ND Wrong Answer Deck Flashcards
The fact that the defendant committed a particular act is sufficient for the jury to infer that he acted with:
General Intent
A jury can infer the required general intent merely from the doing of the act. It is not necessary that evidence specifically proving the general intent be offered by the prosecution.
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?
Not guilty, because the employee intended to deposit his paycheck the next day.
Given that the employee intended to deposit his paycheck before the checks cleared, he lacked the intent to defraud required by the statute. The statute under which the employee is being prosecuted is a variation of the offense of false pretenses. As with false pretenses, the statute requires a specific intent, i.e., an intent to defraud. If the employee intended to deposit sufficient funds to honor the check before it reached his bank, then the employee did not intend to defraud the gift boutique. Thus, the employee lacked the specific intent that is a necessary element of the crime charged.
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?
No, because the defendant did not know that the victim would be seriously injured.
The defendant should not be convicted of battery. Under the statute’s fault standards, a defendant must have acted purposely (i.e., with conscious intent to cause the result) or knowingly (i.e., with knowledge that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause the result) as to the harmful result. The apparent inference to be drawn from the facts is that the defendant did not consciously desire, nor contemplate to a practical certainty, the serious injury to the victim that actually occurred. Had the defendant intended to cause such severe harm, he no doubt would have dealt the victim a strong blow rather than simply giving the victim a light shove. Therefore, as to the nature of the result, the defendant did not act with “purpose” or “knowledge” as those terms are defined in the Model Penal Code and modern criminal codes.
A motorist drove home from work late one night, and fell asleep behind the wheel of his car. His car drifted across the middle of the road and struck another car. The other driver was killed instantly in the collision. Angered by the noise of the collision, a homeowner fired a gun out the window of his house at the car. The bullet struck and killed a bystander. Both the motorist and the homeowner were arrested and charged with common law murder.
Which of the defendants likely would be found guilty?
The homeowner.
The homeowner likely would be found guilty. At common law, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought could be established with any one of the following states of mind: intent to kill; intent to cause serious bodily harm; the depraved heart killing (a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life); or the commission of a felony. The homeowner would be guilty of murder. Firing a gun out of his window at a car would demonstrate a reckless indifference to a high risk to human life.
The statutes of a state define the following crimes (with the most serious listed first):
First degree murder-Premeditated or intentional killing.
Felony murder-Killing while in the act of committing a common law felony.
Second degree murder-Killing with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Manslaughter-Killing with adequate provocation or through criminal negligence.
A competitive camp counselor who was determined to have her team win a relay race decided to put a colorless and odorless drug into the other teams’ water bottles. The counselor wanted the other teams to become sick to their stomachs so that they could not run as fast in the race. The counselor knew that people could become very ill, or even die, if they consumed too large a quantity of the drug but she only intended to place a small amount in each water bottle. The day before the race, the counselor went into the nurse’s office and took a bottle of the drug. The next day she woke up early and went to the cafeteria to put small quantities of the drug into the other teams’ water bottles. She unintentionally put a large amount in a few of the water bottles. Several campers became extremely ill and one eventually died.
What is the most serious crime for which the counselor may be convicted?
Second degree murder.
The counselor may be convicted of second degree murder. Under the statute provided in the question, second degree murder is a killing committed with a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Here, the counselor consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the drug she was placing in the water bottles could be seriously harmful or even fatal. Thus, the counselor may be convicted of second degree murder.
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?
His only intent was to borrow the television set for a few days.
The defendant’s best defense to felony murder is that he only intended to borrow the television set for a few days. By establishing this intent, the defendant will show that he did not have the intent to commit a felony and therefore cannot be guilty of felony murder.
Which of the following statements regarding embezzlement is true?
If the defendant intends to restore the exact property taken, it is not embezzlement.
If the defendant intended to restore the exact property taken, it is NOT embezzlement. But if he intended to restore similar or substantially identical property, it is embezzlement, even if it was money that was initially taken and other money-of identical value-that he intended to return.
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?
Yes, because the friend took the van from the mechanic without the mechanic’s knowledge or permission.
The student will most likely be found guilty. Larceny is the taking and carrying away of the personal property of “another” with the intent to permanently deprive the other person of the property. It is possible to commit larceny of your own property if another person, such as a bailee, has a superior right to possession of the property at that time. Because the mechanic had a right to possession of the van until he was paid, the student committed larceny when he had his friend take the van without the mechanic’s consent.
An art restorer, after attending art school for a number of years, secured a job restoring the paintings for an art museum. After several years on the job, the artist discovered that he could imitate the artwork of nearly any artist. He decided that he could make some extra money copying the artwork of up-and-coming artists, while staying away from more well-known artists to reduce his chance of getting caught.
An art collector searching for a painting by a new artist saw the restorer at an art fair selling various paintings, one of which appeared to be by the new artist. The restorer was selling the painting for $100. The collector thought that the price was very low and that the painting should probably sell for around $500, but she bought the painting anyway, giving the restorer $100 after the restorer confirmed that the painting was an original from the new artist. After taking it to an art appraiser for insurance purposes, she discovered that the painting was a forgery. However, she also discovered that the painting’s frame was worth about $125.
With which theft offense may the art restorer be charged?
False pretenses.
The art restorer has committed false pretenses because his misrepresentation concerning the authenticity of the painting induced the collector to convey title to the $100. The offense of 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. The art restorer falsely represented to the collector that the painting he sold her was an original from a new artist, intending that the collector would rely on such a misrepresentation by paying money for the painting. The collector, acting in reliance on this misrepresentation, conveyed to the art restorer title to the $100. Thus, all of the elements of false pretenses are present in the restorer’s dealings with the collector.
Acting on a hunch, a police officer went to a young woman’s apartment, broke in, and searched it. The officer found exactly what she was looking for under the woman’s bed: a sack filled with jewels. The attached note read, “Sweetheart, here are the goods from the estate heist. Your loving boyfriend.” It was well known in the community that the woman’s boyfriend was a jewel thief. The officer also knew that the estate of a local socialite had been burglarized three days ago. Just as the officer finished reading the note, the woman returned. The officer immediately placed the woman under arrest as an accessory to the estate burglary. Based on the evidence obtained from the woman’s apartment, a search warrant was issued for her boyfriend’s apartment. The search yielded burglar tools and more jewels from the estate. The boyfriend was immediately arrested and charged with the estate burglary. At the boyfriend’s trial for the estate burglary, his attorney files a motion to suppress the evidence consisting of the bag of jewels and note, the tools, and the jewels from the boyfriend’s apartment.
How should the court rule on the motion?
Deny the motion, because the police had a warrant to search the boyfriend’s apartment.
The court should deny the motion to suppress because the police had a warrant to search the boyfriend’s home. The boyfriend’s expectation of privacy extended only to his own home, which was searched under a warrant. He does not have standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim regarding the search of his girlfriend’s apartment because her apartment was not his home, and he did not own it or have a right to possession of it.
The police received information linking a man to drug trafficking and went to the man’s residence, where he lived with his mother. The police found the mother at home, and she told them that her son was not expected back until later. The police informed the mother that they suspected the man of selling drugs and asked if they could search his room. She replied, “I’m finished with that no-good bum; not only is he into drugs, but he has been stealing my money to pay for them, and all the time I’m making his bed and fixing his food. You can search his room. He likes to keep his private stuff under his pillow. I hope he goes to jail.” The police searched the man’s room and discovered a quantity of marijuana under the pillow of his bed.
If before trial the man’s attorney moves to suppress the marijuana on grounds that the search was invalid, should the court grant the motion?
No, because the man’s mother had the authority to consent to the search of his room.
The man’s motion to suppress should be denied because his mother had authority to consent to the search of his room. A search of a residence can be based on the voluntary consent of the occupant. Where a parent has general access to a room occupied by a son or daughter, the parent can give a valid consent to a general search of the room even if the son or daughter is an adult. The facts in the question indicate that the man’s mother had general access to his room (“and all the time I’m making his bed”). Therefore, her consent is valid and eliminates the need for probable cause and a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has held that only a person with a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place searched or an item seized can challenge a search or seizure on Fourth Amendment grounds to bar the use of the fruits of the search as evidence at trial. An intrusion into a place or thing in which the defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy is not considered a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Which of the following is most likely to be found to constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment?
Use of a thermal imager to photograph the interior of a home.
The use of a thermal imager to take photographs of the interior of a home most likely constitutes a search. The Supreme Court has held that there is a strong expectation of privacy within one’s home, so obtaining information about the interior of a home through sense-enhancing technology that could not otherwise have been obtained without a physical intrusion constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment, absent a warrant.
Although government-required drug testing constitutes a search, the Supreme Court has upheld such testing without a warrant, probable cause, or even individualized suspicion when justified by “special needs” beyond a general interest of law enforcement.
In which of the following cases is a court least likely to find a special need justifying a warrantless drug test?
Politicians running for public office.
The Supreme Court found no special interest justifying the warrantless drug testing of politicians running for public office.
The Supreme Court has found a special interest justifying warrantless drug testing of public school students participating in extracurricular activities-the need being to assure the safety of students.
The Court has also found a special interest for warrantless drug testing of railroad employees involved in accidents-the strong interest of assuring public safety.
Finally, the Court has found a special interest justifying the warrantless drug testing of drug interdiction agents-their ready access to drugs.
Under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, which of the following is not required?
The police must have inadvertently discovered the item.
For the warrantless seizure of an item under the plain view exception, it is not required that the item be inadvertently discovered. Formerly, this exception to the warrant requirement applied only if the item was inadvertently discovered. Inadvertence, however, is no longer a requirement.
To make a warrantless seizure, the police (1) must be legitimately on the premises where the item is found; (2) the item must be evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime; (3) the item must be in plain view; and (4) it must be immediately apparent (i.e., probable cause) that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of a crime.
A car was pulled over for speeding and the police officer ordered the driver to step out and move away from the car. The officer subsequently searched the glove compartment of the car and found an illegal handgun.
Which of the following would NOT be a valid basis for the search of the glove compartment?
The officer properly placed the driver under arrest and secured him in the back of the squad car before conducting the search.
The search of the glove compartment would not be valid if the officer had placed the driver under arrest and secured him in the back of the squad car. After arresting the occupant of a vehicle, the police may search the interior of the vehicle incident to the arrest if (i) the arrestee is unsecured and still may gain access to the interior of the vehicle, or (ii) the police reasonably believe that evidence of the offense for which the person was arrested may be found in the vehicle. Here, if the officer secured the arrested driver in the back of the squad car, the first basis for permitting the search incident to arrest no longer applies (and there are no facts to support the second basis). Hence, there would be no grounds under (B) to support the search of the glove compartment.
