Elements of A Crime
A woman decided to kill her business partner to take sole control of their company. The woman approached her partner with a gun in her pocket. However, as the woman was taking the gun out of her pocket, intending to shoot the partner, she suffered a severe and unexpected seizure, causing her to pull the trigger and fire a shot. The bullet missed the business partner but hit an innocent bystander, killing the bystander.
Which of the following would be the woman’s best defense to a homicide charge, based on the fundamental elements of crime?
A: The woman did not complete a culpable act.
B: The woman did not purposefully kill the bystander.
C: The woman’s act was not the actual cause of the bystander’s death.
D: The woman’s act was not the proximate cause of the bystander’s death.
A
A defendant is charged with murder in a jurisdiction that follows the modern common law approach to malice. The case does not involve the intended commission of any separate felony.
Which of the following best states the prosecutor’s burden related to the defendant’s state of mind?
A: The prosecutor MUST prove that the defendant knew that death or grievous bodily harm was likely to occur.
B: The prosecutor MUST prove that the defendant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
C: The prosecutor must prove EITHER that the defendant knew that death or grievous bodily harm was likely to occur, OR that the defendant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
D: The prosecutor must prove BOTH that the defendant knew that death or grievous bodily harm was likely to occur, AND that the defendant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
C
The definition of malice refers to ANY of the following: (1) an intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm; (2) knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm is likely; or (3) an intent to commit a felony other than killing.
A defendant was charged with attempted aggravated robbery based on the following facts. The defendant entered a convenience store with what he believed was an unloaded gun, intending to intimidate the clerk into giving him the contents of the cash register. However, the store's security guard thwarted the robbery. Upon retrieval of the defendant’s gun, it wasD Yes, because the defendant should have known the gun was loaded.
C: Yes, because the defendant attempted to commit robbery while using a loaded weapon.
D: No, because the defendant did not intend to use a loaded weapon.
D
Under the common law, if the target crime requires the existence of certain circumstances, the defendant must intend those circumstances to be guilty of attempt. Here, the target crime of aggravated robbery requires that the robbery be committed by use of a loaded weapon, but the defendant did not intend for the gun to be loaded, despite the fact that it was. Therefore, the defendant is not guilty of attempted aggravated robbery.
A defendant was charged with attempting to deliver cocaine, a controlled substance, in violation of state law.
In a Model Penal Code (MPC) jurisdiction, which of the following facts, if true, would most support absolving the defendant of criminal liability?
A: The supposed cocaine was not a controlled substance, but was actually mannitol, a plant-derived sweetener.
B: The intended recipient of the cocaine refused to accept its delivery.
C: The defendant was arrested for drunk driving on the way to delivering the cocaine.
D: The defendant flushed the cocaine down the toilet.
D
In order for the defense to succeed, the defendant must show that the defendant abandoned the defendant’s effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission under circumstances that demonstrate a complete and voluntary renunciation of the defendant’s criminal purpose. Therefore, if the defendant flushed the cocaine down the toilet, this fact would constitute a complete and voluntary renunciation of the defendant’s criminal purpose and would most support absolving the defendant of criminal liability.
A driver went for a drive in a jurisdiction in which the criminal law follows the common-law approach to homicide crimes. The driver drove at 20 miles over the speed limit (a misdemeanor) through a popular part of town that was full of pedestrians. The driver lost control of the car and crashed into a group of people, killing one of them.
The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness.
What is the most serious crime of which the driver could properly be found guilty?
A: First-degree murder.
B: Second-degree murder.
C: Voluntary manslaughter.
D: Involuntary manslaughter.
D
Here, the driver lost control of the car, indicating that the pedestrian’s death was accidental, not intentional. The driver was committing the misdemeanor of speeding at the time of the killing. Therefore, the driver is guilty of involuntary manslaughter because a death occurred during the commission of a misdemeanor offense. This type of involuntary manslaughter is sometimes called misdemeanor manslaughter.
A woman pointed a gun at a man and pulled the trigger. However, just as she pulled the trigger, the man bent over to tie his shoe. The bullet passed over the man but hit a third person who was nearby, killing him.
The woman was charged with a homicide offense in a common law jurisdiction.
Which of the following, if true, would be MOST helpful to the woman’s defense, based on the fundamental elements of crime?
A: The woman reasonably believed that the gun was not loaded.
B: The woman did not intend to harm the third person.
C: The woman only intended to wound, and not to kill, the man she originally aimed at.
D: The third person who was killed was terminally ill, and would have died hours later even if he had not been shot.
A
The woman made a mistake of fact, which in a common law jurisdiction would be judged on its reasonableness. In most cases, the mens rea requirement is satisfied where the defendant acted knowingly, meaning that the defendant was aware that the harmful result was practically certain to occur as a result of the defendant's conduct. A classic example of such a knowing act would be pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. However, if the woman believed that the gun was not loaded, and that belief was reasonable, she cannot be found to have acted "knowingly," and the state will not be able to establish that the woman had the requisite mens rea to be convicted of a homicide crime.
A man came home early from work and caught his wife in bed with his best friend. The man became enraged and stormed out of the house, intending to walk to a nearby bar. While quickly walking down the street, the man accidentally bumped into a neighbor, who turned to him and shouted, “Hey, watch where you’re going, jerk!” The man, still enraged at his wife’s adultery, pulled out a gun and shot the neighbor, killing him. At trial, the man argued that he should be convicted only of voluntary manslaughter, not murder.
Is the man’s defense likely to succeed?
A: Yes, because the man was adequately provoked by discovering his wife and best friend committing adultery.
B: Yes, because the man was adequately provoked by the neighbor’s insult.
C: No, because although the man was adequately provoked, there was no causal connection between the provocation and the shooting of the neighbor.
D: No, because the killing did not occur immediately upon the man’s discovery of his wife’s adultery.
C
Along with adequate provocation and immediate action, voluntary manslaughter requires a causal connection between the provocation, the sudden passion, and the killing. Under the prevailing view, the defendant must have killed the provoking person and not an innocent bystander for voluntary manslaughter to apply
A man wished to go out with friends one night, but he believed his wife would object. He crushed up some sleeping pills and put them into his wife’s dinner, and the wife quickly fell asleep. The man justified his actions to himself, noting that his wife had been putting in long hours at work recently and not getting enough sleep. The man went out with his friends, and upon his return home five hours later, he found his wife unconscious and struggling to breathe. Panicked, the man called 911. Hospital staff determined that the wife had fallen into a coma, which she emerged from two weeks later.
In which of the following jurisdictions, if either, would a prosecutor likely establish the requisite mens rea for an attempted murder charge against the man?
A: Only in a jurisdiction that follows the common law.
B: Only in a jurisdiction that follows the Model Penal Code.
C: In both jurisdictions.
D: In neither jurisdiction.
D
Under the Model Penal Code, a defendant may be guilty of attempt if he either had the specific intent to commit the harm or if he believed such harm would result from his actions. Here, the man did not believe his wife would die as a result of his actions; in fact, he thought she would get a needed good night’s sleep.
A bodybuilder decided to make some extra money by distributing anabolic steroids to athletes for performance enhancement, which distribution is illegal in the United States. The bodybuilder recruited two personal trainers, Personal Trainer 1 and Personal Trainer 2, to sell the steroids to their clients. The personal trainers had no connection with each other, and they didn’t know that others were also involved in the bodybuilder’s scheme. Personal Trainer 1 sold a steroid shot, which he had received from the bodybuilder, to a client. The client had a fatal reaction to the shot. When the police arrested Personal Trainer 1, they also discovered that he had been illegally selling painkillers on the street.
In a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, for which of Personal Trainer 1’s crimes, if any, would Personal Trainer 2 be criminally liable?
A: Illegal sale of anabolic steroids only.
B: Illegal sale of anabolic steroids and illegal sale of painkillers only.
C: Illegal sale of anabolic steroids, illegal sale of painkillers, and negligent homicide.
D: None of Personal Trainer 1’s crimes.
D
In a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, Personal Trainer 2 would not be liable for any of Personal Trainer 1’s crimes. The Model Penal Code imposes liability on a defendant conspirator only for those crimes that the defendant agreed to commit as part of the conspiracy. MPC rejects Natural and Probable Consequence
Three armed kidnappers seized a victim on a busy street. The victim put up a struggle and pushed the first kidnapper into traffic, where he was killed by a passing car before the victim was subdued. A passerby attempted to help the victim but was shot and killed by the second kidnapper. As the kidnappers made their escape, they exchanged gunfire with a police officer, who missed the kidnappers but hit and killed a second passerby. During the gunfight, the victim managed to escape from the kidnappers and disappeared into the crowd. The kidnappers, now without their captive, escaped to their hideout, where they argued amongst themselves about what had gone wrong. The argument became heated, and the third kidnapper shot and killed the second kidnapper.
If the third kidnapper is later apprehended and the jurisdiction follows the agency approach to causation, which death could result in a charge of murder under the felony-murder rule?
A: The death of the first kidnapper.
B: The death of the second kidnapper.
C: The death of the first passerby.
D: The death of the second passerby.
C
The agency approach to causation allows a felon to be charged with murder where the homicide was committed by one of the felons and was committed “in furtherance of” the predicate felony. Here, the death of the first passerby, killed by the second kidnapper, could be imputed to the third kidnapper because it was done in furtherance of the felonious kidnapping.
A man’s brother was terminally ill and in acute pain. The man loved his brother and could not stand to see him suffer. The brother asked the man to administer a lethal dose of medication to kill him and end his suffering. The man agreed. They carried out the plan, and the man was subsequently arrested.
Under most modern criminal codes, which of the following best describes the man’s mens rea with respect to the intentional killing of his brother?
A: The man did not have a culpable state of mind, because he was motivated by compassion.
B: The man did not have a culpable state of mind, because he lacked wicked intent.
C: The man did not have a culpable state of mind, because he was acting under the direction of his brother.
D: The man had a culpable state of mind, because he intended to kill his brother.
D
One of the partners in a small business discovered that the other partner had stolen money from the business. The honest partner confronted the dishonest partner about the theft and threatened to call the police. Terrified by the prospect of being arrested, the dishonest partner grabbed the nearest object, a heavy vase, and threw it at the honest partner. The vase struck the honest partner in the head, killing him. The dishonest partner was arrested in a Model Penal Code (MPC) jurisdiction.
Which of the following considerations is dispositive of whether the dishonest partner could be convicted of murder?
A: Whether the honest partner's threat to call the police was adequate provocation.
B: Whether the dishonest partner consciously disregarded a known risk that throwing the vase would result in killing the honest partner.
C: Whether the dishonest partner had an adequate cooling-off period after the honest partner threatened to call the police.
D: Whether the dishonest partner intended to cause grievous bodily harm by throwing the vase at the honest partner.
B
The MPC defines murder as a killing done with purpose, knowledge, or recklessness. MPC §210.2. A reckless killing under the MPC is one that manifests an extreme indifference to human life, in which the defendant consciously disregards a known risk that his or her conduct will result in someone's death. MPC §210.2(b). Therefore, whether the dishonest partner consciously disregarded a known risk that throwing the vase would result in killing the honest partner is dispositive of whether the dishonest partner could be convicted of murder.
A politician was being sued. The politician asked a friend to offer one of the jurors a substantial sum of money to cast the juror's vote on the jury in the politician’s favor. The friend agreed, and the politician gave the friend information about how to contact the juror. The friend then made the offer to the juror, and the juror accepted it. However, despite the case being resolved in the politician’s favor, the politician never paid the juror anything.
The state criminal code provides as follows: “A person is guilty of bribing a juror if that person confers, offers, or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a juror upon an agreement that the juror’s vote will be influenced.”
For the jurisdiction, the following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness: (1) bribery, (2) attempted bribery, (3) conspiracy, and (4) solicitation.
With respect to the offer to the juror, which of the following crimes is the most serious crime that the politician likely committed?
A: Bribery.
B: Attempted bribery.
C: Conspiracy.
D: Solicitation.
A
Here, the politician enticed the friend to commit the crime of bribing a juror, meaning the politician committed the crime of solicitation. Once the friend agreed to commit the bribery crime and they both took actions to further it (the politician provided information and the friend made the offer), the friend and the politician committed the crime of conspiracy. The crimes of attempted bribery and bribery merge, and the politician may be convicted of only one or the other.
A 19-year-old man asked a 25-year-old woman to buy a six-pack of beer for him. The relevant jurisdiction prohibits any person of legal drinking age from providing any alcohol-containing beverage to any person under the legal drinking age.
Which of the following facts, if true, would most support absolving the man of liability for solicitation under the Model Penal Code (MPC)?
A: The man did not offer to pay the woman to buy him the beer.
B: The woman did not think the man’s request was genuine.
C: Buying alcohol for an underage person is a misdemeanor.
D: The legal drinking age in the state is 18 years old.
D
if the desired conduct or result is not a crime, it is legally impossible for a defendant to be guilty of solicitation. Therefore, if the legal drinking age were 18 years old, the 19-year-old man’s request that the woman buy him the beer would not constitute solicitation because his request would not be facilitating the crime of providing an alcohol-containing beverage to a person under the legal drinking age. This fact, therefore, would most support absolving the man of liability for solicitation.
A disgruntled former employee mailed a package containing a bomb to his former employer’s residence, hoping that the bomb’s detonation would permanently disfigure the employer and “teach him a lesson.” When the package arrived at the employer’s residence, the employer’s wife opened it, causing it to detonate. The explosion killed the employer’s wife.
Did the employee have the required mental state to be convicted of murder of the employer’s wife in a Model Penal Code (MPC) jurisdiction?
A: Yes, because the employee intended to cause grievous bodily injury.
B: Yes, because the employee’s conduct manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life.
C: No, because the employee did not purposely kill the employer’s wife.
D:No, because the employee did not knowingly kill the employer’s wife.
B
Here, because the employer’s wife’s death resulted from the employee’s conduct that manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life, the employee had the required mental state to be convicted of murder under the MPC.
An 18-year-old high-school student lived with his mother and her boyfriend. The boyfriend legally owned multiple firearms that were present and unsecured in the residence. One day, the student snuck one of the firearms, which was loaded, out of the house and took the weapon to school in his backpack. When school was dismissed later that day, the student was running to catch his school bus when the firearm discharged in the student’s backpack, seriously injuring another student. The boyfriend was charged with assault based on a statute that provided that a person is guilty of assault if “through criminal negligence, a person causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon, or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm.” The boyfriend was absolved of criminal liability.
Which of the following findings was the most likely basis for the boyfriend’s exoneration?
A: The boyfriend did not commit an actus reus.
B: The boyfriend did not have a negligent mens rea.
C: The boyfriend’s actions were not the actual cause of the assault.
D: The boyfriend’s actions were not the proximate cause of the assault.
D
Here, the victim’s harm was not the natural and probable consequence of the boyfriend’s leaving an unsecured firearm in his residence. The assault on the victim was too remote to fairly hold the boyfriend responsible for it. Therefore, that the boyfriend’s actions were not the proximate cause of the victim’s harm is the most likely basis for exonerating the boyfriend.
A mugger apprehended a victim at gunpoint. There was a bystander nearby who was also armed. The armed bystander saw the mugging unfold and fired a shot at the mugger. The bystander missed the mugger but hit and killed the victim. Mugging was an inherently dangerous felony in this jurisdiction.
Under which of the following approaches to causation could the mugger be charged with first-degree murder under the felony-murder rule?
A: Only the agency approach.
B: Either the agency approach or the provocative-act approach.
C: Either the agency approach or the proximate-cause approach.
D: the proximate-cause approach
D
A man burglarized a residence and was subsequently charged with the burglary. He told his girlfriend that he would buy her a diamond ring if she would serve as an alibi witness at his trial. Doing so would require her to commit perjury, a third-degree felony, a fact of which both the man and his girlfriend were aware. The girlfriend responded that she would gladly testify as an alibi witness. In fact, the girlfriend had no intention to perjure herself; she planned to—and did in fact—tell the truth at trial.
In a state that follows the Model Penal Code, is the man guilty of solicitation to commit perjury?
A: No, because neither the man nor his girlfriend committed an overt act.
B: No, because the girlfriend never intended to commit perjury.
C: Yes, because the man asked his girlfriend to commit perjury with the intent that she do so.
D: Yes, because the man offered the girlfriend something of value.
C
the man is guilty of solicitation of perjury. He encouraged his girlfriend to commit perjury with the intent that she do so. It is not a defense that the girlfriend secretly intended not to commit perjury or that she did not in fact do so.
A brother and a sister agreed to embezzle money from the family business. Over the next two years, the pair collectively embezzled more than $500,000, which they divided equally. Unbeknownst to the sister, during the pair’s two-year embezzlement, the brother used some of his proceeds to bribe the admissions committee of an elite university into admitting his daughter to the school. Shortly thereafter, the sister moved overseas and stopped embezzling. The brother embezzled another $150,000 from the business until he was arrested a year later.
Under the common law, what is the sister’s likely criminal liability?
A: The sister is liable for her share ($250,000) of the $500,000 that the pair embezzled together.
B: The sister is liable for the $500,000 that the pair embezzled together.
C: The sister is liable for the $500,000 that the pair embezzled together and the $150,000 that her brother embezzled.
D: The sister is liable for the $500,000 that the pair embezzled together, the $150,000 that her brother embezzled, and the amount of money that her brother used to bribe the admissions committee.
C
the sister’s cessation of embezzlement does not establish that she withdrew from the conspiracy. And, the brother’s continued embezzlement demonstrates that the conspiracy’s criminal purpose was still ongoing. Therefore, in addition to her liability for the $500,000 the pair embezzled together, the sister is also liable for the brother’s embezzlement of the $150,000, even though she was not actively participating in the criminal activity
A man went to visit his aging mother in her assisted-living facility. As the man entered his mother’s room, he witnessed a facility employee slapping her and yelling at her for spilling her soup. The man shoved the employee into the room’s plate glass window. The window broke, and the employee fell to his death four stories below.
Under the Model Penal Code (MPC), which of the following findings would most support mitigating the man’s offense from murder to manslaughter?
A: That the man was unable to control his actions.
B: That the man’s actions were subjectively reasonable.
C: That the man did not have an adequate cooling-off period.
D: That the man did not know the window would break.
B
The MPC provides that criminal homicide is manslaughter if it was committed (1) recklessly or (2) under the influence of extreme mental or emotional distress for which there is a reasonable excuse or explanation. The excuse’s or explanation’s reasonableness is determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation and under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
A man was a regular deer hunter and knew that it was illegal to hunt deer on private property without the owner’s permission. The man’s neighbor owned more than 100 acres of wooded land that adjoined the man’s property. The neighbor’s land was marked with “No Trespassing” and “No Hunting” signs posted at regular intervals along the boundary of the two properties. One day during deer hunting season, a severe windstorm blew away the neighbor’s posted signs. The next day, the man was hunting on his own land and knew that he was near the border of his neighbor’s land. He realized that his neighbor’s signs were gone, and without the signs, he was uncertain exactly where the boundary line was. Nevertheless, he continued tracking a deer. Although he didn’t know for sure if he was on the neighbor’s land or on his own land, he in fact crossed onto the neighbor’s land and shot at the deer on the neighbor’s land.
The state defines criminal trespass, in relevant part, as the knowing entry upon the land of another after receiving, prior to the entry, notice from the owner that the entry is forbidden.
Which of the following doctrines would most support a finding that the man had the requisite mens rea for this crime?
A: Mistake of Fact.
B: Mistake of Law.
C: Transferred Intent.
D: Willful Ignorance.
D
Although the man knew that he was near the boundary of his neighbor’s property and knew that it would be illegal to hunt on his neighbor’s property without permission, he did not investigate where the boundary line was, acting with willful ignorance as to whether he was trespassing. Accordingly, the willful ignorance doctrine would support a finding that the man had the knowledge mens rea for criminal trespass.
Two felons kidnapped a victim. The victim screamed and struggled, and the first felon punched the victim with the intent to subdue but not kill him. The police arrived at the scene and fired at the felons, killing the first felon. The victim later died from the punches received during the kidnapping. The second felon was charged in a jurisdiction that follows the most commonly accepted approach to the common law with respect to homicide crimes and the agency approach for felony murder.
What are the appropriate charges against the second felon, respectively, for the death of the first felon and the death of the kidnapping victim?
A: No charge for the first felon's death, and manslaughter for the kidnapping victim's death.
B: No charge for the first felon's death, and first-degree murder for the kidnapping victim's death.
C: First-degree murder for the first felon's death, and manslaughter for the kidnapping victim's death.
D: First-degree murder for both the first felon's death and the kidnapping victim's death.
B
this jurisdiction applies the common-law, majority approach to homicide crimes, which includes using the agency approach to causation. This means that the second felon can be charged with first-degree murder for a murder committed by any felon involved in the kidnapping but not for murders committed by third parties. The first felon’s death was caused by a third party, the police officer. Under the agency approach to causation, the second felon is not responsible for the police officer’s act. Further, the second felon did not kill the first felon directly. Therefore, the second felon will not face any charges for the first felon’s death.
A drug dealer sought to purchase, from her long-term supplier, a quantity of cocaine for distribution. The supplier refused to supply the dealer with any cocaine until the dealer paid off an existing debt for a prior purchase of marijuana. The dealer paid the debt. Shortly thereafter, because the dealer heard from a reliable source that the supplier was working for law enforcement as a confidential informant, the dealer did not pursue the cocaine sale further. The dealer was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of state law.
In a traditional common-law jurisdiction following bilateral agreements, which of the following defenses is most likely to absolve the dealer of criminal liability?
A: The supplier was a confidential informant working for law enforcement.
B: The supplier did not provide any cocaine to the dealer.
C: The dealer did not commit an over act.
D: The dealer did not pursue the sale.
A
there is an agreement between a defendant and someone feigning agreement, such as a confidential informant, the defendant cannot be convicted of conspiracy. Here, if the supplier were, in fact, a confidential informant working for law enforcement, this fact would be the best defense to absolve the dealer of criminal liability.
An electronics store employee was planning to rob the store after hours. The night of the robbery, the employee called one of the store’s security guards, who was a casual friend, and falsely told her that he had forgotten to reconcile his cash register at the end of his shift that night and was worried about getting fired. The employee asked the guard if she would temporarily disable the surveillance cameras so he could enter the store, reconcile his cash register, and leave undetected. The guard agreed. After the guard disabled the surveillance system, the employee entered the store and stole five high-end cell phones. When police apprehended the employee for the theft, he implicated the guard as an accomplice in exchange for the government’s promise of leniency.
Is the guard criminally liable for the theft?
A: No, the guard has no criminal liability whatsoever.
B: Yes, the guard is an accessory before the fact.
C: Yes, the guard is a coconspirator.
D: Yes, the guard is a principal.
A
The guard has no criminal liability whatsoever because she did not know the employee intended to commit the theft and did not take any action that constituted an element of the crime herself. Therefore, the guard lacked the mens rea, or requisite mental state, to commit a crime and did not commit any actus reus,or action that is an element of a crime.