Criminal Law - Missed Questions 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. General Intent
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. Not guilty, because the employee intended to deposit his paycheck the next day
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. No, because the defendant did not know that the victim would be seriously injured.
In a property settlement after a divorce, the wife was awarded all personal property that had been accumulated during the marriage, including the husband’s classic 19-inch black-and-white TV set. In order to get his prized TV set back, the husband lied to his friend, telling him that the wife took the TV set in violation of the property settlement. The friend remembered that the wife gave the friend’s wife a key to her new home, and he volunteered to go with the husband to get the TV back while the wife was at work. The husband and the friend went to the wife’s house, but, unbeknownst to them, the wife had taken the day off work. After the friend noisily opened the back door with his wife’s key, the wife called the police, who quickly arrived and arrested the husband and the friend.
As to a charge of common law conspiracy to commit larceny, how should the friend be found?
A. Not guilty, because he did not intend to steal.
B. Not guilty, because he did not have a corrupt motive.
C. Guilty, because there was an agreement, and the opening of the locked door was sufficient for the overt act.
D. Guilty, because good motives are not a defense to criminal liability.
A. Not guilty, because he did not intend to steal.
A man and woman agreed to burn down a neighbor’s house in retribution for some wrong the neighbor allegedly committed against them. Both the man and woman were arrested shortly after they poured gasoline on the neighbor’s front porch. The man revealed to the police that he participated in the plan to ensure that nothing bad would happen to the neighbor, and that he had made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime, which enabled the police to arrest him and the woman “in the act.” The woman stated that she would not have participated if not for the man’s encouragement.
If the woman is charged with a conspiracy at common law to commit arson, how should she be found?
A. Not guilty, because she was not predisposed to commit the crime but for the man’s encouragement.
B. Not guilty, because the man did not intend to commit arson.
C. Guilty, because there was an agreement, and pouring gasoline on the front porch was sufficient for the overt act.
D. Guilty, because arson is not a specific intent crime.
B. Not guilty, because the man did not intend to commit arson.
Need TWO guilty minds at common law for conspiracy
A wife suffered from a particularly virulent form of cancer, and had lapsed into a nearly comatose state. Because the doctors had indicated that any treatment they could prescribe would be of little value, her husband decided to administer various poisons to his wife, thinking that they might stimulate her natural body defenses, or kill the cancer cells, resulting in her recovery. He tried doses of many different types of poison. Despite his ministrations, his wife died three days later. An autopsy performed by the county coroner established the cause of death as cancer.
If the husband is prosecuted for the murder of his wife, which of these is the best reason why he would be acquitted?
A. He was trying to save her life
B. He did not have the necessary malice for his actions to constitute murder
C. Medical science had given her up for dead
D. He did not cause her death
D. He did not cause her death
Three thieves agreed to rob a bank. The first was to steal a car to be used for the getaway, the second agreed to procure weapons, and the third would check the bank for cameras. The car thief stole a car and parked it in a lot behind his girlfriend’s apartment building. While visiting her the night before the robbery, the car thief suffered a series of convulsive seizures. He was rushed to the hospital where he was placed in the intensive care unit and heavily sedated. Meanwhile the two other thieves, unaware of their accomplice’s illness, met and decided to rob the bank on their own, despite the absence of a getaway car and driver. They robbed the bank, but were quickly apprehended as they tried to escape and implicated the car thief under police questioning.
The car thief can be charged with:
A. Theft of the car only
B. Conspiracy to commit robbery and theft of the car only
C. Robbery and theft of the car only
D. Theft of the car, conspiracy to commit robbery, and robbery
D. Theft of the car, conspiracy to commit robbery, and robbery
The victim owned a cottage in an ocean resort area. He stayed there only during the summer months, and left the cottage unoccupied during the balance of the year. The defendant, a resident of a neighboring cottage, was aware of this practice. For a change in his routine, however, the victim decided to spend a week at the cabin in the off-season. Unaware that the victim was occupying the cottage, the defendant decided to borrow a portable television set that he knew the victim kept in the cottage. To avoid being seen, he entered the cottage late at night, using a key under the front doormat. He found the television set, disconnected it, and headed for the rear of the house to leave. He opened the kitchen door and found the victim seated there in the dark, having a late night snack. Both men were startled and neither man recognized the other in the dark. The defendant assumed that the victim was a burglar, and was afraid that he might be armed. Trying to flee the kitchen as quickly as possible, the defendant dropped the television set in the middle of the kitchen floor. As the set hit the floor, the picture tube exploded with a loud noise. The noise so frightened the victim that he had an immediate heart attack and died.
If the defendant is charged with felony murder as the result of the victim’s death, what is his best defense?
A. He did not intend to kill the victim
B. His only intent was to borrow the television set for a few days
C. Larceny is not an inherently dangerous crime and it was not being committed in an inherently dangerous manner
D. The victim’s heart attack was an unforeseeable consequence of the defendant’s act.
B. His only intent was to borrow the television set for a few days
The defendant’s neighbor owned an authentic major league baseball signed by Babe Ruth. The defendant asked if he could show it to some friends who were visiting. The neighbor agreed as long as he kept it in the display case, which the defendant promised to do. In fact, the defendant intended to use the ball in a pickup game. During the game, the ball was hit over the fence and into a yard with a guard dog, which had chewed up several other balls that had previously landed in the yard. The dog did the same to that ball. When the neighbor learned what happened to the ball, he pressed charges against the defendant.
If the defendant is convicted, he will most likely be found guilty of what crime?
A. common law larceny
B. embezzlement
C. false pretenses
D. larceny by trick
D. larceny by trick
A student and a few of his friends were making their way to spring break. Along the way, the old van that they were driving broke down. Not wanting to miss any part of spring break festivities, the student asked the mechanic on duty at the repair shop for a rush job. The mechanic provided the student with a repair estimate, and the student, on the basis of the estimate, authorized the repair and promised to pay when he came back to pick up the van. When the mechanic called the student to tell him that the van was repaired, the student, rather than paying for the repair, told one of his friends that the mechanic had agreed to finance the repair charges and that the only thing left to do was pick up the van in the garage’s parking lot. The student handed the friend a key to the van and told him to go pick the van up so that they could continue their trip to spring break. The friend did so.
The mechanic makes a criminal complaint against the student for larceny of the van. If the case is prosecuted, will the student likely be found guilty?
A. No, because it was the student’s van to begin with
B. No, because the friend took the van
C. Yes, because the friend took the van from the mechanic without the mechanic’s knowledge or permission
D. Yes, because the student promised to pay the mechanic for his work when he came to get the van
C. Yes, because the friend took the van from the mechanic without the mechanic’s knowledge or permission
During a heated argument, a man punched his female coworker in the stomach after learning that she had been awarded “Employee of the Month.” Angered, the woman responded by stabbing the man with a letter opener, which severed his aorta and caused his death.
The police arrested the woman. After receiving her Miranda rights, she confessed to killing her coworker, but stated that she had not previously held any grudge against him. When asked why she stabbed him, she stated, “He just made me so mad when he said that I was a terrible employee and that he deserved the reward instead of me, and I just lost it when he punched me.” The district attorney charged the woman with homicide.
If the jury believes the woman’s statement, of what crime is she most likely to be found guilty?
A. Murder
B. Voluntary manslaughter
C. Involuntary manslaughter
D. No homicide crime
B. Voluntary manslaughter
A drug addict entered a pawnshop with a starter pistol that could not fire real bullets, intending to rob it so he could buy drugs. However, once inside the pawnshop, the addict was too afraid to do anything and turned to leave. He bumped into another customer who was coming in as he was going out, and the pistol fell from his coat pocket. The shopkeeper saw it and realized what the addict had intended. She chased after him and flagged down a patrol car, and he was arrested a block away.
The addict is charged with burglary, which is defined in this jurisdiction as “breaking and entering of any building for the purpose of committing a felony.”
His best defense would be which of the following?
A. His pistol was inoperative
B. The pawnshop was open for business
C. He had abandoned his plan to commit robbery
D. As a drug addict, he was incapable of forming the requisite intent
B. The pawnshop was open for business
An irate woman seeking vengeance against an appliance store owner for selling her a defective television set went to the store armed with two pistols. Just as she was about to enter the store, she spotted a young mother walking by with a baby carriage. The woman pointed one of the pistols at the mother and one at the carriage, saying, “I hate the owner of this store! Take this gun, go into his store, and do the job or the kid gets it!” The mother began pleading for her baby’s life, but the woman cocked the pistol pointing at the carriage and began counting. The distraught mother took the other pistol and “did the job.”
Criminal charges are filed against the mother. At trial, she asserts duress as a defense but is found guilty.
What is “the job” she did on the store owner likely to have been?
A. “Pistol whipping” the owner
B. Robbing the owner at gunpoint
C. Fatally wounding the owner with the pistol
D. Kidnapping the owner at gunpoint
C. Fatally wounding the owner with the pistol
In an effort to fix a longstanding rodent problem, a city enacted a statute that, in subsection one, required that all food waste be stored in lidded containers made of plastic or metal and, in subsection two, prohibited the outdoor use of any waste container that did not have a lid. Violation of the statute was considered to be a misdemeanor, and the statute provided for a fine of $50 for each violation. The defendant knew about the statute, as its enactment was well-publicized, but he misread the statute and believed that subsection two applied only to food waste. In the course of cleaning out his home office, the defendant put many old files into cardboard boxes without lids, which he then left on his curb for his trash collector to pick up that same day. The defendant was promptly fined $50.
Did the defendant commit any offense?
A. No, because he had no intent to violate the statute.
B. No, because the mistake of law was reasonable, given that the first subsection only applied to food items.
C. Yes, because the defendant’s mistake of fact that the statute applied only to food items is not a defense.
D. Yes, because the defendant’s mistake of law as to the application of the statute is not a defense.
D. Yes, because the defendant’s mistake of law as to the application of the statute is not a defense.
After an altercation on the practice field between a freshman and a senior on a college football team, the senior came up behind the freshman in the locker room and shoved him in the back. When the freshman turned around, the senior punched him in the face. Before the freshman could retaliate, the two were quickly separated by other players. The senior taunted him, “The next time I see you I won’t go so easy on you.” That night the freshman was at a bar frequented by the football players and became enraged when some of them teased him about the altercation. He then saw the senior enter the room but kept his back to him. Suddenly he felt someone shove him in the back. Pulling out his pocketknife, he whirled and stabbed the person behind him, believing it to be the senior. In fact, it was an intoxicated patron who had stumbled and fallen into the freshman. The knife severed a major artery, and the patron died on the way to the hospital.
The freshman is charged with murder for the patron’s death. At trial, the freshman testified that he honestly believed that the senior was going to kill him the next time he saw him. On cross-examination, he admitted that such a belief was unreasonable. The freshman’s attorney requests the judge to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, both on an “imperfect self-defense” theory and on a “heat of passion” basis.
How should the judge respond?
A. The judge should give both an “imperfect self-defense” instruction and the “heat of passion” instruction.
B. The judge should give the “imperfect self-defense” instruction, but not the “heat of passion” instruction.
C. The judge should give the “heat of passion” instruction, but not the “imperfect self defense” instruction.
D. The judge should refuse to give both instructions.
A. The judge should give both an “imperfect self-defense” instruction and the “heat of passion” instruction.
A defendant was convicted of burglary after the prosecution established at a jury trial that the defendant broke into the victim’s house at night by cutting open a window screen and climbing into a bedroom. The evidence also established that the defendant was frightened into leaping out the window when the victim pulled a gun from beneath her pillow. The defendant testified in his own defense, stating that he entered the house merely to use the telephone. His lawyer thus argued that the defendant lacked the required intent for burglary. The trial court, after instructing the jury on the elements of burglary, said, “If you find that by a fair preponderance of the evidence the defendant has shown that he intended to use the telephone when he entered the victim’s home, then you must find him not guilty.”
If the defendant appeals his conviction, will he likely obtain a reversal?
A. Yes, because the trial court’s instruction permitted the jury to use a preponderance standard rather than a reasonable doubt standard
B. Yes, because the trial court’s instruction placed the burden of proof on the defendant.
C. No, because any error in instructions was harmless, because it is more likely than not that the jury would have convicted him anyway
D. No, because the trial court is permitted to comment upon the evidence
B. Yes, because the trial court’s instruction placed the burden of proof on the defendant.
A defendant, on trial for robbing the victim of some jewelry, relied on the defense that he was only trying to recover property that the alleged victim had previously stolen from him. The trial court instructed the jury that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if the jury should find that the defendant had established by a preponderance of the evidence that he was only trying to recover his property, they should find him not guilty. After he was convicted of robbery, the defendant asserts that the instruction to the jury was in error.
Is it likely that his conviction will be reversed?
A. Yes, because the defendant need only convince the jury of any defense to a reasonable certainty, not by a preponderance of the evidence.
B. Yes, because the instruction put a burden on the defendant that denied him due process of law.
C. No, because the defendant’s burden to show that he was trying to recover his property was not one of ultimate persuasiam, but only to produce evidence to rebut the legitimate presumption that the robbery was conducted with the intent to permanently deprive the victim of the jewelry.
D. No, because the instruction was an accurate statement of the law.
B. Yes, because the instruction put a burden on the defendant that denied him due process of law.
The defendant and an accomplice were on trial together for burglary. Both had given confessions implicating themselves and their accomplice. At trial, the defendant maintained that his confession had been obtained through improper coercion by the police. For the purpose of countering the claim of coercion, the prosecution seeks to place the accomplice’s confession into evidence. After objection by the defendant’s counsel, the judge agrees to issue a limiting instruction to the jury that the confession is to be considered only with regard to the question of whether the defendant’s confession was coerced.
May the accomplice’s confession be admitted under that condition?
A. No, because the admission of the confession violates a defendant’s right of confrontation.
B. No, unless the accomplice takes the stand and subjects himself to cross-examination.
C. Yes, as long as all portions of the confession referring to the defendant can be eliminated.
D. Yes, because the judge’s instruction limits consideration of the confession only to the issue of coercion.
D. Yes, because the judge’s instruction limits consideration of the confession only to the issue of coercion.
An officer on routine patrol noticed a flashlight moving within a darkened house and stopped to investigate. The suspect, who had broken into the home to steal valuables, caught sight of the patrol car, dropped the bag of valuables as he was about to carry them out of the house, and tried to sneak out the back way. The officer saw him sneaking out and seized him. The suspect, who had a lock-picking device in his possession, pulled out two $100 bills from his wallet, stating that he did not take anything and would like to forget the whole thing. The officer took the money, stating that she would give him a break this time around, and let the suspect go.
How may the officer be charged in this situation?
A. As an accessory after the fact to burglarly and larceny only.
B. As an accomplice to the crimes of burglarly and larceny.
C. As an accessory after the fact to burglarly only.
D. Neither as an accomplice nor an accessory after the fact.
C. As an accessory after the fact to burglarly only.
The facts do not indicate that the officer knew that the suspect had committed larceny at the time that she let him go.
A father and his son were arguing on the front lawn of the son’s house. The father, who was a bigger and slower man, attempted to end the argument by pushing his son as hard as he could. The son, fearful that his father would continue to escalate the fight as he has done in the past, tackled the father and pinned him to the ground, although the son could have easily escaped into his house.
If the son is tried for battery, should he be found guilty?
A. Yes, because the son “offensively touched” his father by tackling and pinning him.
B. Yes, because the son could have retreated.
C. No, because the son was justified in tackling/pinning his father.
D. No, because the son did not intend to hurt his father.
C. No, because the son was justified in tackling/pinning his father.
A statute in the jurisdiction, which was enacted with the express purpose of preventing public employees from taking advantage of the status of undocumented immigrants, made it a felony to accept money or other benefits in exchange for issuing a state identification card. During an undercover investigation, an undocumented immigrant was recorded offering $500 to a clerk in exchange for issuance of a card. The clerk agreed to the deal and later that day exchanged the card for the money, after which both parties were arrested.
In a jurisdiction following the common law approach to conspiracy, which of the following statements is correct?
A. The clerk can be convicted of violating he statute and conspiracy to violate the statute, and the undocumented immigrant can be convicted of no crime.
B. The clerk can be convicted only of violating the statute, and the undocumented immigrant can be convicted of no crime.
C. The clerk can be convicted only of violating the statute, and the undocumented immigrant can be convicted as an accomplice to violation of the statute.
D. The clerk can be convicted of violating the statute and conspiracy to violate the statute, and the undocumented immigrant can be convicted of conspiracy to violate the statute.
B. The clerk can be convicted only of violating the statute, and the undocumented immigrant can be convicted of no crime.
While at a party, the defendant ran into an acquaintance. The acquaintance proceeded to ridicule the defendant about his looks. After an hour of verbal abuse by the acquaintance, the defendant suddenly took a champagne bottle that was on a nearby table and struck the acquaintance over the head, killing him instantly. At his arrest, the defendant told the police that voices inside his head told him to shut the acquaintance up, permanently.
The defendant was tried in a jurisdiction that follows the Model Penal Code test for insanity. At trial, the defendant’s lawyer introduced psychiatric testimony indicating that the defendant suffered from a mental illness.
Which of the following, if proved by the defense, would most likely relieve the defendant of criminal responsibility?
A. The defendant’s actions were a product of his mental illness.
B. The defendant could not appreciate the criminality of killing the acquaintenance, or he could not conform his conduct to requirements of the law.
C. The defendant did not know that killing the acquaintenance was wrong, or he could not understand the nature and quality of his actions.
D. The defendant was unable to control himself or conform his conduct to the law.
B. The defendant could not appreciate the criminality of killing the acquaintenance, or he could not conform his conduct to requirements of the law.
A blacksmith ran a small forge in a tourist attraction depicting village life in the 1800s, and produced small metal trinkets for sale as souvenirs. A tourist came into the forge and started ridiculing the blacksmith, telling him that he was foolish for practicing such an out-of-date trade when modern equipment could produce the same trinkets faster and far more cheaply. Although he maintained a calm demeanor, the blacksmith was enraged by the time the customer finished and headed back out the door. He picked up an anvil and hurled it in the general direction of the customer. The anvil fell harmlessly to the ground after traveling maybe a foot.
If the blacksmith is charged with assault, which of the following statements would be most helpful for his defense?
A. The blacksmith did not succeed in hitting the customer with the anvil, and he knew that it was impossible to do.
B. The blacksmith knew that it was impossible to hit the customer with the anvil.
C. The customer did not see the blacksmith throw the anvil, and the blacksmith knew that it was impossible to hit the cusomter with the anvil.
D. The customer did not see the blacksmith throw the anvil.
C. The customer did not see the blacksmith throw the anvil, and the blacksmith knew that it was impossible to hit the cusomter with the anvil.
The defendant planned to break into a home, steal any valuables that he could easily pawn, and then burn down the home using gasoline from his lawnmower. When the defendant got to the home that night, he realized that he had forgotten the gas at home. Nonetheless, the defendant broke into the home through a basement window. Unbeknownst to him, the police were alerted by a silent alarm and arrested the defendant just as he was leaving the home with a sack filled with valuables.
At common law, what crimes has the defendant committed?
A. Burglarly and attempted larceny.
B. Burglarly, attempted larceny, and attempted arson.
C. Burglarly and larceny.
D. Burglarly, larceny, and attempted arson.
C. Burglarly and larceny.
