Review

Question 1

In order to be legally valid, consent must be voluntary and

Answer 1

Informed

Question 2

When force is described as malicious, unprovoked and overly violent what are we talking about?

Answer 2

Sports

Question 3

A “constructive assault” is threatening to shoot someone, having the ability to so that and the person fears. they will be shot. True or False

Answer 3

True

Question 4

“Transient or trifling” describes what kind of assault.

Answer 4

Assault causing bodily harm

Question 5

A consensual fight between two people is illegal in Canada? true or false

Answer 5

False

Question 6

A sexual assault by definition is an assault with sexual nature True or False

Answer 6

True

Question 7

Which example of consent is NOT obtained in an assault or sexual assault?

Answer 7

Trickery

Question 8

The complainant’s clothing at the time of an assault is NOT a relevant in determining absence of consent True or False

Answer 8

True

Question 9

R vs Hawkins: What was the conviction registered?

Answer 9

Threats

Question 10

What is required for a person’s conduct to cause the charge of criminal negligence by police?

Answer 10

Must show wanton or reckless disregard of others

Question 11

A homicide is committed when by any means when a person causes the death of another human being. True or False

Answer 11

True

Question 12

Homicide that is NOT culpable is not an offense? True or False

Answer 12

True

Question 13

A person becomes a human being when it has breathed, has independent circulation and navel string is severed. True or False

Answer 13

True

Question 14

Which of the following is NOT on the list of methods by which culpable homicide is committed.

Answer 14

Criminal Negligence

Question 15

2nd Degree Murder is planned and deliberate

Answer 15

False

Question 16

Under section 229(c) CC, can a person be convicted of murder even if they did not intend to cause the death or bodily harm to any human being?

Answer 16

Yes

Question 17

If a person intents to cause bodily harm to another person and that person dies they have committed what offence?

Answer 17

Manslaughter

Question 18

The courts have ruled that infanticide be used as a partial defense against murder by a male. True or false

Answer 18

False

Question 19

Which of the following is a conveyance

An Aircraft
A skateboard
a bicycle
A shopping cart

Answer 19

An aircraft

Question 20

Which of the following is not required for proof of impairment according to the courts

Driving observation
Breathalyzer Test
Appearance and behavior
Medical expertise

Answer 20

Medical expertise

Question 21

Which of the following is required to prove the actus reus of the offenses of dangerous driving?

Consequences of driving
Make and model of the car
The manner in which the vehicle was operated
How aggressive the driving was

Answer 21

The manner in which the vehicle was operated

Question 22

Someone entering an open window to steal food in a kitchen is breaking and entering even if there is no “breaking” True or False

Answer 22

True

Question 23

Being over 80 means: 80mg of alcohol in 100mg of blood True or False

Answer 23

False

Question 24

When does dangerous driving become criminal

The driver was aware of the risks they were taking
The driver’s conduct was a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person

Answer 24

The driver’s conduct was a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person

Question 25

A robbery occurs even if the theft is not completed because the intent to steal is enough to establish a robbery True or False

Answer 25

True

Question 26

The actus reus of theft is taking or converting anything and also moving something with the intent to steal True or False

Answer 26

True

Question 27

The mens rea of theft is taking or converting that was done fraudulently and without color of right True False

Answer 27

True

Question 28

R v Kerr - The courts ruled that even if a person acts foolish and stupid they can be convicted of theft because they have intent True or False

Answer 28

False

Question 29

Constructive possession is having actual physical control over something True or False

Answer 29

False

Question 30

A person breaks into a shed to steal tools. The most appropriate charge would be break and enter.

Answer 30

Yes

Question 31

A person who walks through an open door into a dwelling house with intent to steal can be convicted of a break and enter

Answer 31

No

Question 32

A dog could never be considered a weapon under Section 267 CC

Answer 32

No

Question 33

A person finds a credit card and then uses it has committed theft by conversion

Answer 33

Yes

Question 34

Someone takes a wallet from someone passed out on the ground commits a theft and not a robbery

Answer 34

Yes

Question 35

R vs Wudrick 1959 (melons)

Question 36

R vs Hawkins

Answer 36

The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder after the particularly violent, brutal and unprovoked murder of a handicapped man in his own home. The Crown’s case had depended on circumstantial evidence, including a considerable body of post-offence conduct on the part of the defendant. The defendant appealed, arguing that although he admitted to being present in the deceased’s home after he had been attacked, it was not reasonable to find that he had caused his death. He argued that there was no evidence linking him to any weapon, he had no motive to commit the offence, the Crown had not established an exclusive opportunity for him to do so and the Crown’s theory of a robbery gone bad was not borne out by the evidence since none of the items missing from the home were ever linked to him.Appeal denied; the finding of second degree murder was neither unreasonable nor unsupported by the evidence.

Question 37

R vs Hundai

Answer 37

Appellant was involved in a fatal motor accident and charged with dangerous driving under s. 233 (now s. 249) of the Criminal Code. The accident occurred in heavy afternoon traffic on a wet four lane street in downtown Vancouver. The deceased had waited at the intersection for a red light and was proceeding through it on a green light. He had crossed the cross‑walk and the two west‑bound lanes when his car was struck broadsides by the appellant’s overloaded truck in the east‑bound passing lane.

               The appellant testified that he thought he could not stop when the light turned amber, sounded his horn and proceeded through the intersection.  Several witnesses testified that appellant's truck entered the intersection after the traffic light had turned red and police testimony established that the light was timed to provide a significant delay between one direction's receiving an amber light and the other's receiving a green light.  One witness, who had driven behind the truck for some distance, testified that the appellant had gone through another intersection as the light turned red and estimated the truck's speed at the time of the collision to be between 50 to 60 km/h.

Question 38

R vs Kerr

Answer 38

The accused, an inmate in a maximum security institution, received death threats from the victim, a fellow inmate and a member of a criminal gang that exerted control over inmates through intimidation and assault. The next morning, as on every other morning, the accused concealed two weapons in his pants. In the dining area, the victim approached the accused brandishing a homemade knife. A physical altercation ensued and the victim was killed by a stab to the head. At trial, the accused was acquitted of second degree murder on the basis of self-defence, and of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace on the basis that he possessed his weapons for purposes of deterrence and defence. The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal on the charge of murder, but set aside the acquittal on the second charge and substituted a conviction.

Question 39

R v Newell

Answer 39

The appellant was an alcoholic and recovering from a drug overdose. He was in an emotional state because his girlfriend had recently left him. His friend made homosexual advances towards him and he hit him over the head with an ash tray killing him.

The Court of Appeal held that only characteristics which were sufficiently permanent and relating to the provocation could be taken into account. His emotional state and recovery from the overdose were not permanent characteristics. Whilst his alcoholism was sufficiently permanent it did not relate to the provocation. His conviction for murder was upheld.

Question 40

R v Marabella

Answer 40

[ 1 ] On October 14, 2016, the police went to Bar Jean Talon to carry out an inspection of the premises under the Liquor Offenses Act (“ LIMBA ”). During this inspection, they found a bag in the bathroom vanity with a loaded firearm inside.

[ 2 ] Possession of the firearm is attributed to Mr. Marabella. Following his arrest, he was charged with possession of a loaded , restricted firearm . At the start of his trial, Mr. Marabella made a motion to exclude the evidence. He claims an illegal search of the bag. The request is rejected. I conclude that Mr. Marabella abandoned the bag. He cannot therefore claim a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the subject of the contested search [3] .

[ 3 ] At trial, Mr. Marabella did not contest the evidence provided by the prosecutor and offered no defense [4] . He opts for this approach (the nolo contendere procedure ) [5] rather than entering a guilty plea. The reason is simple: he wants to preserve his right to appeal the decision rejecting the motion to exclude the evidence. It is in this context that he is found guilty of the offense charged.