CRIMINAL LAW QUESTIONS, GOULD S, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Transcription

1 GOULD S MCQ s in the MORNING Multiple Choice Program: CRIMINAL LAW QUESTIONS, 21-30

2 21. Alex and Alex s son, Barry, attended a baseball game. Alex went to a concession stand to buy a hotdog. When returning to his seat, Alex noticed that Chip was putting a bomb under a seat near where Alex and Barry were seated. Alex told Barry about the bomb, and they both left the stadium. As they left the stadium, the bomb exploded, and caused the death of three people that were seated near Alex and Barry. In this jurisdiction, murder in the first degree consists of an intentional homicide committed with premeditation and deliberation or murder that takes place through the commission of an inherently dangerous felony, murder in the second degree is defined as all other murder at common law, and manslaughter is defined as either a homicide in the heat of passion arising from adequate provocation or a homicide caused by gross negligence. Which crime did Alex commit? A. Manslaughter, because while Alex acted to save Barry s life, three other people were killed. B. Murder in the first degree, because a bomb constitutes an inherently dangerous felony, under the felony murder doctrine. C. Murder in the second degree, because Alex acted with a depraved heart indifference to the lives of the other spectators at the baseball game. D. No crime.

3 21. CORRECT ANSWER: D. Alex, as Barry s father, had a special relationship to rescue Barry from the dangerous situation involving the bomb. Here, Alex did rescue Barry, by immediately walking with Barry out of the stadium, before the bomb blew up, thus acting pursuant to his duty to aid or rescue Barry. However, Alex did not have a special relationship with the other spectators, and Alex did not create the peril. Therefore, the inaction of Alex to act to save the other spectators, while perhaps unreasonable given the circumstances, would not amount to criminal liability for Alex, because Alex had no legal duty to aid or rescue the other spectators.

4 22. Simon had just broken up with his girlfriend, and went out to get drunk because he was depressed and feeling mentally ill. He drank six mixed drinks in one hour, and each drink had two ounces of 80 proof alcohol. Mr. Big walked into the bar, and told Simon to get up, so that he could have Simon s seat. Simon refused. Mr. Big then pushed Simon forcefully. Simon told Mr. Big that Simon had just broken up with his girlfriend, and that Simon was upset and feeling mentally ill. Mr. Big laughed, and pushed Simon again. Already upset at losing his girlfriend, Simon s passion was re-ignited when Mr. Big provoked Simon by pushing Simon, forcefully, twice, while laughing wildly. Simon thought it was reasonable that he take out his handgun, and shoot Mr. Big, in response to what Simon regarded as physical provocation. Simon was, in fact, enraged, as he shot Mr. Big, killing Mr. Big instantly. What crime would Simon most likely be convicted of? A. Manslaughter, because Simon was in fact enraged, and he did not have time to cool off. B. Murder in the first degree, because Simon pulled out a gun and directly shot Mr. Big. C. Murder in the second degree, because Simon drank heavily before shooting and killing Mr. Big. D. No crime.

5 22. CORRECT ANSWER: C. Simon had a number of drinks in a short period of time, and therefore, he could be considered intoxicated. An individual that is intoxicated is not capable of operating with both premeditation and deliberation, and thus first-degree intent to kill murder is not applicable. Voluntary manslaughter is not applicable, because the heat of passion defense considered under a reasonable person standard, and a reasonable person is considered sober. Additionally, even though Simon was pushed and prodded by Mr. Big, Mr. Big did not provoke Simon to the point that a reasonable person would be provoked to kill. Therefore, Simon would be convicted of seconddegree murder, because, while intoxicated, he pointed a gun and pulled the trigger, killing Mr. Big. The fact that Simon was feeling mentally ill is not relevant.

6 23. Rudolph and Mayville, two adults, decided to play monopoly. Bored halfway through the game, Rudolph decided to ask Mary to join the game. Mary refused. Upset with the recalcitrance of Mary, Rudolph challenged her to a duel with swords, and gave a sword to Mary. Mary had never held a sword before, but Rudolph was well acquainted with swords. Just then, Rudolph lunged in the direction of Mary, expecting that Mary would parry his advance. Mary did not parry the advance, and the sword pierced her chest. Mary died from complications of the wound, eleven months and three and a half weeks later. What is the most serious crime that Rudolph could be convicted of? A. Murder in the first degree. B. Manslaughter. C. No crime, because Rudolph and Mayville were of age, and consented to play the game together. D. Murder in the second degree.

7 23. CORRECT ANSWER: A. Under the deadly weapon doctrine, a murder that occurs due to the use of a weapon consistent with the weapon causing the death of another, will be inferred as first-degree intent to kill murder. Even if Mayville had begged Rudolph to kill her with his sword, Rudolph could still be charged and convicted with 1 st degree murder, because the law does not allow anyone to consent to murder. Additionally, even though it took Mayville almost a year to die from her wound, since she died due to the wound within a year-anda-day of the incident, Rudolph would be considered the causative agent of her death.

8 24. Russian roulette is a game in which two people point a gun at themselves, and then pull the trigger, while a multi-chamber gun is loaded with only one bullet. At each successive turn, the person pulling the trigger may be struck with a bullet, if the bullet happens to be loaded in the chamber of the gun at the time that they pull the trigger. In other words, one of two people will eventually be shot. Niko and Keke played Russian roulette with a play gun, containing caps, when they were young. However, when they reached adulthood, Niko challenged Keke to play an adult version of Russian roulette, with a real loaded gun and with real bullets. Keke did not want to play the adult version of Russian roulette, but Niko persisted with his admonitions that Keke play the adult version of Russian roulette. Keke played the game with Niko, and Niko died as a result of the game. A statute in the jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as an intentional and premeditated killing or one occurring during the commission of a common law felony, and murder in the second degree as all other murder at common law. Manslaughter is defined as killing in the heat of passion upon an adequate legal provocation or as a killing caused by gross negligence. What is the most serious crime that Keke may be convicted of? A. Murder in the first degree, because the killing of Niko was intentional and premeditated. B. Manslaughter, because Keke s playing of Russian roulette was grossly negligent. C. Murder in the second degree, because Keke s playing of Russian roulette posed a great threat of serious bodily harm to Niko, and evinced a reckless disregard of human life. D. No crime, because Niko and Keke were of age, and consented to play the game together.

9 24. CORRECT ANSWER: C. In this situation, if both parties continued with the Russian roulette until completion, there was a fifty percent chance that Niko would be seriously injured from a gunshot wound, or that he would die from a gunshot wound. Therefore, Keke could be convicted of murder in the second-degree, under intent to cause serious bodily harm malice, or under depraved heart malice. Keke could also be convicted of negligent, gross manslaughter, because he was grossly negligent to play the game of Russian roulette. However, the call of the question asks for you to decide on the most serious crime, and second-degree murder is a more serious crime than involuntary manslaughter.

10 25. Amy and Sue were friends that often spend time baking cookies, and mending socks, at Sue's house. On one such occasion, Amy took umbrage at a statement that Sue made about Amy's baking abilities. Sue immediately apologized to Amy, asserting that Amy had taken the statement by Sue, in the wrong way. Nevertheless, Amy starting yelling violently at Sue, and while making deadly threats. Infuriated Sue then ordered Amy out of the house, whereupon Amy only escalated her behavior, and grabbed a tire iron, stating that she, Amy, was going to crush Sue's skull with the tire iron. Sue took a gun out of her purse, and calmly told Amy to leave the premises. However, Amy became ever more enraged, and starting swinging the tire iron in the direction of Sue's head, almost striking Sue. Then, Sue, with the intent to only scare Amy into leaving, shot her gun, in the general direction of Amy. The bullet ricocheted off of the floor, struck Amy in the heart, and killed her instantly. If Sue is charged with murder, she should be: A. Acquitted, because she did not intend to kill Amy, only to scare her. B. Acquitted, because she was acting in self-defense. C. Convicted, because she used deadly force. D. Convicted, because she did not beat a retreat, and she could have retreated.

11 25. CORRECT ANSWER: B. A defendant that uses deadly force may be reasonably justified in such use of excessive force, if the circumstances merit the use of such force. In this situation, Sue was in her own house, and she first apologized to Amy for any untoward statement. In addition Sue asked Amy twice to leave the premises. Such action on the part of Sue is reasonable. A tire iron swung with force, and impacting a person's skull, could easily cause death, and Sue was thus reasonably justified in the use of force in this situation, with the intent to scare Amy from continuing to aggress. Sue, while in fear for her life, is under no duty to retreat, especially while in her own house, and she reasonably met deadly force with deadly force.

12 26. Angie and Betty got involved in a fist-fight. Angie pulled out a knife, and tried to stab Betty. Betty deftly knocked the knife out of Angie s hand. Betty then pulled out a handgun, and Betty told Angie to stop her aggression. Angie laughed, as she picked up her knife, and lunged again at Betty, stabbing Betty in the leg, drawing blood, and stating, I ll keep stabbing, until you have no more blood to lose. When Betty saw the blood, she shot her gun at Angie, hitting Angie with a bullet in Angie s arm. Angie gasped, and sat down, trying to stem the flow of blood. A minute later, for good measure, Betty shot Angie one more time. The second shot instantly killed Angie. In a criminal trial, Betty could be convicted of: A. Manslaughter, only. B. Attempted murder, only. C. Murder or manslaughter. D. No crime.

13 26. CORRECT ANSWER: C. When Betty fired her first bullet, she was acting to defend herself against what a reasonable person would conclude to be deadly force. However, Betty shot Angie again, when Angie was incapacitated. A reasonable person would not conclude that any force was needed, when Betty shot Angie the second time. Murder includes a range of malice states. In this situation, Betty s action to fire a second shot when she was no longer being attacked, could be considered intent to kill malice, intent to cause serious bodily harm malice, or depraved heart malice. Therefore, the only possible answer in this situation is answer choice C.

14 27. Curt wanted to hurt Evan, because Evan had cheated with Curt s girlfriend. However, Curt cooled down, and decided not to hurt Evan. Then, one day when Curt was at work, he got a call from his friend Ivan that Evan was again cheating with Curt s girlfriend, on Evan s back porch. Curt, enraged, grabbed a gun and drove over to Evan s house, with an intent to shoot Evan. However, seconds before Curt arrived, Curt s girlfriend left the premises, and Evan, while sitting on his back porch, was struck by lightning and killed. When Curt arrived at Evan s house, he saw what he thought to be Evan sitting on the back porch of Evan s house, and shot a bullet into Evan s chest. Which crime would Curt likely be convicted of? A. Attempted murder, because Curt intended to kill Evan. B. Murder, because under the deadly weapon doctrine, Curt would be said to have had the requisite malice for intent to kill. C. No crime, because Evan was dead when Curt shot Evan. D. Manslaughter, because Curt s reasonable passion was re-ignited, when he learned from Ivan that Evan was again cheating with Curt s girlfriend, and Curt did not have time to cool off.

15 27. CORRECT ANSWER: A. Evan was already dead before Curt shot Evan. Therefore, causation is missing, and Curt could not be convicted of murder or manslaughter, in this situation. However, the fact that Evan died seconds before Curt shot Evan is irrelevant to attempted murder, because factual impossibility is not a viable defense to an attempt crime. Inasmuch as Curt used a fired a deadly weapon at Evan, Curt could be said to have had an intent to kill Evan. Additionally, Curt took a sufficient step to complete the crime of attempted murder. Therefore, the only possible answer choice is attempted murder.

16 28. Nazarene was all set to perpetrate a crime. He had gone to the library, and had ready a number of books about how to be a criminal. He had also practiced a number of perfect criminal techniques, so that he would be effective in his criminal pursuits. One night, Nazarene went downtown alone, and decided to walk across the public park at midnight, because he thought that it was a crime to do so. If it is not a crime to walk across the public park at midnight, what is the most likely result? A. He will assert factual impossibility. B. He will not be charged with a crime. C. He will be charged with a crime. D. He will be charged with an attempted crime.

17 28. CORRECT ANSWER: B. Legal impossibility is a defense that exists where a defendant has an intent to commit a crime, but the actions of the defendant do not constitute a crime. Therefore, even though the defendant has a criminal mind, their act is not criminal. In this situation, even though Nazarene wanted to commit a crime, he will not be charged with a crime, because he did not commit a crime.

18 29. Norman decided to steal Linda s expensive umbrella. Linda s umbrella was in Linda s house, in the entryway behind the front door. Norman went out and purchased materials to open the lock on Linda s front door. He also went to the library, and read books on how to commit a robbery, burglary and other crimes. One day, at 2:35 A.M. in the morning, Norman approached Linda s house. However, Norman s clumsy approach alerted Linda, and she called the police. When Norman heard the police car siren, he clearly decided to leave the premises, and to abandon his criminal plan. Which crime or crimes could Norman reasonably be convicted of in a jurisdiction that follows the common law? A. No crime, because Norman abandoned his entire criminal plan. B. Attempted burglary and attempted larceny. C. Burglary and attempted larceny. D. Burglary.

19 29. CORRECT ANSWER: B. Norman formulated an intent to steal Linda s umbrella, and if completed, would constitute larceny. Norman also formulated a criminal plan to break into Linda s house to effectuate a felony at night, and if completed, would constitute a burglary. Additionally, Norman went over to Linda s in the midnight hour or so with an intent to steal Linda s umbrella. However, Norman did not pick up Linda s umbrella and take a step with it, therefore, larceny is not a proper charge. Further, he did not create an opening to Linda s house where none existed, and therefore burglary is not a proper charge, because the breaking and entering requirement of burglary is missing. While Norman clearly decided to abandon his criminal plan, he made his decision based upon fear that he might be arrested by the police, and thus his apparent renunciation was not voluntary, and thus is ineffective. Therefore, since Norman proceeded almost to completion with specific intent to commit both larceny and burglary, he would likely be convicted of both larceny and burglary.

20 30. Jonny and Bentley were friends, who knew the nuances and tendencies of each other. One day, Jonny asked Bentley to rob the First Federal Bank in three weeks. Three days later, Bentley informed the local police about the entire criminal plan. If Jonny is tried for attempted robbery, in a common law jurisdiction, will he be convicted? A. No, because Bentley effectuated an effective withdrawal of the attempted robbery. B. No, because Jonny did not take sufficient acts toward commission of the robbery. C. Yes, because Jonny and Bentley formed a conspiratorial agreement to commit a criminal act. D. Yes, because robbery is a specific intent crime.

21 30. CORRECT ANSWER: B. In the three-day time period between the time when Jonny informed Bentley of criminal intent, and Jonny was arrested, there are no facts indicating that Jonny took any actions in furtherance of the specific intent to commit robbery. Jonny would have been only in the planning stages of the robbery, and not in the perpetration stage of the robbery, at the time of his arrest. Further, while Jonny solicited Bentley to commit a crime, there are no facts indicating that Bentley agreed to commit a crime, therefore, there is no conspiracy in this common law situation. The correct answer is that Jonny will not be convicted of robbery, because while he did have a specific intent to commit robbery, he did not take sufficient acts toward commission of the robbery.

22 CONTACT INFORMATION e.mail Office Telephone Website