MCQ's Flashcards
W1Q1
Justin and Jennifer were a married couple. Shortly after they awoke one morning, Jennifer berated Justin about spending too much of his paycheck on alcohol and gambling. Justin lost his temper and slapped Jennifer several times. He then went off to work.
After work, he visited a local tavern, had a few drinks, and then took a bus to the local dog-racing track. He owed a local loan shark $800, which was overdue, and hoped to win enough at the track to pay off the debt. After the first four races, however, Justin had lost all the money he took with him, except for enough to pay for the bus ride home. When Justin got off the bus, Ricky, the loan shark’s enforcer, was waiting for him. Justin told Ricky, “I just lost all my cash at the dog track, but I’ve got $400 in the sugar bowl at my house. It’s only a block away. I’ll give you the money if you’ll give me a break.” Ricky replied, “O.K., but this better not be a trick or you’re a dead man!” Justin walked quickly to his house as Ricky followed in his car, Justin climbed the porch steps as Ricky waited in the car. Justin pounded on the door. Jennifer, still angry about being slapped that morning, refused to let Justin in. Justin became more desperate and told her, “Look, there’s someone in that car who is going to shoot me if I don’t give him the $400 in the sugar bowl. If you don’t want to open the door, slip the money through the mail slot. Or at least call the police before I get killed!” Jennifer saw Ricky in the car, and knowing about Justin’s debts, figured that Justin was probably telling the truth. Nevertheless, she told Justin, “You can go to blazes for all I care, Justin.” She then pulled down the shades and closed the curtains. Justin began to yell, “Please, please, let me in or I’ll be killed!” Jennifer continued to ignore Justin’s pleas. Justin started to run down the block, pursued by Ricky. Ricky drove his car onto the sidewalk and ran Justin over, killing him.
Can Jennifer be found guilty of criminal homicide?
*(A) Yes, because she was Justin’s wife and had a duty to aid him.
(B) Yes, because she acted in the heat of passion because Justin had slapped her.
(C) Yes, but only if she intended that Justin be harmed.
(D) No, because she was not the cause in fact of Justin’s death.
W1Q2
As he entered the United States, Dave was instructed by the customs agent to open his suitcase. When he did, the customs agent found heroin wrapped in a package covered with transparent paper. Dave claimed that a stranger had paid him to bring the package into the country and had assured him that there was nothing in it that was illegal.
Dave is charged with knowingly and intentionally importing illegal narcotics. The jury should be instructed that Dave is:
(A) Guilty, no matter what he thought was in the package, because there is strict liability for border crossing offenses.
*(B) Guilty, if he knew or believed that the package contained illegal narcotics.
(C) Guilty, if he knew that the package contained contraband, not necessarily illegal narcotics.
(D) Guilty, because he should have known that the package contained some kind of illegal substance.
W1Q3
State A’s penal statutes contain the following: “Any person who commits a battery upon a state official knowing that the victim is a state official shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year or fined not more than $5,000, or both.” While picking up his unemployment check at the state office building, Rod got into an argument with a man wearing a brown suit and angrily shoved the man against the wall, causing him no injuries. The man Rod shoved was the director of the state department of unemployment, and Rod is prosecuted under the penal statute quoted.
Rod admits that he shoved the victim intentionally, but denies that he knew the man was a state official. The jury should return a verdict of:
(A) Not guilty, if they find that the state should have warned Rod that the victim was an official, even though they do not believe Rod’s testimony.
(B) Guilty, even if they believe Rod, because this is a public welfare offense.
*(C) Not guilty, if they believe Rod’s testimony.
(D) Guilty, regardless of whether they believe Rod or not, because he admitted that he intentionally shoved the victim.
W1Q4
Deanna purchased a wardrobe closet at an antique auction. The sale of all merchandise was specifically designated “as is.” Three days later, while cleaning the inside of the closet, Deanna discovered a small quantity of a white powder inside a box. She showed the box to her boyfriend, a paralegal. He identified the powder as driscamine, a controlled substance. He told her that it was illegal to buy driscamine, but that since she did not know that it was in the closet when she purchased it, it was okay to keep it, which she did. A state statute prohibits “willful and unlawful possession of a controlled substance.”
If Deanna is charged with violating this statute, she should be found:
*(A) Guilty, because she knowingly possessed the driscamine.
(B) Guilty, because she acquired the driscamine when she intentionally purchased the wardrobe closet and, in doing so, committed the requisite unlawful act.
(C) Not guilty, because she thought she was acting lawfully.
(D) Not guilty, because she did not willfully acquire the driscamine and, hence, committed no unlawful act.
W1Q5
While hiking through an area that had been recently devastated by a fire, Hiker discovered a sign that stated: “Now entering State Wilderness Area.” Thinking that the sign would make a nice decoration, Hiker took the sign home with him. He was arrested and charged with violating the state statute that provides, “Any person who appropriates to his own use property owned by the state shall be guilty of a crime and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.” At trial. Hiker admitted taking the sign, but claims that he believed the sign had been abandoned since the area had recently been devastated by a fire. In fact the sign had not been abandoned.
Hiker will most likely be found:
(A) Guilty, because this is a strict liability offense.
(B) Guilty, because intent is not placed in issue by this statute.
(C) Not guilty, unless the jury finds that the state had taken adequate steps to inform the public that the sign had not been abandoned.
*(D) Not guilty, if the jury finds Hiker honestly believed the sign had been abandoned.
W1Q6
Tom had a heart ailment so serious that his doctors had concluded that only a heart transplant could save his life. They therefore arranged to have him flown to Big City to have the operation performed.
Dan, Tom’s nephew, who stood to inherit from him, poisoned him. The poison produced a reaction which required postponing the journey. The plane on which Tom was to have flown crashed, and all aboard were killed. By the following day, Tom’s heart was so weakened by the effects of the poison that he suffered a heart attack and died.
If charged with criminal homicide, Dan should be found:
(A) Guilty.
(B) Not guilty, because his act did not hasten the deceased’s death, but instead prolonged his life by one day.
(C) Not guilty, because the deceased was already suffering from a fatal illness.
(D) Not guilty, because the poison was not the sole cause of death.
W1Q7
Dobbs, while intoxicated, drove his car through a playground crowded with children just to watch the children run to try to get out of his way. His car struck one of the children, killing her instantly.
Which of the following is the best theory for finding Dobbs guilty of murder?
(A) Transferred intent.
(B) Felony murder, with assault with a deadly weapon as the underlying felony.
(C) Intentional killing, since he knew that the children were there and he deliberately drove his car at them.
*(D) Commission of an act highly dangerous to life, without an intent to kill but with disregard of the consequences.
W2Q1
Defendant was driving his automobile at a legal speed in a residential zone. A child darted out in front of him and was run over and killed before Defendant could prevent it. Defendant’s driver’s license had expired three months previously; Defendant had neglected to check when it was due to expire. Driving without a valid license is a misdemeanor in the jurisdiction.
On a charge of manslaughter, Defendant should be found:
(A) Guilty under the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule.
(B) Guilty because the licensing requirements are to protect life, and failure to obey is negligence.
*(C) Not guilty because the offense was not the proximate cause of the death.
(D) Not guilty because there was no criminal intent.
W2Q2
Stagehand decided to play a practical joke on his friend, Actor. Stagehand went to the storage room where stage props were stored and took what he believed to be a stage gun from the locker where such guns were kept. In fact, a week before, Constance, had put her real pistol in the stage gun locker and borrowed the stage gun for an amateur theatrical her church group was putting on.
Constance had forgotten to remove the bullets that her husband always kept in the gun. Stagehand went into Actor’s dressing room and yelled, “You’ve stolen the part that I always wanted to play, now die for it!” Actor knew that Stagehand was an incorrigible practical joker, and after an initial frightened reaction, Actor broke out laughing. Stagehand laughed too, shouted, “Bang, you’re dead!” and pulled the trigger. A bullet hit Actor in the heart, killing him.
Of which, if any, of the following crimes may Stagehand be convicted?
(A) Second degree murder.
(B) Voluntary manslaughter.
(C) Involuntary manslaughter.
*(D) None of the above.
W2Q3
Edna’s husband, Charles, was hospitalized with a terminal disease. Charles’s condition had deteriorated to the point where a life-support machine was the main reason that Charles was still alive. Charles informed Edna that he was in a great deal of pain and asked her to please unplug the life-support system. When Edna thought no one was looking, she unplugged Charles from the life-support system, and Charles died shortly thereafter.
Of which crime is Edna guilty?
(A) Voluntary manslaughter.
(B) Involuntary manslaughter.
*(C) Murder.
(D) Edna is not guilty of a crime.
W2Q4
In which of the following fact situations is Defendant least likely to be properly convicted of murder?
(A) Defendant came home to find his wife lying on the floor of their apartment semi-conscious and severely bruised. When he asked her what happened, she said that their neighbor Fredericks, had raped and beaten her. The following morning, Defendant hid behind some bushes waiting for Fredericks to leave his home. When Fredericks stepped out of his door, Defendant, intending to kill him, shot him, causing his death.
*(B) A state law required every motor vehicle registered within the state to be covered by a valid policy of liability insurance. Defendant was operating a vehicle for which no liability insurance policy had been issued when he struck Norris, who later died of the resulting injuries.
(C) Defendant placed a small quantity of ant poison in a cup of coffee that he was serving to a date. He did not intend to cause any serious injury, but he hoped that the poison would make her slightly ill so that he could induce her to spend the night in his apartment rather than to go home. His date drank the coffee and died as a result.
(D) Defendant’s daughter was suffering from a lingering, incurable, fatal disease. One day, while Defendant was visiting her in the hospital, she screamed and writhed in pain. Wanting to end her suffering, Defendant passed a pillow over her face and held it there until she died of suffocation.
W2Q5
Alice, Betty, and Carol agreed to hold up a newsstand attendant. Alice waited in their car around the corner while Betty and Carol approached the stand, with knives drawn. The attendant gave them all the money in his possession, a sum of $20. As Betty and Carol turned away, the attendant grabbed a gun and fired several times. He intended only to wound Betty and Carol but instead killed Carol. Meanwhile, Alice had long since become frightened and had fled the scene with the car.
If Betty is accused of felony (robbery) murder, her most promising defense would be:
(A) She had not the slightest desire to see her partner harmed.
*(B) The fatal attack itself was performed by the attendant.
(C) The killing occurred after the robbery was over.
(D) The robbery did not constitute a felony since only $20 was involved.
W3Q1
At a party for coworkers at Defendant’s home, Victim accused Defendant of making advances toward his wife. Victim and his wife left the party. The next day at work, Defendant saw Victim and struck him on the head with a soft-drink bottle. Victim fell into a coma and died two weeks after the incident.
This jurisdiction defines aggravated assault as an assault with any weapon or dangerous implement and punishes it as a felony. It defines murder as the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought or in the course of an independent felony.
Defendant may be found guilty of murder:
(A) only if the jury finds that Defendant intended to kill Victim.
(B) only if the jury finds that Defendant did not act in a rage provoked by Victim’s accusations.
*(C) if the jury finds that Defendant intended either to kill or to inflict serious bodily harm.
(D) if the jury finds that the killing occurred in the course of an aggravated assault.
W3Q2
One evening, Parnell had several drinks and then started to drive home. As he was proceeding down Main Boulevard, an automobile pulled out of a side street to his right. Parnell’s car struck this automobile broadside. The driver of the other car was killed as a result of the collision. A breath analysis test administered after the accident showed that Parnell satisfied the legal definition of intoxication.
If Parnell is prosecuted for manslaughter, his best chance for acquittal would be based on an argument that:
(A) the other driver was contributorily negligent.
*(B) the collision would have occurred even if Parnell had not been intoxicated.
(C) because of his intoxication he lacked the mens rea needed for manslaughter.
(D) driving while intoxicated requires no mens rea and so cannot be the basis for misdemeanor manslaughter.
W3Q3
Trelawney worked at a day-care center run by the Happy Faces Day Care Corporation. At the center, one of the young charges, Smith, often arrived with bruises and welts on his back and legs. A statute in the jurisdiction requires all day-care workers to report to the police cases where there is probable cause to suspect child abuse and provides for immediate removal from the home of any suspected child abuse victims.
Trelawney was not aware of this statute. Nevertheless, he did report Smith’s condition to his supervisor, who advised him to keep quiet about it so the day-care center would not get into trouble for defaming a parent. About two weeks after Trelawney first noticed Smith’s condition, Smith was beaten to death by his father.
Trelawney has been charged with murder in the death of Smith. The evidence at trial disclosed, in addition to the above, that the child had been the victim of beatings by the father for some time, and that these earlier beatings had been responsible for the marks that Trelawney had seen. Smith’s mother had been aware of the beatings but had not stopped them because she was herself afraid of Smith’s father.
Trelawney’s best argument that he is not guilty of murder is:
(A) he was not aware of the duty-to-report statute.
*(B) he lacked the mental state necessary to the commission of the crime.
(C) his omission was not the proximate cause of death.
(D) the day-care corporation, rather than Trelawney, was guilty of the omission, which was sanctioned by its supervisory-level agent.
