defendant was charged with battery, which is defined in the jurisdiction as “purposely or knowingly causing serious bodily injury to another.”
Should the defendant be convicted of battery?
A No, because the defendant did not know that the victim would be seriously injured.
B No, because the defendant did not strike a serious blow to the victim.
C Yes, because the defendant purposely shoved the victim.
D Yes, because the victim suffered serious bodily injury.
A
The defendant should not be convicted of battery. Under the statute’s fault standards, a defendant must have acted purposely (i.e., with conscious intent to cause the result) or knowingly (i.e., with knowledge that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause the result) as to the harmful result. The apparent inference to be drawn from the facts is that the defendant did not consciously desire, nor contemplate to a practical certainty, the serious injury to the victim that actually occurred. Had the defendant intended to cause such severe harm, he no doubt would have dealt the victim a strong blow rather than simply giving the victim a light shove. Therefore, as to the nature of the result, the defendant did not act with “purpose” or “knowledge” as those terms are defined in the Model Penal Code and modern criminal codes. (B), while close, is not as good an answer as (A) because it does not address the state of mind issue in the problem. A light shove might be sufficient for a battery as defined under a different set of facts (e.g., if the defendant believes that the victim would fall down stairs with a light shove). (C) is incorrect because it addresses the act but not the result. As defined in this question, battery must not only be committed by a purposeful act, but also be done with a “purposeful” or “knowing” state of mind as to the result. (D) is incorrect for much of the same reason—the state of mind requirement also applies to the result, as discussed above. The injury must have been purposely or knowingly caused, and that concept is not contained within choice (D).
