Criminal Law Capstone Questions Flashcards
A husband discovered his wife in bed with a neighbor. The neighbor ran out the back door. The husband screamed at his wife and vowed revenge. After consuming several drinks to build up his nerve and becoming intoxicated, the husband went to his friend’s house and borrowed a gun, and then went to the neighbor’s house. The neighbor had neglected to lock his front door, so the husband walked in. He found the neighbor trembling in the living room and pointed the gun at him. The neighbor immediately began apologizing and pleading for his life, but then suddenly he pulled a switchblade knife from his pocket. As the metal flashed, the husband fired a single shot at the neighbor, killing him.
What is the most serious crime of which the husband can be convicted?
A Murder.Murder.
B Manslaughter, because the husband was still distraught over finding the neighbor in bed with his wife.Manslaughter, because the husband was still distraught over finding the neighbor in bed with his wife.
C Manslaughter, because his intoxication prevented the husband from having the requisite intent for murder.Manslaughter, because his intoxication prevented the husband from having the requisite intent for murder.
D No homicide crime, because the neighbor was about to attack him with a knife.
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.
One night when a man was very drunk, he took one of his rifles, loaded it, and fired a bullet through his front door. Unbeknownst to him, at the time he fired the rifle, someone was driving by the house. The bullet went through the front door, through the window of the car, and killed the driver. The shooter was convicted of murder and appeals. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of murder.
How should the court of appeals rule?
A That the evidence is sufficient to prove that the killing was intentional.That the evidence is sufficient to prove that the killing was intentional.
B That the evidence is sufficient to prove that the killing was done with malice aforethought.That the evidence is sufficient to prove that the killing was done with malice aforethought.
C That the evidence is insufficient, because the shooter did not know that the driver was driving by his house and therefore he could not have acted intentionally.That the evidence is insufficient, because the shooter did not know that the driver was driving by his house and therefore he could not have acted intentionally.
D That the evidence is insufficient, because at most the shooter’s conduct constituted gross negligence and involuntary manslaughter.
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.
The defendant, angered because a rival gang member had twice beaten him up after school, obtained a heavy lead pipe and waited in a deserted alleyway which he knew the rival took as a route home every day after school. When his enemy came walking down the alley, the defendant leapt out behind him and smashed the pipe into the victim’s head, knocking him to the ground. The defendant then rolled the victim over and pounded his face with 15 to 20 heavy blows with the lead pipe, killing him. The jurisdiction defines first degree murder as murder committed with premeditation and deliberation. All other murders are defined as second degree murders.
Why will the defendant be convicted of first degree murder (as opposed to second degree murder)?
A The relationship between the defendant and the victim requires that a finding of first degree murder be made.The relationship between the defendant and the victim requires that a finding of first degree murder be made.
B The degree of causative relationship between the defendant’s acts and the death of the victim renders it murder in the first degree.The degree of causative relationship between the defendant’s acts and the death of the victim renders it murder in the first degree.
C The nature of the acts causing death distinguishes the defendant’s action as first degree murder.The nature of the acts causing death distinguishes the defendant’s action as first degree murder.
D The defendant’s mental s
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.
Two robbers planned to rob a local convenience store, with one using a gun to force the clerk to turn over all of the money in the cash register while the other stood lookout near the door. The robbery did not go as planned. Instead of turning over any cash, the store clerk tried to disarm the gunman. During their struggle for the gun, the lookout decided that her best course of action was to grab what she could and flee the scene. The lookout took a newspaper and a bag of potato chips and ran out of the store. On her way out, she heard a gunshot. Later that day, she learned from news accounts that the gun accidentally discharged, killing the gunman. After an investigation, the lookout was arrested.
If the lookout is charged with felony murder, what would be her most promising defense?
A She did not intend for the gunman to get killed.She did not intend for the gunman to get killed.
B The only person killed was the gunman.The only person killed was the gunman.
C The killing occurred after the robbery was over.The killing occurred after the robbery was over.
D The robbery was not a felony because the items that the lookout took had only minimal value.
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.
A felon intending to rob a market waited outside until there were no customers. When he saw that the market was empty, he went inside and walked up to the counter with his hand in his jacket pocket to simulate a gun. Before the clerk could turn around to see what the felon wanted, another customer entered the market, startling the felon, who turned and ran out the door.
Should the felon be found guilty on a charge of attempted robbery?
A No, because he used no actual force on the clerk nor threatened any.No, because he used no actual force on the clerk nor threatened any.
B No, because he withdrew successfully from the robbery attempt.No, because he withdrew successfully from the robbery attempt.
C No, because he never entered the zone of perpetration.No, because he never entered the zone of perpetration.
D Yes, regardless of whether he totally abandoned his plan when the customer entered the market.Yes, regardless of whether he totally abandoned his plan when the customer entered the market.
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 towards commission of the crime and strongly corroborate the actor’s criminal purpose.
The police of a resort town discovered that a well-known cat burglar was currently living in town under an assumed name. To try to catch her in the act of burglary, an undercover officer approached the burglar with a plan for a burglary. The undercover officer told the burglar that he knew who she was and that he had a plan to steal jewels from someone staying in one of the town’s resorts. The burglar initially refused the offer; however, after lengthy cajoling, she finally agreed to the plan.
As the time for the burglary drew near, the burglar had second thoughts. Three hours before the theft was scheduled to take place, the burglar called the police and told them of the plan. She told them that she was not going to show up, but that her cohort (the undercover officer) would be there, and told them how to recognize the undercover officer.
Is the burglar guilty of conspiracy at common law?
A Yes, because the burglar made an agreement with the undercover officer to commit the theft.Yes, because the burglar made an agreement with the undercover officer to commit the theft.
B No, because there was no agreement.No, because there was no agreement.
C No, because the intended crime was never completed.No, because the intended crime was never completed.
D No, because the burglar effectively withdrew.
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.
Two robbers planned to commit armed robberies targeting older victims. However, when the time came to actually commit the robbery, one of the robbers, thinking that the potential victim looked too much like his grandmother, backed out and told his cohort that he was going home. The second robber went ahead with the plan and robbed the elderly victim, who died of a heart attack due to the stress of the robbery. The second robber was arrested and implicated the first robber.
What crime(s) has the first robber committed?
A No crimes.No crimes.
B Conspiracy.Conspiracy.
C Murder.Murder.
D Murder and conspiracy.
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.
The defendant, while visiting the victim, asked for permission to borrow the victim’s car so he could drive to a convenience store to buy cigarettes. In fact, he intended to keep the car and sell it for cash. The victim agreed, and the defendant took the car and drove off. After thinking about it further, the defendant decided that it would be wrong to sell the victim’s car, and headed back to the victim’s house. On the way back, the car was destroyed in a collision through no fault of the defendant.
May the defendant be convicted of larceny?
A No, because he intended to return the car and therefore lacked the requisite mens rea for the crime.No, because he intended to return the car and therefore lacked the requisite mens rea for the crime.
B No, because he abandoned his plan of selling the vehicle.No, because he abandoned his plan of selling the vehicle.
C Yes, because withdrawal is not a defense to the crime.Yes, because withdrawal is not a defense to the crime.
D Yes, because he intended to permanently deprive the victim of the car when he drove off in it.
D
The defendant has committed larceny. The defendant’s change of heart after taking the car will not provide him with a defense because it is irrelevant. Larceny requires the taking and carrying away of the tangible personal property of another by trespass. In the instant case, the larceny was committed at the time he took the victim’s car with the intent to permanently deprive him of possession. (Note that the taking was trespassory because the defendant obtained possession by misrepresentation-larceny by trick.) Given that the crime was complete once the defendant drove off, he is guilty of larceny, which makes (D) the correct answer. (A) is incorrect because the defendant did not intend to return the car at the time of the taking and thus had completed the crime at that time. He had the requisite mens rea at the time of the taking and carrying away, and this is sufficient to convict. (B) is incorrect because abandonment may be a defense in some states to an attempt of a crime. In the instant case, the defendant had already completed the crime, as described above. Thus, abandonment cannot act as a good defense. Choice (C) is incorrect because withdrawal is not relevant to the crime of larceny.
A college student was the sole lifetime beneficiary under a large trust administered by a banker. The student received a large monthly distribution from the trust, and whenever he ran short, he simply called the banker for extra funds, because the trust provided that the student was to receive whatever he needed from income or principal. The student’s roommate found out about the trust arrangement and decided to see if he could make it pay off for him. The roommate sent an email to the banker, which appeared to be from the student, and which asked for several thousand dollars to cover medical expenses. The email further stated that, since he was in the hospital, the student would send his roommate to pick up the cash. The next day, the roommate showed up at the banker’s office and obtained the money on the promise that he would take it to the student. The roommate absconded with the funds.
When the roommate obtained the cash from the banker, what crime did the roommate commit?
A False pretenses.False pretenses.
B Embezzlement.Embezzlement.
C Larceny by trick.Larceny by trick.
D Larceny.
C
The roommate committed larceny by trick because the banker’s consent to the roommate’s taking the money was induced by the misrepresentation that the roommate would take the money to the student/beneficiary. Larceny consists of a taking and carrying away of tangible personal property of another by trespass, with intent to permanently (or for an unreasonable time) deprive the person of his interest in the property. If the person in possession of property has not consented to the taking of it by the defendant, the taking is trespassory. However, if the victim consents to the defendant’s taking possession of the property, but such consent has been induced by a misrepresentation, the consent is not valid. Under such circumstances, the larceny is called larceny by trick. Here, the roommate obtained the money from the banker on the promise that he would take it to the student/beneficiary. This misrepresentation induced the banker to give possession of the money to the roommate. The roommate then proceeded to take the money and carry it away, intending all the while to permanently deprive one who had a possessory interest superior to the roommate’s of his interest in the money. Thus, all the elements of larceny are present. Because the original wrongful taking resulted from consent induced by misrepresentation, the specific larceny committed by the roommate is more precisely characterized as larceny by trick. Consequently, although the roommate has in fact committed larceny, (C) is a better answer than (D). Regarding (A), false pretenses consists of obtaining title to the property of another by an intentional (or knowing) false statement of past or existing fact, with intent to defraud the other. If a victim intends to convey only possession of the property to the defendant, the offense is larceny by trick. However, if the victim intends to convey title, the offense is false pretenses. Here, the banker intended to convey possession of the money to the roommate so that he could give the money to the student/beneficiary. The banker did not intend to convey title to the roommate. Because the roommate did not obtain title by means of his misrepresentation but simply obtained possession, the offense of false pretenses was not committed. (B) is incorrect because embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of property of another by a person in lawful possession of that property. In embezzlement, the misappropriation of the property occurs while the defendant has lawful possession of it. In larceny, the misappropriation occurs generally at the time the defendant obtains wrongful possession of the property. The roommate did not have lawful possession of the money because his possession of the money resulted from his misrepresentation to the banker. Thus, the roommate’s taking of the money was wrongful from the outset. Because the roommate had wrongful, rather than lawful, possession of the money, there was no embezzlement.
The owner of a furnished cottage leased it to another for one year. While this lease was in effect, the cottage owner found herself in immediate need of cash, and decided to burn down the cottage to collect the insurance on it. She waited until one evening when the tenant was away. The cottage owner then used her own key to gain access to it. To make it appear that the fire was caused accidentally by the tenant, she soaked one end of the mattress on the bed in the bedroom with gasoline and then left a lighted cigarette burning at the other end of the mattress. She planned that the cigarette would ignite the mattress and that when the fire smoldered to the area soaked in gasoline, the entire bed would burst into flames, and the resulting fire would destroy the house. However, the tenant returned home earlier than expected and discovered the fire just as the mattress burst into flames. He immediately put it out with a fire extinguisher. A police investigation revealed the cottage owner’s activities.
What crime(s), if any, has the cottage owner committed?
A Burglary as to the house and arson as to the mattress.Burglary as to the house and arson as to the mattress.
B Neither burglary nor arson because she owned the structure and its contents.Neither burglary nor arson because she owned the structure and its contents.
C Burglary and attempted arson.Burglary and attempted arson.
D Attempted arson but not burglary because she entered with her own key.
C
The cottage owner is guilty of burglary because the right of occupancy belonged to the tenant. However, the fact that there was no burning of the structure means that the cottage owner is guilty of attempted arson rather than arson. Burglary at common law is a breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime, with the intent of committing a felony therein. A breaking requires some use of force to gain entry, but minimal force is sufficient. In determining whether the dwelling is that of another, occupancy rather than ownership is material. Thus, an owner can commit burglary of her own structure if it is rented and used as a dwelling by someone else. Here, although the cottage owner owned the cottage, the tenant had the right to occupy it pursuant to a lease. Thus, for purposes of the crime of burglary, the cottage owner is deemed to have entered the dwelling of another. Although the cottage owner used her own key to gain access to the cottage, this was still an unconsented use of force to effectuate entry, thereby constituting a breaking. This breaking and entering of the tenant’s dwelling occurred in the evening. At the time of the entry, the cottage owner intended to commit the felony of arson. Consequently, all the elements of burglary are in place, making her guilty of this crime.
Arson consists of the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. There is a requirement of some damage to the fiber of the wood or other combustible material. As with burglary, ownership of the structure is not material for determining whether the dwelling is that of another; rather, the right to occupancy is material. The cottage owner left a lighted cigarette on the mattress, intending to burn down the entire cottage. However, the tenant extinguished the fire before any damage was done to the structure of the cottage, even mere charring. Absent such damage, arson cannot have been committed. The cottage owner did commit attempted arson. A criminal attempt is an act which, although done with the intention of committing a crime, falls short of completing the crime. The defendant must intend 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. The cottage owner intended to perform an act that would have culminated in the crime of arson. By soaking the mattress with gasoline and leaving a lighted cigarette on it, the cottage owner committed an act that came dangerously close to successfully burning the cottage. This act, in combination with the intent to commit arson, means that the cottage owner is guilty of attempted arson. (A) is incorrect because there can be no arson as to the mattress. Arson requires a burning of a dwelling. Because the cottage was not burned, the cottage owner is not guilty of arson. (B) is incorrect because the key element in determining whether a dwelling is that of another, for both arson and burglary, is the right of occupancy. Under the terms of his lease, the tenant had the right to occupy the cottage for one year. Therefore, the cottage owner’s ownership of the cottage will not be a defense to either arson or burglary. (D) is incorrect because, as explained above, the cottage owner’s use of a key to gain access to the cottage without the consent of the person who had the right of occupancy is deemed to be a use of force to gain entry, in the same way as if a person who did not own the cottage were to gain entry by means of a key.
A former construction worker became intoxicated one night and decided to move some heavy construction equipment that was parked at a construction site. Ignoring “no trespassing” signs, the worker jumped the fence and climbed into a large dump truck and started it up. However, even though he knew how to operate the truck, he quickly lost control of it due to his intoxication. It rumbled a short distance and crashed into a trailer housing the main office of the construction site. The worker is prosecuted for recklessly damaging property. A separate statute in the jurisdiction prohibited the unauthorized operation of construction equipment.
Should the worker be found guilty of recklessly damaging property?
A Yes, because his actions constituted an unlawful operation of the construction equipment.Yes, because his actions constituted an unlawful operation of the construction equipment.
B Yes, because he was intoxicated while attempting to move the construction equipment.Yes, because he was intoxicated while attempting to move the construction equipment.
C No, because at most he could be found guilty of criminal negligence.No, because at most he could be found guilty of criminal negligence.
D No, because he must have been aware that his conduct would cause the damage to the trailer in order to be found guilty of reckless damage.
B
The worker should be convicted because he was intoxicated when he damaged the trailer. The worker is being charged with reckless damage to property. A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of reasonable care. Attempting to move a large piece of construction equipment while intoxicated should be considered reckless conduct because of the great potential for destruction arising from the size and destructive power of the construction equipment. Therefore, (B) is correct. (A) is incorrect because merely operating the equipment in violation of the law would not necessarily be reckless. For instance, here, the statute prohibiting unauthorized operation of the equipment likely was enacted to prevent untrained persons from driving dangerous equipment, but the worker was trained to operate the truck in question; thus, if not for the fact that he was drunk, his action would not necessarily have been reckless. Violating the statute may be evidence of negligence, but negligence is insufficient to establish recklessness. (C) is incorrect for the same reason that (B) is correct-driving the equipment while intoxicated constitutes reckless conduct. Although voluntary intoxication is a defense to a crime that requires purpose or knowledge, it is no defense to crimes involving recklessness. Even though the worker’s condition may in fact have precluded him from being consciously aware of the risk, one who is not consciously aware of a risk only because he was voluntarily intoxicated will be deemed to have acted recklessly with regard to the risk. (D) is incorrect because it states the mental state for knowing conduct-if the defendant is aware that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a certain result, he acts knowingly with respect to that result. Recklessness is a lesser standard of fault.
The defendant was at a bar with a couple of friends when he spotted a man who had gotten the defendant’s friend fired from a job several weeks ago. Since that time, the defendant had been verbally harassing the man and calling him names. This particular night, the defendant went over to the man’s table and flirted with his girlfriend. The man was infuriated after having taken the defendant’s abuse for so long, so he jumped up and attacked the defendant with a knife. The defendant could have easily run away, but instead grabbed the man and slammed him backwards. The man went crashing through the front window and was severely cut by the broken glass. He died before he could be taken to the hospital.
The defendant will most likely be found guilty of what crime?
A Murder.Murder.
B Voluntary manslaughter.Voluntary manslaughter.
C Involuntary manslaughter.Involuntary manslaughter.
D None of the above.
D
The defendant would most likely be guilty of none of the listed crimes because the defense of self-defense makes his homicide excusable. A person may use deadly force in self-defense if (i) he is without fault, (ii) he is confronted with unlawful force, and (iii) he reasonably believes that he is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. In a majority of states, a person may use deadly force in self-defense even if this could be avoided by retreating. Here, the defendant’s use of force was privileged because it reasonably appeared necessary to defend him from the man’s unlawful attack, and the defendant had no duty to retreat under the majority view. Furthermore, the defendant can claim the privilege of self-defense even though his words triggered the fight-calling someone names would not be considered adequate provocation that would make the defendant the aggressor. Hence, because the defendant’s use of force was privileged, he cannot be convicted of any of the listed crimes, making (A), (B), and (C) incorrect.
A bartender diligently followed the procedure her employer set: She would ask every patron for identification regardless of how old (or young) the patron appeared to be. One day, after asking for identification, the bartender served alcohol to a minor. The identification that the minor gave to the bartender was actually issued by mistake by an appropriate state agency and appeared to show that the minor was of legal age. After another patron, an off-duty police officer, recognized the minor, the bartender was arrested for serving alcohol to a minor. In this jurisdiction, the highest state court has held that, under state law, strict liability is abolished and all crimes require a culpable mental state.
What would be the best reason for finding the bartender not guilty?
A She did not know that the minor was underage, and she relied on the identification card for proof of age.She did not know that the minor was underage, and she relied on the identification card for proof of age.
B She did not know that the minor was underage, and therefore never intended to serve alcohol to a minor.She did not know that the minor was underage, and therefore never intended to serve alcohol to a minor.
C She made a diligent effort to determine the minor’s age.She made a diligent effort to determine the minor’s age.
D She checked the minor’s state-issued identification card, which showed that the minor was of age.
A
An honest and reasonable mistake as to a material element of the offense would negate criminal liability for all crimes except strict liability offenses. Thus, if the state had abolished strict liability crimes, the bartender’s mistake would be a defense regardless of the mental state required for the crime of serving alcohol to a minor. (B) is not as good an answer as (A). The bartender’s lack of intent to commit the crime of serving alcohol to a minor would negate criminal liability if the crime required a specific intent, thus requiring an actual intention to engage in the act of serving alcohol to a minor. The question does not indicate the mental state required for the crime of serving alcohol to a minor. Even though the state had abolished strict liability offenses, the state could punish the crime of serving alcohol to a minor with a “reckless” or “should have known” state of mind. If so, the bartender’s lack of intent would not result in a not guilty verdict. (C) is not as good an answer as (A) because the fact that the bartender made a diligent effort to determine the age of the minor would be an important consideration in deciding whether she made an honest and reasonable mistake, but it would not in and of itself automatically negate liability. A similar analysis applies to (D). The fact that the bartender checked the identification card supplied by a state agency would be an important consideration in deciding the nature of her mistake, but it would not by itself negate liability, as the mistake must be both honest and reasonable. For example, if the bartender knew that the minor was not of age despite what the identification card showed, she would commit a crime by serving the minor alcohol.
