MBE CrimLaw

Question 1

Regulatory Offense. what kind of concern and what kind of mens rea requirement

Answer 1

regulatory offense. Such offenses, particularly when public health or safety is concern, are usually strict-liability offenses that do not require a specific mens rea. Here, however, the wording of the statute specifically requires that the violator act knowingly.

Question 2

Doctrine of transferred intent

Answer 2

Under the doctrine of transferred intent, when a defendant acts with an intent to cause harm to one person and that act directly results in harm to another person, the defendant is treated as having the intent to cause harm to the person harmed.

Question 3

Enumerated felonies for felony murder

Answer 3

burglary, arson, rape, robbery, or kidnapping)

Question 4

Potential forms of an accomplice’s assistance

Answer 4

e. The accomplice’s assistance to the principal may be verbal encouragement, financial assistance, or physical assistance, provided that the accomplice has the requisite intent to encourage or assist in the commission of the crime.

Question 5

Can the underlying felony of attempted robbery merge into the felony murder conviction?

Answer 5

Yes. when there was felony murder of which the underlying felony was robbery.

Question 6

Can there be consent to a homicide?

Answer 6

Consent is not a defense to homicide, so a “mercy killing” (i.e., euthanasia) can be a criminal homicide even if the person was willing to die because of a painful terminal illness, as in this case.

Question 7

Define ‘assisting a suicide’

Answer 7

Providing a person with the means by which that person can commit suicide generally does not make the provider guilty of murder as an accomplice but instead guilty of a lesser crime, such as assisting a suicide.

Question 8

Define murder in relation to malice

Answer 8

Murder requires that the defendant act with malice in causing the death of another human being. One of the ways in which malice can be established is through proof of a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (i.e., a depraved-heart murder).

Question 9

Robbery conviction + The felony murder conviction. Merge?

Answer 9

Yes, the robbery conviction merges into the felony murder

Question 10

Battery + Robbery. Can battery merge into Robbery?

Answer 10

Yes. Larceny (Taking/another prop/woconsent / intent to deprive)
+Victim’s presence
+ Either by violence or putting the victim in fear of immediate harm

Question 11

Arson

Answer 11

arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

Question 12

Larceny by trick

Answer 12

A defendant is guilty of larceny by trick if she obtains possession (but not title) to property owned by another through fraud or deceit, with the intent to permanently deprive the victim of that property, resulting in the conversion of the property

Lawyer deceitfully obtains the necklace after forming the intent to sell it.

Question 13

Embezzlement

Answer 13

embezzlement requires that a defendant have lawful possession of the property of another when forming the intent to defraud. In this case, the defendant formed the intent to defraud her client before she had possession of the property.

Question 14

false pretenses.

Answer 14

D obtains title to someone else’s property through an act of deception (title & possession)

Question 15

Burglary

Answer 15

Burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. At the time of the breaking and entering, the defendant must have the specific intent to commit a felony inside the dwelling.

Question 16

Larceny

Answer 16

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property (i.e., intent to steal). The property must be taken without the owner’s consent. Although the dog sitter did retain the property of another with the intent to deprive the owner of the dog temporarily, she never intended to keep him permanently until the client sold him to her.

Question 17

Attempt

Answer 17

An attempt requires a specific intent to commit a criminal act coupled with a substantial step taken toward the commission of the intended crime.

Question 18

Factual impossibility? Can it be a defense to the crime of attempted murder?

Answer 18

A factual impossibility occurs when, at the time of the attempt, the facts make the intended crime impossible to commit although the defendant is unaware of this when the attempt is made. However, factual impossibility is not a defense to the crime of attempt.

Question 19

Does the ‘castle doctrine’ apply even in ‘retreat doctrine’ states?

Answer 19

yes

Question 20

Bigamy

Answer 20

Bigamy is a strict liability crime, thus only an actus reus is required.

Question 21

How responsible is an accomplice?

Answer 21

An accomplice is responsible for the crimes to the same extent as the principal.

Question 22

Involuntary intoxication defense

Answer 22

Involuntary intoxication is a defense when the intoxication serves to negate an element of the crime, including general as well as specific-intent and malice crimes.

Question 23

Which merges - attempt, conspiracy, solicitation?

Answer 23

Attempt.

Attempt usually merges into the same crime for the murder if the murder and the attempted murder were directed at the same person.

Question 24

Define solicitation. How does it change?

Answer 24

Occurs when an individually intentionaly invites commands another person to commit a crime.

If agreed, conspiracy formed.
If commits offense, the solicitation will merge into the completed offense.

Question 25

Does attempted murder and conspiracy murder merge?

Answer 25

No

Question 26

Involuntary manslaughter

Answer 26

Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional homicide committed with criminal negligence or during an unlawful act. Criminal negligence is grossly negligent action that puts another person at a significant risk of serious bodily injury or death. It requires more than ordinary negligence for tort liability and something less than the extremely negligent conduct required for depraved-heart murder.

Question 27

Larceny definition. What kind of intent? Mistake of fact defense?

Answer 27

The gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. Therefore, the gardener’s mistaken belief that he was stealing a more valuable kind of heirloom parsley is not a defense because it did not negate his intent to steal.

Question 28

Robbery

Answer 28

Larceny (Trespassory taking of another party’s property without his consent to deprive him permanently)
+ Assault ( in his presence + with the use of violence or threat of imminent phyiscal harm)

Question 29

Assault

Answer 29

Assault is intentionally placing another in apprehension of imminent bodily harm. The victim’s apprehension must be reasonable.

Question 30

Does the fraud in the inducement negate the consent in rape charge?

Answer 30

No. Fraudulent conduct does not negate consent in most situations. Here, the man induced the woman to consent to sexual intercourse through false promises–“fraud in the inducement”–but that, standing alone, does not negate consent. Here, the man made false promises to obtain consent, but did not conceal the actual nature of the act; consequently, the fraud was in the inducement, not in the factum.

Question 31

Pinkerton rule

Answer 31

The “Pinkerton Rule” says that every co-conspirator is guilty of any foreseeable substantive offense committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, regardless of actual knowledge of its commission.

Question 32

CL rule for convicting a conspirator vis-a-vis other conspirators

Answer 32

At common law, a conspirator cannot be convicted of conspiracy if all other conspirators are acquitted at the same trial, because there must be more than one conspirator to have a conspiracy.

Question 33

Can factual impossibility a defense to conspiracy?

Answer 33

No.

Question 34

Mistake of law defense in criminal case.

Answer 34

As with a mistake of law regarding whether conduct constitutes a crime, a mistake of law as to the existence of a defense generally does not permit a defendant to raise the defense. However, when the defense turns on the existence of a material element and the defendant’s honestly held mistake of law negates the required mental state for that element, the defendant may assert the defense.

Question 35

Specific intent crime requiring recklessness standard + jury has to -___

Answer 35

find that she acted with the requisite mens rea or scienter.

Question 36

Accomplice liability

Answer 36

An accomplice to a crime can be convicted of the crime, even if he was not involved in the principal criminal actions. An accomplice is responsible for the crime to the same extent as the principal.
The accomplice must intend that her acts will assist or encourage the criminal aim.

Question 37

Accessory before the fact

Answer 37

An accomplice who is neither physically nor constructively present during the commission of the crime, but who possesses the requisite intent, is an accessory before the fact

Question 38

Girlfriend gives scissor to BF, BF uses instead hammer to break in - Girlfriend convicted of Burglary and larceny?

Answer 38

Y

Question 39

majority rule or MPC rule of the accomplice liability

Answer 39

Under the majority and MPC rule, an accomplice is a person who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, aids or abets a principal prior to or during the commission of the crime.

Question 40

Situations where a D may negate his accomplice liability under the Majority or MPC rule

Answer 40

However, a person is not guilty as an accomplice when that person’s action is itself an essential element of the crime. When the crime requires another party (i.e., the crime of distributing drugs requires a purchaser), the other party is not, simply by engaging in the criminal act, guilty of the crime as an accomplice. Regardless of whether the accountant could be found guilty of purchasing narcotics, she cannot be charged as an accomplice to distributing cocaine when her purchase was essential to the commission of the crime of distribution

Question 41

Common law theory of murder

Answer 41

At common law, a defendant could be convicted of murder not only for an intentional killing, but also for causing another’s death by actions intended to cause serious bodily injury short of death.

Question 42

Common law murder

Answer 42

Common-law murder is the unlawful killing of another human being committed with malice aforethought. “Malice aforethought” includes reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life.

Question 43

False pretenses

Answer 43

False pretenses requires obtaining title to the property of another person through the reliance of that person on a known false representation of a material past or present fact, and the representation is made with the intent to defraud.

Question 44

Forgery

Answer 44

Forgery is the making of a false writing with apparent legal significance and with the intent to defraud. Making includes creating, altering, or fraudulently inducing another to sign a document when that person is unaware of the significance of the document.

Question 45

1. Kidnap

2. Kidnap incident to another crime

Answer 45

One of the elements of kidnapping is the perpetrator must hide the victim for a substantial period of time or move the victim at least a short distance. If the kidnapping occurs incident to another crime (e.g., robbery), then the movement must be more than is necessary for the commission of that crime in order for the perpetrator to be liable for both kidnapping and the separate offense.

Question 46

Kidnap when willingly entered the model on reliance

Answer 46

No

• no unlawful confinement
• unconsciousness - nothing against will
• no movement or hiding for a substanital period o fitme

Question 47

Bigamy mens rea?

Answer 47

N. Bigamy is a strict-liability crime and does not require a mens rea, or guilty mind.

Question 48

Conspiracy - proof of agreement - evidentiary threshold

Answer 48

t. A conviction of conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit a crime and, in some jurisdictions or under some statutes, proof of an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The conspiratorial agreement need not be proven through direct evidence, as long as the circumstantial evidence taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution is sufficient to allow a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiratorial agreement. Here, because a jury rationally could conclude from all the circumstances (including the woman’s statement about her discussion with her sister) that the woman and her sister had agreed to import cocaine, the issue is for the jury, and the woman is not entitled to a court-ordered acquittal.

Question 49

Attempted murder - does it require that the victim be in the imminent danger?

Answer 49

incorrect because attempted murder does not require that the potential victim be in imminent danger, only that the perpetrator take a substantial step toward the commission of the crime and possess the requisite intent.

Question 50

Employment of deadly force - best defense?

1. Home (castle)
2. reasonably necessary

Answer 50

Although retreat is never required when the person employing deadly force is in his own home, deadly force is still only premitted when it is reasonably necessary to prevent death.

Question 51

Mistake of fact defense

1. General Intent crime
2. Specific intent crime

Answer 51

Mistake of fact may negate criminal intent for both specific and general intent crimes if the mistake is an “honest mistake.” For specific intent crimes, a mistake of fact is a valid defense even if the mistake is unreasonable.

Question 52

An Accessory after the fact

Answer 52

An accessory after the fact is a person who aids or assists a felon in avoiding apprehension or conviction after commission of the felony.

Question 53

MPC test for insanity

Answer 53

Under the Model Penal Code (MPC) test for insanity, which combines the M’Naghten and irresistible-impulse tests, a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the conduct, he, as a result of a mental disease or defect, did not have substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform his conduct to the law.

Question 54

PA test for insanity

Answer 54

Defendant , because of a mental disease,

did not know either
nature or quality of his act; or
wrongfulness of act

Question 55

First degree murder

Answer 55

Specific intent crime

Deliberate and premeditated

Question 56

Common law murder. 4 types.

Answer 56

Unlawful killing + Malice.

1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to inflict serious bodily harm
3. Abandoned or malignant heart or depraved heart
4. Felony murder

Question 57

Voluntary manslaughter

Answer 57

D intends to kill the victim + state of mind less blameworthy than murder
Acted in ‘heat of passion’ or ‘under extreme disturance’

test: action without thinking or time to cool off?

Question 58

“depraved heart murder.”

Answer 58

reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, unaccompanied by the intent to kill, and that actually results in death

Question 59

Larceny building block

Robbery
Extortion
Embezzlement
Burglary

Answer 59

+ Violence = Robbery
+ threats = Exortion
+ after permission = Embezzlement
* Don’t think about larceny. break & entering + Felony = Burglary

Question 60

Larceny by trick vs. False pretenses

Answer 60

Larceny by trick and device is the appropriation of property, the possession of which was fraudulently acquired; obtaining property by false pretenses is the fraudulent or deceitful acquisition of both title and possession.

Question 61

Burglary

Answer 61

Larceny + Break& Enter + Felony

Question 62

Robbery force requirement

Answer 62

The force need not be great, but must be more than the amount necessary to effectuate taking and carrying away the property.

Question 63

Embezzlement charges against lower-level employees or thief (or accomplice thief)?

Answer 63

No. Embezzlement requires fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person who is in LAWFUL possession of the property.

1. Lower-level employees only have custody, not possession.
2. Thief doesn’t have lawful possession