Have A Lawyer's Mind? Solve These Crimes And Find Out!

Answer c is correct, because Michelle, as a racer, knows there is a risk in high-speed driving; she talks about her prowess in avoiding accidents, but admits she’s had close calls. She also knows that Forbes Ave. at noon is not a racetrack but a heavily traveled urban street, with cars, buses, trucks, and pedestrians crossing, which makes the risk substantial, and she is only trying to win a bet and not perform some act of social utility like driving someone rapidly to the hospital. Since she knows there’s a risk and takes it anyway, she’s reckless, and since the risk is known, she is not negligent (didn’t know but should have) and Answer d is wrong. Answer a is wrong because the question is whether the death of the pedestrian, not winning the bet, is her conscious object. Answer b is wrong because while risky, it is not a practical certainty the Michelle would kill someone; while the road is crowded and dangerous, Michelle is a highly skilled professional driver.

Correct: The correct answer is c, because Diane wanted to grant her friend's request and therefore gave Vivian the medicine to kill her. It was her conscious object to achieve Vivian's death, and she did. Answer b spells out the theory of recklessness correctly, but Diane did more here than take a risk - she wanted to kill Vivian, took the necessary action that Vivian requested, and she got what she wanted. Thus recklessness manslaughter is not the most serious crime of which Diane can be convicted. Answer a is not correct, because Vivian told Diane that the overdose amount would kill her. It wasn't just a risk; it was a known outcome. Answer d is wrong for the same reason. Diane wasn't unaware of a risk; she knew she was going to kill Vivian.

Answer c is correct, because under the common law, intoxication can be a defense to a specific intent crime (like burglary, which requires "a purpose to commit a felony" in addition to the mens rea necessary to do the actions of the crime), but destruction of property is a general intent crime. In addition, Danielle is intoxicated enough to have no memory of her actions before the early part of her evening, so she would be intoxicated enough to qualify. For the same reason, answer a is incorrect; she is intoxicated enough. Answer b is also incorrect, however, because being intoxicated enough is necessary but not sufficient for an intoxication defense to work - it must also be true that the offense is a specific intent crime. So c is a better answer. Answer d is incorrect, because it states the MPC standard, and the problem asks for an answer under the common law.

The correct answer is c, because duress can be a defense to murder under the MPC, as long as a person of reasonable firmness would have made the same choice. Answer b is not correct, because the Model Penal Code does not say that the "harm avoided is greater" can never apply to murder. Answer a is incorrect because even though the MPC does give wider scope to self-defense than the common law, it does not allow a self-defense claim to a murder of a person who is not attacking the defender. Answer d is incorrect because the necessity defense is not available when the force in the situation is human.

The correct answer is c, because Dave, as an experienced and avid pilot and stuntman, is taking a risk, but not one with a high probability of death, given his high level of skill. For that reason, b is not correct. Answer a is not correct, because Dave was not unaware of the risk; he is an experienced stuntman, so he knows this sort of thing is risky. And d is not correct because we have nothing in the question that would substantiate the assumption that Dave planned this out. Be careful not to assume things into the problem that are not there.

The correct answer is d. Dave consciously took the risk (so c is wrong), because he is experience at aviation stunts and he knows they are risky. Answer a is wrong, because it was not practically certain that the boaters would die; boats capsize all the time and people survive. Answer b is wrong because it requires extreme indifference to life. Since Dave is very experienced, he would not feel that the degree of risk of this trick is that high. After all, in his line of work, he's done lots of risky stunts and no one has been killed or injured, which would give him confidence that, while risky, this trick isn't so risky that he'd be indifferent to whether others lived or died.

Answer d is correct, because the mens res required under the statute is recklessness, conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The robber was outside a senior center, intending to rob anyone she encountered. There was therefore a risk the person would be elderly. Answer a is incorrect, because given the location (senior center) and the expressed willing to rob whoever happened along, she was taking a risk, and so it is not a should have known situation. Answer b is incorrect, because the facts do show evidence of a substantial risk that the victim was elderly: senior center, etc. Answer c is incorrect – the answer is right but the reasoning is wrong. It is not sufficient that the victim in fact was at least 65 years old or that the statute was intended to protect the elderly; there must be a risk that the victim is elderly.

The correct answer is d, second degree murder committed with intent to cause great bodily harm, death resulting. This is a better answer than b, because using the depraved heart theory would be harder to prove - there is no social utility and there is a base anti-social motive; however, the prosecution would have to prove that there was a high probability that Don's actions would result in death. Since Don shot Vernon in the leg, instead of a part of the body containing vital organs, the probability of death may not be substantial enough to prove the case on this theory. Answer a is not correct, because while Don's conduct was reckless, a more serious conviction is possible under second degree/Int. GBH theory. Answer c is not correct because this was not unconscious risk taking; Don knew he was taking a risk. Also, no facts indicate that a reasonable person would have known that Vernon *would* die.

Explanation: The correct answer is d. Answer a does not accurately state the common law rule on mistake of fact. Answer b is incorrect, because it implies that the mistake must be reasonable, when that is not required here. Answer c is incorrect for the same reason as b. Answer d is correct, because in a common law jurisdiction, under a specific intent offense, the mistake need only be honestly made by Bob; it does not have to be reasonable. If the jury believes Bob, that makes it an honestly made mistake (sometimes called a good faith mistake), and that is all that is required.

The correct answer is c, because sleepwalking would make the actions Paolo took involuntary: they were not willed or the product of human will. Answer d is wrong, because if the actus reus voluntariness requirement is not met, the prosecutor can’t prove everything necessary for the crime. Answer a is incorrect, because the reasonableness of the mistake is not relevant to the issue of voluntariness raised by sleepwalking. Answer b is incorrect, because unconscious actions like sleepwalking affect the presence or absence of voluntary action, not mens rea.

The correct answer is c, because Don has consciously taken the risk (recklessness), and he has shown extreme indifference to the value of human life - he could have disabled Vernon by hitting him in the knee with a stick or a club, but instead he shot him, and shooting someone, even in the leg, includes a risk of death. It may not be that likely since he was shot in the leg, but even with nonlethal gunshot wounds, people can die of blood loss, infections, etc. That shows Don's extreme indifference. Answer a is wrong because while Don's conduct is reckless, for the reasons just explained, it's possible to get a conviction to a more serious crime - murder, instead of manslaughter. Answer b is wrong, because this was not unconscious risk taking; Don knew he was taking a risk. Also, no facts indicate that a reasonable person would have known that Vernon *would* die. Answer d is wrong, because it is not practically certain that Vernon would die from a gunshot wound to the leg.

A key aspect of having a lawyer's mind is attention to detail and the ability to anticipate potential issues. By politely asking for clarification, you can address the concern without creating unnecessary conflict or revealing your strategy prematurely.

Answer a is incorrect, because the Castle Doctrine only comes into play when one is attacked in one's own home, and Dalton was attacked outside his home. Answer b is also incorrect, because a state using the retreat rule would have required Dalton to run, since he could have done so in complete safety. Answer d is incorrect, because it just restates the retreat rule, and we can't tell if we are in a retreat rule state from the question. Answer c is the only possible correct answer, because it accurately states that Dalton could have a good self-defense claim if his state has a stand your ground law, which would allow him to meet the threat of deadly force (V pulling the knife) with deadly force of his own in any place he has the right to be, not just in his house.

The correct answer is b, because Dorothy's planning shows premeditation and deliberation, and under the common law, intent will transfer from victim to victim of the same crime (but not from one crime to a different one). Answer a is wrong, because Dorothy did more than take a risk; she wanted Aunt Violet dead, and took action that would make it happen; she didn't just take a risk that it would happen. Answer c is wrong, because these facts do not raise the specific intent issue. Answer d is wrong, because Dorothy's planning did show the presence of premeditation and deliberation.

Answer C is correct. The instruction was wrong because to have acted knowingly, the man must have been practically certain that his conduct would result in damage to the store. That isn’t the case just because the thief had the necessary mens reas to commit larceny, which requires the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Answer d is incorrect, because double jeopardy does not prohibit conviction for two distinct crimes. Answer b is incorrect, because the fact that the man was in the process of committing some other felony does not prove that the man knowingly damaged the store. Answer a is incorrect, because intent to steal the car does not prove that the man damaged the car knowingly.

While the rock suggests a forced entry, it could be a staged attempt to mislead the investigation. The estranged son, having been cut off from his inheritance, has a clear motive for wanting the businessman dead. Additionally, he may have knowledge of the office layout and security measures, making it easier for him to stage the scene.

Answer c is correct. Don didn't start the fight, but it was not a fight using deadly force until Don took out the knife. Recall that self-defense demands a proportional response; one cannot defend oneself against non-deadly force with deadly force. Thus Don is the aggressor at the level of deadly force. Answer a is incorrect, because even in a stand your ground state, the killer must be under a deadly threat in order to use deadly force. Answer b is not correct, because while Victoria could have killed him - after all, anything is possible - she was not using deadly force, and therefore wouldn't be considered to be in position to kill Don. Answer d is not correct, because Don cannot use deadly force on Victoria even if Victoria's attack on him is illegal, because the attack is with non-deadly force.

Answer d is correct, because only the woman had the required mens rea. Burglary in this jurisdiction requires unlawful entry with intent to commit a crime (here, the crime would be larceny or theft). Persons who take back their own property (like the friend, who was taking back her saddle) or who take property in the honest but mistaken belief that the property belongs to someone who has authorized them to take it back (like the man, who was asked to take what he was told was someone else’s property) do not have the mens rea required for larceny or theft (e.g., intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Answer a is incorrect, because only the woman had the required mens rea, as just explained. Answer c is incorrect, because the man lacked the required criminal intent to commit a crime (in this case,larceny or theft); he thought he was retrieving the woman’s property. Someone who takes property in the honest but mistaken belief that the property belongs to them or to someone who has authorized them to take it lacks the specific intent for larceny. Answer b is incorrect, because the friend lacked the required mens rea to commit a crime. Someone taking property in the honest belief that the property belongs to them lacks the mens rea for larceny.

The correct answer is d, because the facts show a "failed manslaughter" - a spontaneous crime when the defendant is in the grip of passion, but doesn't qualify for manslaughter (here, because six months have gone by since the provocation). It is also not first degree murder because there's no evidence of any premeditation and deliberation and no evidence of "waiting for her chance" - just a spontaneous reaction. So both a and b are wrong. Answer c is wrong because it's an intentional killing, and because depraved heart isn't about the loss of ability to control oneself; it's about taking very foolish risks for the heck of it.

The correct answer is a – medical treatment for injuries inflicted by a defendant is always considered a response, and therefore foreseeable, and this is not changed by the fact that Doc was sick and gave Dan a cold. A cold would almost never kill anyone, which means that even if Doc should have stayed home from work when he had a cold, working when one has a cold would not be gross negligence. See Bush, the “doctor with scarlet fever” case; a doctor working while he is contagious with a potentially lethal disease would be grossly negligent, and therefore unforeseeable. Answer b is incorrect, because it describes a coincidental intervening response, and this intervening cause is a response. Answer c is incorrect, because it only describes actual cause, and the question here is proximate cause. Answer d is a possible rule for a different situation, such as Blaue, the Jehovah’s witness/blood transfusion case.

The correct answer is d. We cannot tell from these facts whether the accident was caused by Dana's hunger, by the bad traffic or weather conditions, or by something else entirely. All we know is that she lost control of the car. She may have been negligent, but we have no evidence of gross negligence. Thus we cannot tell whether this was anything except a genuine accident, without any criminal fault. For these reasons, we cannot say that driving while hungry and weak was a conscious risk taking (b), much less whether it was a conscious risk taking with a high probability of death (a). Those are therefore both wrong. Since we don't know whether the Dana was even negligent, c is wrong too.

This question resembles the Lynch case, which we discussed in the context of R. v. Howe. The correct answer is b, because while this is a duress situation, the duress defense does not work for murder under the common law. Answer c is wrong, because "only driving the car" makes Dan just as guilty as the shooter, and this argument was repudiated in R. v. Howe. Answer a is wrong because Dan is not participating in the killing of someone who is attacking him, as self-defense requires. Answer d is also incorrect, because this is a duress situation, and with regard to a deadly threat, the common law requires not self-preservation, but self-sacrifice.

The correct answer is a, because it was objective - i.e., conscious object to kill a human being, and she did so. Under the MPC, it doesn't matter which human being she actually killed. Answer c is wrong, because the Model Penal Code does not use transferred intent. Answer b is wrong, because there is nothing to indicate that Dorothy was practically certain the maid would die. Answer d is wrong, because use of poison is not on the Model Penal Code's felony murder "list."

The correct answer is b, because it correctly characterizes the facts and uses the applicable rule. The fact that the incident took place 6 months after the provocation could be allowed under the MPC (it wouldn't be under the CL). Answer a is wrong, because the facts fit the EMED/reasonable excuse idea, and there's no evidence that Daisy had made some kind of plan or had wanted to kill Victoria. Answer c is wrong for the same reasons. Answer d is wrong because the MPC does not have any rule requiring that the action come before a cooling off period.

Answer d is correct, because Dave cannot assert a self-defense claim to homicide unless he uses deadly force because he himself was under a deadly attack, and he was not. Answer a is incorrect, because Dave is not defending his habitation - his home - from someone trying to enter it. Answer b is also not correct, because the Castle Doctrine relates to one's ability to defend oneself without retreat, in one's own home. Answer c is incorrect because there is no defense of property for which one is entitled to use deadly force, and there is no ability to use deadly force to defend property even if it is necessary to have the property to survive.