Foundations of Criminal Law
Grep Newark has a condition that gives them unexpected coughing attacks. While on a run one day, Grep had an attack and hit another runner on the sidewalk, causing them to fall and break their leg. The police arrested Grep for assault. What element of a crime does Grep most arguably lack?
1. Actus Reus
2. Mens Rea
3. Causation
4. Concurrence
1. Actus Reus, not a voluntary act
But could depend on where you start the story(ie epilepsy episode in car case)
Merv, a 19-year-old male, was talking to a girl he met at a bar. They eventually went back to his apartment and had intercourse. A week later, Merv got a knock on the door from the police, who arrested him for statutory rape. The girl he was talking to was 16, and in the state Merv was in, the age of minority was 17. Assume that in this state, there is no mistake of age defense. What other state variation or doctrine could Merv plead to try to avoid being convicted?
1. Consent Defense
2. Claim that the crime in this state only applies to men
3. If the state has an age gap requirement, and his case falls within the age gap
3. State age gap requirement
Sheldon, on his way home from work, threw a lit cigarette onto what he thought was his enemy, Barry's, lawn. Instead, Sheldon's cigarette landed in a public bush, setting it on fire. In Sheldon's Common Law state, "throwing any object on another person's property" is a trespassing crime. Sheldon is charged with arson, defined as "starting a fire with the intent to destroy public property." What type of defense is Sheldon claiming, and is he likely to win?
1. Excuse defense; likely to win
2. Justification defense; likely to lose
3. Case-in-chief defense; likely to win
4. Case-in-chief defense; likely to lose
5. None of the above
4. Case-in-chief defense; likely to lose
Reasoning: Under the Common Law legal wrong test, defendant is still charged at the level of crime that would have been committed if the defendant knew the actual facts
Kirksey and Zahn, professors at the Atlanta Institute of Soft Drinks, Baristas, Theologians, and Aerodynamics, needed to get rid of a large quantity of toxic acid. They decided to dump it into a local lake that is used as a source for local drinking water. All of the residents of the state drink water from this lake.
What statute defining the crime of "high risk water pollution" would make conviction for the prosecution easiest if they wanted to charge Kirksey and Zahn for breaking the law? The penalty for breaking the law is $100 per instance.
1. "anyone who intentionally pours toxic acid in a local lake"
2. "anyone who recklessly pours toxic acid in a local lake"
3. "anyone who pours toxic acid in a local lake"
4. "anyone who purposefully pours toxic acid in a local lake"
3. "anyone who pours toxic acid in a local lake"
Strict liability
Pam Potkint is facing charges for failing to file a tax return (federal crime). Pam says that, like Justice Gorsuch, she is a Neo-libertarian and believes that the government should never be able to tell her what to do. Tax return information is sent through the mail. Under what scenario does she have the best chance of avoiding conviction for failing to file a tax return?
1. Pam has never checked her mail
2. Any mail Pam gets from the government, she sets on fire
3. Pam threatens the postman with a gun anytime he is nearby, so she does not get the mail anymore
4. Pam's does not have internet
1. Pam has never checked her mail
Jake found out that Amy had been cheating on him with Charles. He was heartbroken, but after a few months, he got over it, started moving on with his life, and eventually started a cake-making business. He specialized in making buildings, and he was so good that Amy and Charles wanted him to make them a cake for their wedding. Jake agreed, but fully intended to poison the cake to kill both Amy and Charles. Jake added lethal doses of poison to the cake, and on their wedding day, all of the guests, including Amy and Charles, ate the cake, leading to all of their deaths. Jake claims he only wanted to kill Amy and Charles, and should not be charged with murder for the other guests. In a common law jurisdiction, of the options below, what degree or crime should Jake be convicted of?
1. First Degree Murder for Amy and Charles; Second Degree Murder for the other guests
2. First Degree Murder for Amy, Charles, and the other guests
3. Voluntary Manslaughter for Amy, Charles, and the other guests
4. First Degree Murder for Amy and Charles; Voluntary manslaughter for the guests
2. First Degree Murder for Amy, Charles, and the other guests
Transferred intent
Which scenario could Jerry have a legally plausible defense?
1. Common Law: Jerry, drunk from the thirteen Hamm's he drank at St. Burch Tavern, drove into someone's mailbox. He is charged with "reckless destruction of property."
2. Common Law: Jerry was grieving after his best friend (George) of 30 years was killed. One night, to let off some steam, Jerry went to his backyard and shot at what he thought were the trees behind his house. He instead shot and killed Kramer, who was looking for his phone, which he had lost earlier that day. Jerry is charged with murder.
3. MPC: Jerry, a 17-year-old boy, hit and killed Newman while driving 55 in a school zone
4. None of the above
5. 1, 2, 3 are all correct
2. Correct because Mistake of Fact in Common Law applies to specific intent crimes (Murder is an exception to the rule). Likely down to manslaughter
Not 1. Voluntary Intox, General Intent Crime
Not 3. MPC 17 and up do not get infancy defense
You are a prosecutor. You are prosecuting two men for a theft crime that they planned, performed, and executed together. You think that the sentencing guidelines for the judge are too relaxed, and the two men should be sent to jail for much longer than the theft sentencing guidelines allow. What scenario would you prefer?
1. You are in a common law state
2. You are in an MPC state
3. You are in a common law state, and one of the men turns out to be an undercover cop
4. You are in an MPC law state, and one of the men is 15
1. You are in a Common Law state
Own crime and no merger of crimes in Common LawBurg Jensen, a pilot for Spirit Airlines, landed in Santa Fe late into the night. He had forgotten to make a hotel reservation and instead decided to break into a local home, intending to sleep on the owner's couch (a misdemeanor in New Mexico). After sleeping on the couch for an hour (now it's 4 AM), he woke up and decided to kill one of the homeowners because the couch was too uncomfortable. Thankfully, Burg was terrified of children, and on his way to the homeowner's room, their 4-year-old started screaming, causing Burg to freeze. The police eventually came, arrested Burg, and are charging him with Burglary. New Mexico is a common law state. Is it likely Burg will be convicted of Burglary?
1. Yes
2. No, he failed to commit a felony
3. No, he did not have an overt act
4. No, he lacked concurrence
4. Burg lacked Temporal Concurrence. When he broke into the home, he only intended to sleep on the couch, not commit a felony (murder in this case).
Joshua Mein lives in an MPC jurisdiction. One night, he entered Buffalo Wild Wings with the intent to steal the soda machine and start a soda business for himself. He had gotten all of the tools to disassemble the machine, bought the food truck for his business, and had scouted the Buffalo Wild Wings beforehand. When he got inside, he found that the machine was broken, and he was going to wait until after they fixed the machine to steal it. Joshua was picked up by the police as he was leaving, after he said, "No worries, officers, I don't plan to steal anything anymore!" The police are charging Joshua with Burglary or Attempted Burglary (if they cannot get a Burglary charge). Joshua is claiming he renounced his crime. What information would be most helpful to inform the court's decision regarding whether Joshua should be convicted?
1. Stealing a soda machine is a Felony offense
2. Joshua said he would come back and steal the machine after it was fixed
3. Joshua entered the building at night
4. Joshua had to smash the glass door to enter the Buffalo Wild Wings
5. None of the above, Joshua can be convicted on the facts above alone
5. None of the above, Joshua has committed burglary under the MPC
In which scenario would Chivies Pelota have a viable argument for an insanity defense?
5. 2 and 3 only
Not 1. Fails because he knew of the nature and quality and knew it was wrong
Not 4. MPC excludes drug addiction leading to insanity
Keep in mind, you are new to this jurisdiction and are not sure about what standard of law they follow (ie MPC or Common Law)
1. "I never asked Naz to desist, and I did not believe he was dangerous to me or my property"
2. "I thought Naz was coming to take the prized watch that my dad gave me"
3. "I never asked Naz to desist, but I thought he had a knife because he is known to use it when confronted"
4. "I have a disease that makes my elbows fly out like chicken wings randomly throughout the day"
1. "I never asked Naz to desist, and I did not believe he was dangerous to me or my property"
Must ask them to desist before non-lethal defense of property. Unless dangerous to person or property
A state law makes "soliciting, procuring, buying" long island ice tea's illegal for "any state senator". Juno Mashie, a former state senator from a different state, was arrested in this state for ordering an LIT at a local bar. If implicated, what canon of interpretation would be least helpful to Juno's defense?
1. Rule of Lenity
2. Expressio Unis
3. Legislative Intent
4. Avoiding Absurdity
3. Legislative intent
Not 1. pretty much always helps D, if it gets to it
Not 2. Could use to get ordering different from "soliciting, procuring, buying"
Not 4. It could be considered absurd to include former, out of state, senators in the statute
Marcus Hale had been caring for his elderly father, Raymond, for several years. One afternoon, Marcus received a call from a hospital social worker who told him that Raymond had been moved into a long-term care facility. When Marcus arrived at the facility, he saw a nurse casually mention that Raymond had “probably been left here for good because the family stopped visiting.” Moments later, Marcus overheard another staff member joking that elderly patients like Raymond were “better off forgotten."
Later that day, Marcus went to speak with Raymond in his room. As he approached, Raymond’s roommate told Marcus that Raymond had recently signed legal paperwork disinheriting Marcus and leaving everything to a distant cousin. Marcus, visibly shaken, stepped into the hallway where he saw the cousin laughing and bragging about his newfound wealth.
About ten minutes later, Marcus returned to the room, pulled a concealed knife from his coat, and stabbed the cousin, killing him.
At trial, Marcus argues he acted in the "heat of passion" based on what he had just learned about his father’s disinheritance and the disrespect shown toward his family.
Which of the following is the best statement regarding Marcus’s liability?
1. If Marcus lives in a Common Law jurisdiction, there is no doubt he will be convicted of first-degree murder.
2. If Marcus lives in an MPC jurisdiction, he would need to show that a reasonable person in his situation would not have had time to cool off
3. Marcus would likely rather be tried in a Common Law jurisdiction compared to an MPC jurisdiction
4. If Marcus lives in a Common Law jurisdiction that follows the majority test for reasonableness, he would be less likely to be liable if he can show that a reasonable person would have acted similarly
4. If Marcus lives in a Common Law jurisdiction that follows the majority test for reasonableness, he would be less likely to be liable if he can show that a reasonable person would have acted similarly
Robert and his boyfriend (Leroy) were vengeful people. They wanted to get revenge on Robert's ex-boyfriend, Smog, for cheating on him. Robert and Leroy hatched a plan to give Smaug syphilis (a highly deadly disease to dragons) by having Leroy seduce him at a local bar (Leroy already has syphilis). Based on the facts above, what is the best answer?
1. If Robert threatened to kill Leroy unless he committed the crime, Leroy could have a duress defense if they were in an MPC jurisdiction, even if Smaug ended up dying
2. If Leroy were 16, and the age of minority in this jurisdiction were 17, Smaug would be convicted of statutory rape no matter what
3. If Smaug died, but it was because Leroy was hitting him with a belt as a consensual part of their intercourse, Robert cannot be charged as an Accomplice to murder
4. Smaug, before ever meeting with Leroy, came to Robert and apologized for cheating, saying, "Do anything you want to me, I'm sorry." Then Robert beat him relentlessly for 3 hours. Robert would have a consent defense
1. If Robert threatened to kill Leroy unless he committed the crime, Leroy could have a duress defense if they were in an MPC jurisdiction, even if Smaug ended up dying
Not 2. Some jurisdictions have a Mistake of Fact as it relates to age defense. As long as the mistake was honest and reasonable
Not 3. For result crimes, the underlying mens rea is satisfied even if the means or the result are different. Aslo the result was not different, just the means
Not 4. Cannot consent to assaultive crimes unless contact sport or, in the MPC, not serious
Anubis Branch is a known bomb maker in her home state of Montana, a common law jurisdiction. In Montana, bomb making is not a listed felony in the first-degree murder statute, but it is a felony. Bomb making is defined as "procuring the materials needed to make a device, or making any device, which could blow up and cause serious bodily injury or death." In the course of making bombs at her safe house, Anubis made a mistake, leading to a bomb blowing up and killing Lath Margery. Of the scenarios below, which is true?
1. If Anubis had punched Lath in the arm right before the bomb went off, she would be free from the felony murder rule
2. If Dr. Hinuma (Lath's mortal enemy) had shot Lath right before the bomb went off, killing him, then in all common law jurisdictions, Anubis would still be liable under the felony murder rule
3. If Anubis is making bombs in an inherently dangerous manner, she could be found liable under the felony murder rule
4. If there is scientific evidence in the abstract that making bombs is inherently dangerous, then she could be found liable under the felony murder rule
5. None of the above
6. 1 and 2 are both true
7. 3 and 4 are both true
7. 3 and 4 are both true
Follow-up question: If Montana were an MPC jurisdiction, what would have to happen for Anubis to be charged with murder?
Sonja Clanking was driving with an important client to an important meeting when she pulled over and stopped because Sonja saw Ardis Smacker on the side of the road. When they asked if Ardis needed help, the client ran up to Ardis and demanded that Ardis give him all his money. Ardis complied. You represent Ardis, and he just finished telling you how he can't find the client, but he does want to try to charge Sonja. Assuming Sonja knew of the facts of the scenario, and could have prevented the burglary, which fact would you most like to be true?
1. Ardis and Sonja have never met
2. Sonja left Ardis stranded four hours before the robbery
3. Sonja had a contract with Ardis relating to the sale of fine art from her art gallery
4. There is a specific statute in this state saying that if you see someone stranded on the side of the road, you have a legal duty to pull over and help them with the mechanical issues that led to them becoming stranded
2. Sonja left Ardis stranded four hours before the robbery
Jannock Signal and his friend Mas agreed to scare the manager of an electronics store into giving them money. Jannock entered the store carrying a realistic-looking replica handgun. Mas waited outside in the getaway car, encouraging Jannock via earpiece as he was inside.
Once inside, Jannock demanded cash from the manager while pointing the replica gun at him. The manager refused. Frustrated, Jannock shoved the manager in an attempt to scare him into giving him the cash. The manager fell backward, hit his head on the corner of the counter behind him, and died.
Mas saw the incident through the window and drove away when he saw Jannock push the manager.
The prosecutor charges Jannock with felony murder, attempted robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. They also charged Mas with felony murder, attempted robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery.
Which of the following is the best answer regarding Jannock’s and Mas's liability on these charges if they live in a Common Law district with all majority rules?
1. Of these charges, both will likely be guilty on all charges
2. Of these charges, both will likely only be guilty of conspiracy
3. Of these charges, Jannock will likely be guilty of attempted robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, while Mas will likely be guilty of attempted robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery.
4. Of these charges, Jannock will likely be guilty on all charges, while Mas will likely be guilty on only conspiracy, because he renounced by driving away
3. Derivative liability for Mas. Assaultive crime leads to the implication of the merger doctrine meaning no felony murder (would need to charge for assault)
Jerry was carrying a gun around his apartment when Kramer, his nosy neighbor, walked through the unlocked door. It was not uncommon for Kramer to come through the door at this time of day, and Jerry is known to leave his door unlocked for his friends to come through. When he heard someone entering his apartment, Jerry turned and shot his gun at Kramer, killing him. Jerry and Kramer live in a Common Law jurisdiction that has the castle doctrine. Would it be likely that Jerry would have a defense? Choose the best answer.
1. Yes, if Jerry believed that deadly force was necessary to protect his apartment.
2. Yes, if Jerry believed that the intruder intended to commit a forcible felony, and he (Jerry) believed force was necessary to prevent imminent entry into his apartment.
3. No, if Jerry knew that he could avoid the need for deadly force by retreating, surrendering an object, or refraining from an action he has no duty to take.
4. Yes, if Jerry reasonably believed that the use of such force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself, another in the apartment, or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
4. Is correct. If Jerry's belief is assumed to be reasonable than it meets the common law requirements of the castle doctrine.
Not 1. because in the common law, there needs to be a reasonable belief, not just Jerry's belief, and it is likely not reasonable here.
Not 2. Same reason as 1, likely not reasonable. At least not the best option here.
Not 3. MPC use of deadly force, not common law.
Garth Marley and his group of friends (Andersen Kitchens and Tank Corner) agree to kill Gruj Bensen, a highly infected person, who they believe is a threat to society. Garth and his friends believe it is the right thing to do to kill Gruj, and plan to kill Gruj as he walks to work the next day. After picking up his complementary AR-15 from the Walmart in his town, Garth and his friends head toward Gruj's work. To their chagrin, Gruj had the day off, and while waiting outside, the police saw Garth in the car with the AR-15, and Andersen hiding in a bush, and decided to arrest them (Tank was back at their house and was brought in after). At the station, it is revealed that Garth actually gave Andersen a pill that made him follow Garth blindly (does not appreciate his actions) sometime after the meeting and before they left that morning to get the gun. The pill works immediately and lasts 72 hours. Assuming the above facts are true, what charges would the prosecutor's office have a good chance of successfully prosecuting if they chose to pursue them?
1. Under Common Law: Attempted Murder for Garth, Conspiracy to murder for Garth, Accomplice to Attempted Murder Liability for Andersen, Conspiracy to murder for Andersen, Conspiracy to murder for Tank
2. Under Common Law: Conspiracy to murder for Garth, Conspiracy to murder for Andersen, Conspiracy to murder for Tank
3. Under MPC: Attempted Murder for Garth, Conspiracy to murder for Garth, Accomplice to murder Liability for Andersen, Conspiracy to murder for Andersen, Conspiracy to murder for Tank
4. Under MPC: Attempted Murder for Garth, Conspiracy to murder for Garth, Accomplice to attempted murder for Tank, Conspiracy to murder for Tank, Conspiracy to murder for Andersen, Accomplice to attempted murder for Andersen
2. Conspiracy to murder for Garth, Conspiracy to murder for Andersen, Conspiracy to murder for Tank
Reasoning: Can't get Attempted murder for Garth, so no Accomplice liability either for Tank. Also, Andersen would likely have an involuntary intoxication defense to any of these after getting drugged because Accomplice liability is a specific crime. Also likely made temporarily insane.
Not 1. No Conspiracy or Accomplice Liability for Andersen. Involuntary intoxication defense.
Not 3. Same reasons as 1.
Not 4. Tank and Andersen cannot get accomplice liability under MPC