Crim Law (2nd Half)
-
Select from the options below the most serious offense of which the defendant could be properly convicted. The defendant, a worker in a metal working shop, had long been teasing a young colleague by calling him insulting names and ridiculing him. One day the colleague responded to the teasing by picking up a metal bar and attacking the defendant. The defendant could have escaped from the shop. He parried the blow with his left arm, and with his right hand struck the colleague on his jaw from which the young man died.
-
Involuntary manslaughter
-
Voluntary Manslaughter
-
Murder
-
None of the Above
-
This 'Crim Law (2nd Half)' quiz assesses understanding of criminal law scenarios, focusing on self-defense, assault, and homicide. It evaluates critical thinking and legal reasoning, essential for law students and legal professionals.
Quiz Preview
- 2.
While walking home one evening, an off-duty police officer was accosted by a stranger. The stranger had been drinking and mistakenly thought the police officer was a man who was having an affair with his wife. Intending to frighten the police officer but not to harm him, the stranger pulled out a knife, screamed obscenities, and told the police officer he was going to kill him. Frightened and reasonably believing the stranger was going to kill him and that using deadly force was his only salvation, the police officer took out his service revolver and shot and killed the stranger. The police officer is charged with murder The police officer’s claim of self-defense should be
-
Sustained, because the police officer reasonably believed the stranger was planning to kill him and that deadly force was required.
-
Sustained, because the killing was in hot blood upon sufficient provocation.
-
Denied, because the stranger did not in fact intend to harm the police officer and the police officer was incorrect in believing that he did.
-
Denied, because the police officer was not defending his home and had an obligation to retreat or to repel with less than deadly force.
Correct Answer
A. Sustained, because the police officer reasonably believed the stranger was planning to kill him and that deadly force was required.Explanation
The correct answer is sustained, because the police officer reasonably believed the stranger was planning to kill him and that deadly force was required. In this scenario, the police officer was accosted by a stranger who pulled out a knife, screamed obscenities, and threatened to kill him. Given the stranger's aggressive behavior and the officer's reasonable belief that his life was in imminent danger, the use of deadly force can be justified as self-defense. The officer acted out of fear for his life and had no other reasonable option to ensure his safety.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Darla and her girlfriend, Olive, were getting ready to leave a party and go home one night when Darla realized that she forgot her coat inside the party. Olive said she would meet Darla at the car. As Darla approached the car with her forgotten coat, she saw a man standing threateningly close to Olive and heard him yell at Olive, “Give me your purse or you’ll be sorry!” The man then held up a dark object in his hand and pointed it at Olive’s face. Darla, genuinely thinking that the man was pointing a gun at Olive and wanting to protect her from harm, pulled out a small pistol that she had a permit to carry and shot the man, killing him. In fact, the man had been threatening Olive with a canister of pepper spray. If Darla is charged with homicide in a jurisdiction that follows the majority rule, should she be convicted?
-
Yes, because there was no way for Darla to determine whether Olive was the initial aggressor.
-
Yes, because the man was threatening Olive with pepper spray, and Olive did not have the right to respond with deadly force.
-
No, because Darla was effectuating a lawful citizen’s arrest.
-
No, because Darla reasonably believed that the man was about to use deadly force against Olive
Correct Answer
A. No, because Darla reasonably believed that the man was about to use deadly force against OliveExplanation
The correct answer is No, because Darla reasonably believed that the man was about to use deadly force against Olive. Darla's actions were based on her genuine belief that Olive's life was in immediate danger. She saw the man holding up a dark object and pointing it at Olive's face, which she reasonably interpreted as a gun. In the heat of the moment, Darla used her permit to carry a small pistol in an attempt to protect Olive from harm. Although it was later revealed that the man was actually threatening Olive with pepper spray, Darla's belief at the time was reasonable given the circumstances. Therefore, she should not be convicted of homicide.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
A defendant was charged with assault and battery in a jurisdiction that followed the “retreat” doctrine, and he pleaded self-defense. At his trial, the evidence established the following: A man and his wife were enjoying a drink at a tavern when the defendant entered and stood near the door. The wife whispered to her husband that the defendant was the man who had insulted her on the street the day before. The husband approached the defendant and said, “Get out of here, or I'll break your nose.” The defendant said, “Don't come any closer, or I'll hurt you.” When the husband raised his fists menacingly, the defendant pulled a can of pepper spray from his pocket, aimed it at the husband’s face, and sprayed. The husband fell to the floor, writhing in pain. Should the defendant be convicted?
-
No, because he had no obligation to retreat before resorting to non-deadly force.
-
No, because there is no obligation to retreat when one is in an occupied structure
-
Yes, because he failed to retreat even though there was an opportunity available.
-
Yes, because the husband did not threaten to use deadly force against him
Correct Answer
A. No, because he had no obligation to retreat before resorting to non-deadly force.Explanation
The defendant should not be convicted because he had no obligation to retreat before resorting to non-deadly force. In this case, the evidence shows that the defendant was confronted by the husband and threatened with physical harm. The defendant warned the husband not to come any closer, but when the husband raised his fists menacingly, the defendant used pepper spray to defend himself. Since the defendant used non-deadly force in response to a perceived threat, he did not have a duty to retreat before defending himself.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
A homeless woman broke into the basement of a hotel and fell asleep. She was awakened by a security guard, who demanded that she leave. As the homeless woman was leaving, she cursed the security guard. Angered, the guard began to beat the homeless woman on her head with his flashlight. After the second blow, the homeless woman grabbed a fire extinguisher and sprayed the guard in his face, causing him to lose his sight in one eye. The jurisdiction defines aggravated assault as assault with intent to cause serious bodily injury. The most serious crime for which the homeless woman could properly be convicted is
-
Aggravated assault.
-
Burglary
-
Assault.
-
Trespass.
Correct Answer
A. Trespass.Explanation
The homeless woman could properly be convicted of trespass because she broke into the basement of a hotel without permission. While she did engage in a physical altercation with the security guard, the most serious crime she could be charged with would be trespass, as her actions did not meet the criteria for aggravated assault or burglary.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Didi joined a gang. As part of the initiation process, the leader ordered Didi to kill a teacher whom the leader hated. Didi refused, saying she didn’t realize she would have to hurt anyone and she no longer wanted to be part of the gang. The leader, with the approval of the other members, told Didi that she had become too involved to quit and that they would kill her if she did not kill the teacher. The next day Didi shot the teacher and killed him while the teacher was walking to his car in the school parking lot. Didi is charged with first-degree murder. First-degree murder is defined in the jurisdiction as the intentional premeditated killing of another. Second-degree murder is any other murder at common law. If Didi killed the teacher because of the threat to her own life, Didi should be found
-
Not guilty, because of the defense of duress.
-
Not guilty, because of the defense of necessity.
-
Guilty of first-degree murder.
-
Guilty of second-degree murder.
Correct Answer
A. Guilty of first-degree murder.Explanation
In this scenario, Didi is charged with first-degree murder because she intentionally and premeditatedly killed the teacher. Although she was threatened by the gang and felt compelled to commit the act to save her own life, the defense of duress may not apply in this case. Duress typically requires the threat to be immediate and imminent, and the harm caused must be proportional to the threat. In this situation, Didi had the opportunity to seek help or report the threat to the authorities instead of resorting to murder. Therefore, the defense of duress may not be applicable, and Didi should be found guilty of first-degree murder.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Visalia was walking home from work on evening when she encountered Pat. Pat asked Visalia if she would be interested in purchasing a small revolver to use for protection when walking alone at night. Visalia declined and kept walking, but Pat followed her, repeating his offer. Visalia asked Pat to please leave her alone, but he persisted. After about ten minutes of Pat following Visalia as she walked, declaring the benefits of owning a gun and urging Visalia to buy one, she stopped and asked, “Okay, fine, how much?” Pat said that the gun retails for $500, but that he would accept $100. Visalia told him she would give him $80, and Pat accepted. As soon as Visalia handed him the money and took the gun, Pat revealed that he was an undercover police officer and arrested Visalia for violating a statute prohibiting a felon from possessing a firearm. (Visalia had recently been released from prison after serving time for illegal gun trafficking.) If Visalia raises an entrapment defense at trial, will she be successful?
-
Yes, because Visalia was not predisposed to buy the gun.
-
Yes, because Pat did not reveal his true identity before Visalia gave him the money, which constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
-
No, because she agreed to purchase the gun and negotiated regarding the price, which proves that she possessed the requisite mens rea to commit illegal gun trafficking.
-
No, because she had participated in illegal gun trafficking previously, indicating that she was predisposed to commit that crime again.
Correct Answer
A. Yes, because Visalia was not predisposed to buy the gun.Explanation
The correct answer is yes because Visalia was not predisposed to buy the gun. This means that she did not already have a strong inclination or intention to purchase a firearm for illegal purposes. The fact that Pat persistently followed and pressured her, and only revealed his true identity after she handed over the money, suggests that he induced her to commit the crime. Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers induce someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. In this case, Visalia's recent release from prison for illegal gun trafficking does not prove that she was predisposed to commit the same crime again.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Dora is a painter. One day she was confronted on her way home from work by a group of intoxicated adults who threatened to slash the tires on her van if she did not pour paint into the town fountain to destroy it. Dora did so reluctantly and the fountain was ruined. Unbeknownst to her, the fountain had been designed by a famous artist who donated it to the town, and it was worth $50,000. Dora was charged with a state crime that makes it illegal to “intentionally destroy another’s property.” Dora asks you whether she has a defense, and you answer correctly:
-
“No.”
-
“Even if you were unreasonable as to your mistake about the value of the property, you may interpose a duress defense.”
-
“You will be able to interpose both a necessity/choice of evils defense and a duress defense.”
-
“If you were reasonable in your mistake about the value of the property, your mistake will negate the mens rea.”
Correct Answer
A. “No.”Explanation
The correct answer is "No." In this scenario, Dora intentionally destroyed another person's property, which is a crime according to the state law. The fact that she was threatened by intoxicated adults does not provide a valid defense for her actions. Duress, necessity/choice of evils, and mistake about the value of the property do not apply in this case. Dora's actions were intentional, regardless of the circumstances, and she would not have a defense against the charge.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
During a maintenance service, a mechanic advised a taxi driver that he should replace the brakes on his car. The driver was in a hurry so he pushed the appointment to the following week. Later that day, the driver was carrying three passengers when the brakes on the taxi stopped responding. They were traveling down a steep road and approaching a turn where the driver could either crash into a barn, which appeared to be empty, or risk careening off the road and down a cliff into a ravine. The driver decided to crash into the barn, saving the lives of everyone in the taxi. He is charged with a state statute that makes it illegal to purposefully destroy the property of another. Can he assert a necessity defense?
-
Yes, because the driver had a duty to protect the people using his taxi service.
-
Yes, because the potential deaths of four people is a far greater harm than the destruction of an empty barn.
-
No, because the driver did not know for certain that the barn was empty.
-
No, because the driver contributed to or caused the threat.
Correct Answer
A. No, because the driver contributed to or caused the threat.Explanation
The driver cannot assert a necessity defense because he contributed to or caused the threat by not replacing the brakes on his car as advised by the mechanic. By delaying the maintenance appointment, he knowingly put himself and his passengers in danger. The necessity defense typically requires that the defendant did not contribute to or cause the threat they were trying to avoid. In this case, the driver's negligence in maintaining the brakes led to the situation where he had to choose between crashing into the barn or risking going off the cliff.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
A defendant was tried for robbery. The victim and a bystander were the only witnesses called to testify. The victim testified that the defendant threatened her with a knife, grabbed her purse, and ran off with it. The bystander testified that he saw the defendant grab the victim's purse and run away with it but that he neither saw a knife nor heard any threats. On this evidence the jury could properly return a verdict of guilty of
-
Robbery only.
-
Larceny only
-
Either robbery or larceny
-
Both robbery and larceny
Correct Answer
A. Either robbery or larcenyExplanation
The jury could properly return a verdict of either robbery or larceny because the victim testified that the defendant threatened her with a knife, grabbed her purse, and ran off with it, indicating a robbery. However, the bystander testified that he did not see a knife or hear any threats, suggesting that the defendant may have committed larceny instead. Based on this conflicting evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of either robbery or larceny.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
The plaintiff took a diamond ring to a pawnshop and borrowed $20 on it. It was agreed that the loan was to be repaid within 60 days and if it was not, the pawnshop owner, the defendant, could sell the ring. A week before expiration of the 60 days, the defendant had an opportunity to sell the ring to a customer for $125. He did so, thinking it unlikely that the plaintiff would repay the loan and if he did, the defendant would be able to handle him somehow, even by paying him for the ring if necessary. Two days later, the plaintiff came in with the money to reclaim his ring. The defendant told him that it had been stolen when his shop was burglarized one night and that therefore he was not responsible for its loss. Larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses are separate crimes in the jurisdiction. It is most likely that the defendant has committed which of the following crimes?
-
Larceny
-
Embezzlement
-
Larceny by trick
-
Obtaining by false pretenses
Correct Answer
A. EmbezzlementExplanation
The defendant has likely committed embezzlement. Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of another person's property by someone who is in a position of trust or responsibility over that property. In this case, the defendant, as the pawnshop owner, had possession of the plaintiff's diamond ring and sold it without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent. The defendant took advantage of their position as the pawnshop owner to convert the plaintiff's property for their own benefit.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
The plaintiff took a diamond ring to a pawnshop and borrowed $20 on it. It was agreed that the loan was to be repaid within 60 days and if it was not, the pawnshop owner, the defendant, could sell the ring. A week before expiration of the 60 days, the defendant had an opportunity to sell the ring to a customer for $125. He did so, thinking it unlikely that the plaintiff would repay the loan and if he did, the defendant would be able to handle him somehow, even by paying him for the ring if necessary. Two days later, the plaintiff came in with the money to reclaim his ring. The defendant told him that it had been stolen when his shop was burglarized one night and that therefore he was not responsible for its loss. Larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses are separate crimes in the jurisdiction. Suppose that instead of denying liability, the defendant told the plaintiff the truth—that he sold the ring because he thought the plaintiff would not reclaim it—and offered to give the plaintiff $125. The plaintiff demanded his ring. The defendant said, “Look buddy, that’s what I got for it and it’s more than it’s worth.” The plaintiff reluctantly took the money. The defendant could most appropriately be found guilty of:
-
Larceny
-
Embezzlement
-
False Pretenses
-
None of the Above
Correct Answer
A. EmbezzlementExplanation
The defendant could be found guilty of embezzlement because he sold the ring without the plaintiff's consent and used the proceeds for his own benefit. Embezzlement involves the fraudulent conversion of someone else's property by a person who was entrusted with that property. In this case, the defendant was entrusted with the ring as collateral for the loan, but instead of returning it to the plaintiff, he sold it for his own gain. This action constitutes embezzlement.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
A woman drove her car through the drive-through lane of a fast-food restaurant one afternoon. When she reached the microphone used to place orders, she said, "There's a man across the street with a rifle. He can see everything you do. If you do not do exactly what I tell you, he will shoot you. Put all the money from the register into a sack and give it to me when I drive up." The clerk did not see anyone across the street and was unsure whether anyone was there. However, unwilling to risk harm to himself, he put $500 in a paper bag and handed it to the woman when she drove up to the delivery window. The woman drove off with the money but was arrested a short time later. She had lied about there having been a man with a rifle and had acted alone. Of what crime or crimes can the woman be convicted?
-
Embezzlement
-
Obtaining property by false pretenses
-
Robbery and larceny
-
Robbery or larceny
Correct Answer
A. Robbery or larcenyExplanation
The woman can be convicted of robbery or larceny. She used the threat of violence to coerce the clerk into giving her money, which meets the definition of robbery. Additionally, she took the money without the consent of the owner, which meets the definition of larceny.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
A woman decided to break into an empty building to steal some copper pipes that she knew were inside. The police apprehended her as she was starting to climb out of an open window while carrying the pipes. The police found in the locked trunk of the woman’s car a crowbar, a large screwdriver, black gloves, and a flashlight. In addition to burglary, the woman was charged with violating a state law that prohibits the possession of burglary tools, making it an offense for anyone who “knowingly has in his or her possession an engine, machine, tool, or implement adapted and designed for cutting through, forcing, or breaking open a building, room, vault, safe, or other depository, in order to steal therefrom money or other property, or to commit any other crime.” On the possession charge, the woman is most likely
-
Not guilty, because on the given facts she did not have the intent to use the tools in her trunk to steal the pipes.
-
Not guilty, because she did not emerge from the window completely before being apprehended, and therefore her crime was incomplete
-
Guilty, because the tools were in her trunk at the scene of the crime
-
Guilty, because it is practically certain that the woman would have that particular grouping of tools in her trunk at that time in order to commit the burglary.
Correct Answer
A. Not guilty, because on the given facts she did not have the intent to use the tools in her trunk to steal the pipes.Explanation
The woman is most likely not guilty because the possession charge requires the intent to use the tools to commit a crime. The fact that she had the tools in her trunk does not prove that she intended to use them for burglary. The presence of the tools alone does not establish her guilt, as there could be other legitimate reasons for having those tools in her possession. Therefore, without evidence of intent, she cannot be convicted on the possession charge.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
A customer asked to see an expensive watch in a jewelry store. In conversation with the clerk, the customer falsely claimed to be the son of the mayor. When handed the watch, he asked if he could put it on, walk around a bit so he could see how it felt on his wrist, and then briefly step outside to observe it in natural light. The clerk agreed, saying, "I know I can trust someone like you with the merchandise." The customer walked out of the store wearing the watch and never returned. A week later, the clerk was at a gathering when she spotted the customer wearing the watch. She told him that he must either pay for the watch or give it back. He hissed, "You'll be sorry if you mess with me." Intimidated, the clerk backed off. The following list of crimes is in descending order of seriousness. What is the most serious crime the customer committed?
-
Robbery
-
Larceny by trick
-
False pretenses
-
Embezzlement
Correct Answer
A. Larceny by trickExplanation
The most serious crime the customer committed is larceny by trick. Larceny by trick is a form of theft where the perpetrator uses deceit or trickery to obtain someone else's property. In this scenario, the customer falsely claimed to be the son of the mayor and gained the clerk's trust, allowing him to walk out of the store wearing the watch without paying for it. This action clearly falls under the category of larceny by trick as the customer used deception to unlawfully obtain the watch.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
In which of the following cases is a conviction for robbery least likely to be upheld?
-
A defendant forced his way into a woman's home, bound her, and compelled her to tell him that her jewelry was in an adjoining room. The defendant went to the room, took the jewelry and fled.
-
The defendant told her friend to bump into a man to cause him to lose his balance and drop his briefcase. The defendant picked up the briefcase and ran off with it.
-
Having induced a woman to enter his hotel room, a defendant forced her to telephone her maid to tell the maid to bring certain jewelry to the hotel. The defendant locked the woman in the bathroom while he accepted the jewelry from the maid when she arrived.
-
The defendant reached into the pocket of a man too drunk to notice and removed the man’s phone. A few minutes later, the victim missed his phone and accused the defendant of taking it. The defendant pretended to be insulted, slapped the victim, and left with the phone.
Correct Answer
A. The defendant reached into the pocket of a man too drunk to notice and removed the man’s phone. A few minutes later, the victim missed his phone and accused the defendant of taking it. The defendant pretended to be insulted, slapped the victim, and left with the phone.Explanation
In this case, the conviction for robbery is least likely to be upheld because there was no use of force or threat of force. The defendant simply took advantage of the victim's drunken state and removed the phone from his pocket without his knowledge. Additionally, the defendant's actions after taking the phone, pretending to be insulted and slapping the victim, do not change the fact that force was not used during the robbery.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
A man watched a liquor store furtively for some time, planning to hold it up. He bought a realistic-looking toy gun for the job. One night, just before the store's closing time, he drove to the store, opened the front door and entered. He reached in his pocket for the toy gun, but he became frightened and began to move back toward the front door. However, the shopkeeper had seen the butt of the gun. Fearing a hold up, the shopkeeper produced a gun from under the counter, pointed it at the man, and yelled, "Stop!" The man ran to the door and the toy gun fell from his pocket. The shopkeeper fired. The shot missed the man, but struck and killed a passerby outside the store. A statute in the jurisdiction defines burglary as "breaking and entering any building or structure with the intent to commit a felony or steal therein." On a charge of burglary, the man's best defense would be that
-
The intent required was not present.
-
The liquor store was open to the public.
-
He had a change of heart and withdrew before committing any crime inside the store.
-
He was unsuccessful, and so at most could be guilty of attempted burglary.
Correct Answer
A. The liquor store was open to the public.Explanation
The man's best defense would be that the liquor store was open to the public. This defense is based on the fact that the statute defines burglary as breaking and entering a building or structure with the intent to commit a felony or steal therein. Since the liquor store was open to the public, the man may argue that he did not have the intent to commit a felony or steal, as he could have simply entered the store as a regular customer. Therefore, he may argue that he should not be charged with burglary.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
A man was short of money. He decided to go into his neighbor's house to take the neighbor's silverware and then to sell it. That night, while the neighbor was away, the man entered by picking the lock on the front door. He picked up a chest of silverware from the dining room and went out the front door of the house to his car. As he was putting the chest of silverware into the trunk, he had second thoughts and decided that he did not wish to become a thief. He reentered the house and replaced the chest of silverware where he had found it. As he came out of the house the second time, he was arrested by the police, who had been called by a passerby. The man is
-
Guilty of burglary and larceny.
-
Guilty of burglary and attempted larceny.
-
Guilty of burglary but not guilty of any larceny offense.
-
Not guilty of burglary or any larceny offense.
Correct Answer
A. Guilty of burglary and larceny.Explanation
The man is guilty of burglary and larceny because he unlawfully entered his neighbor's house with the intention of stealing the silverware. Although he had second thoughts and decided not to go through with the theft, the act of unlawfully entering the house and picking up the chest of silverware constitutes burglary. Additionally, the act of taking the silverware with the intention of selling it constitutes larceny. Therefore, the man is guilty of both offenses.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
Driving down a dark road, the defendant accidentally ran over a man. The defendant stopped and found that the victim was dead. The defendant, fearing that he might be held responsible, took the victim's wallet, which contained a substantial amount of money. He removed the identification papers and put the wallet and money back into the victim's pocket. The defendant is not guilty of
-
Larceny, because he took the papers only to prevent identification and not for his own use.
-
Larceny, because he did not take anything from a living victim
-
Robbery, because he did not take the papers by means of force or fear
-
Robbery, because he did not take anything of monetary value
Correct Answer
A. Robbery, because he did not take the papers by means of force or fearExplanation
The defendant is not guilty of robbery because he did not take the papers by means of force or fear. Although the defendant took the victim's wallet and money, the act of taking the identification papers was not done through force or fear. While the defendant's actions may be morally wrong, they do not meet the legal criteria for robbery.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
An undercover police detective told a local drug dealer that she wanted to buy cocaine but that she needed time to raise the necessary funds. The drug dealer said that he needed time to get the cocaine. They agreed to meet again in 10 days. Ten minutes later, without a warrant, other officers forcibly entered the drug dealer's apartment and arrested him for attempted possession of a controlled substance. If the drug dealer is prosecuted for attempted possession of cocaine, should he be convicted?
-
No, because he had not taken sufficient acts toward commission of the crime.
-
No, because he was illegally arrested.
-
Yes, because by objective standards the undercover detective and the drug dealer had made an agreement that the dealer would obtain cocaine
-
Yes, because he unequivocally expressed his intent to obtain the cocaine
Correct Answer
A. No, because he had not taken sufficient acts toward commission of the crime.Explanation
The correct answer is that the drug dealer should not be convicted because he had not taken sufficient acts toward the commission of the crime. In order to be convicted of attempted possession of cocaine, the drug dealer would have needed to take substantial steps towards obtaining the cocaine, such as making arrangements or taking physical possession. In this case, the drug dealer only expressed a willingness to obtain the cocaine and agreed to meet again in the future, but no concrete actions were taken. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to prove that he had attempted to possess the controlled substance.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
A professional poker player had cheated a man in a card game. Angered, the man set out for the poker player’s house with the intention of shooting him. Just as he was about to set foot on the poker player’s property, the man was arrested by a police officer who noticed that the man was carrying a revolver. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it a crime to “enter the property of another with the intent to commit any crime of violence thereon.” If charged with attempting to violate the statute, the man should be found
-
Not guilty, because the statute defines an attempted crime and there cannot be an attempt to attempt
-
Not guilty, because to convict him would be to punish him simply for having a guilty mind
-
Guilty, because he was close enough to entering the property and he had the necessary state of mind
-
Guilty, because this is a statute designed to protect the public from violence, and the man was dangerous
Correct Answer
A. Guilty, because he was close enough to entering the property and he had the necessary state of mindExplanation
The correct answer is guilty, because he was close enough to entering the property and he had the necessary state of mind. The man had the intention to commit a crime of violence, which is entering the poker player's property with the intention of shooting him. The fact that he was arrested just before setting foot on the property does not negate his intent and the proximity to the crime. The statute is designed to protect the public from violence, and the man's dangerous intentions make him liable for attempting to violate the statute.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
A defendant wanted to make some money, so she decided to sell cocaine. She asked her neighbor, who was reputed to have access to illegal drugs, to supply her with cocaine so she could resell it. The neighbor agreed and sold the defendant a bag of white powder. The defendant then repackaged the white powder into smaller containers and sold one to an undercover police officer who promptly arrested the defendant. The defendant immediately confessed and said that her neighbor was her supplier. Upon examination, the white powder was found not to be cocaine or any type of illegal substance. If the neighbor knew the white powder was not cocaine but the defendant believed it was, which of the following is correct? (Do not consider any possible mistake defenses.)
-
Both the neighbor and the defendant are guilty of attempting to sell cocain
-
Neither the neighbor nor the defendant is guilty of attempting to sell cocain
-
The neighbor is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but the defendant is not
-
The neighbor is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but the defendant is
Correct Answer
A. The neighbor is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but the defendant isExplanation
The neighbor is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine because they did not actually sell cocaine or any illegal substance. However, the defendant is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine because she believed the white powder she was selling was cocaine, even though it turned out to be something else.Rate this question:
-
- 23.
A defendant wanted to kill his neighbor because the defendant believed his neighbor was having an affair with his wife. Early one morning, armed with a pistol, the defendant crouched behind some bushes on a park hillside overlooking a path upon which his neighbor frequently jogged. On this morning, however, the defendant saw his neighbor jogging on another path about a half mile away. Unaware of the limited range of his pistol, the defendant fired five shots at his neighbor. None of the five shots came anywhere close to the neighbor as he was well out of the range. The defendant is
-
Guilty of attempted murder, because he was not aware of the limited range of his pistol
-
Guilty of attempted murder, because a reasonable person would not have been aware of the limited range of his pistol
-
Not guilty of attempted murder, or any lesser included offense, because, under the circumstances, it was impossible for him to have killed his neighbor
-
Not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of assault
Correct Answer
A. Guilty of attempted murder, because he was not aware of the limited range of his pistolExplanation
The correct answer is guilty of attempted murder because he was not aware of the limited range of his pistol. Despite the defendant's intention to kill his neighbor, the fact that he was not aware of the limited range of his pistol does not absolve him of the crime. The defendant's actions, including firing five shots at his neighbor, demonstrate his intent to cause harm and potentially kill his neighbor. Ignorance of the limited range of his weapon does not excuse his culpability in attempting to commit murder.Rate this question:
-
- 24.
A wife decided to kill her husband because she was tired of his infidelity. She managed to obtain some cyanide, a deadly poison. One evening, she poured wine laced with the cyanide into a glass, handed it to her husband, and proposed a loving toast. The husband was so pleased with the toast that he set the glass of wine down on a table, grabbed his wife, and kissed her passionately. After the kiss, the wife changed her mind about killing the husband. She hid the glass of wine behind a lamp on the table, planning to leave it for the maid to clean up. The husband did not drink the wine. The maid found the glass of wine while cleaning the next day. Rather than throw the wine away, the maid drank it. Shortly thereafter, she fell into a coma and died from cyanide poisoning. In a common law jurisdiction, of what crime(s), if any, could the wife be found guilty?
-
Attempted murder of the husband and murder or manslaughter of the maid
-
Only attempted murder of the husband
-
Only murder or manslaughter of the maid
-
No crime.
Correct Answer
A. Attempted murder of the husband and murder or manslaughter of the maidExplanation
The wife could be found guilty of attempted murder of the husband because she intended to kill him by lacing the wine with cyanide. Additionally, she could be found guilty of murder or manslaughter of the maid because her actions indirectly caused the maid's death. Although the wife changed her mind about killing the husband, her decision to hide the glass of wine behind a lamp ultimately led to the maid drinking it and dying from cyanide poisoning.Rate this question:
-
- 25.
A man approached an undercover officer and inquired about hiring someone to kill his girlfriend’s parents. The man did not realize he was speaking to an undercover officer. The undercover officer pretended to agree to handle the job and secretly taped subsequent conversations with the man concerning plans and payment. A few days before the payment was due, the man changed his mind. If charged with solicitation to commit murder, the man should be:
-
Acquitted, because he withdrew before payment and commission of the act
-
Acquitted, because no substantial acts were performed
-
Convicted, because the offense was completed before his attempt to withdraw
-
Convicted, because the undercover officer agreed to commit the offense
Correct Answer
A. Convicted, because the offense was completed before his attempt to withdrawExplanation
The correct answer is convicted, because the offense was completed before his attempt to withdraw. Although the man changed his mind before making the payment and the act was not ultimately carried out, the offense of solicitation to commit murder was already completed when the man made the agreement with the undercover officer and discussed plans and payment. The fact that the undercover officer agreed to commit the offense does not absolve the man of guilt, as he willingly initiated the conversation and expressed his intent to hire someone to commit murder.Rate this question:
-
- 26.
A woman promised to pay $10,000 to a hit man if he would kill her neighbor. The hit man bought a gun and watched the neighbor's house for an opportunity to shoot him. One evening, unaware of the hit man’s presence, the neighbor tripped as he was walking toward his house, falling and hitting his head against the front steps, dying instantly. Believing that the neighbor was just unconscious, the hit man ran over to him and shot him twice in the chest. When the woman learned of the neighbor's death, she paid the hit man $10,000. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness. What is the most serious crime for which the woman properly could be convicted?
-
Murder
-
Attempted Murder
-
Conspiracy
-
Solicitation
Correct Answer
A. Attempted MurderExplanation
The most serious crime for which the woman could be convicted is attempted murder. Although the neighbor died as a result of his fall, the hit man intentionally shot him twice in the chest, indicating a clear intent to kill. The fact that the neighbor died instantly does not negate the hit man's intention. Therefore, the woman's promise to pay the hit man to kill her neighbor, and the subsequent payment after the shooting, demonstrate her involvement in the attempted murder.Rate this question:
-
- 27.
A woman and her sister took a trip to the Caribbean. When they passed through U.S. Customs inspection upon their return, the customs officials found liquid cocaine in several bottles each of them was carrying. They were arrested. Upon separate questioning by customs officers, the woman broke down and cried, “I told my sister there were too many officers at this airport!” The sister did not give a statement. The woman and her sister were indicted for conspiracy to import cocaine. They were tried separately. At the woman’s trial, after the government introduced the above evidence and rested its case, her lawyer moved for a judgment of acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence. Should the court grant the motion?
-
No, because a jury could conclude that both the woman and her sister agreed to import cocaine.
-
No, because the evidence shows that both the woman and her sister possessed cocaine
-
Yes, because the evidence shows only that the woman and her sister committed separate crimes of cocaine possession
-
Yes, because the evidence shows that the woman effectively withdrew from the conspiracy when she cooperated by giving a statement
Correct Answer
A. No, because a jury could conclude that both the woman and her sister agreed to import cocaine.Explanation
The court should not grant the motion for a judgment of acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence because a jury could reasonably conclude that both the woman and her sister agreed to import cocaine. The fact that they were both carrying bottles with liquid cocaine and the woman's statement about there being too many officers at the airport suggest their involvement in a conspiracy. The evidence points towards their joint participation in the crime rather than separate crimes of cocaine possession.Rate this question:
-
- 28.
A woman wanted to kill a business competitor. She contacted a man who she believed was willing to commit murder for hire and offered him $50,000 to kill the competitor. The man agreed to do so and accepted $25,000 from the woman as a down payment. Unbeknownst to the woman, the man was an undercover police officer. In a jurisdiction that has adopted the unilateral theory of conspiracy and does not require an overt act, is the woman guilty of conspiracy to murder the business competitor?
-
No, because the man did not intend to kill the competitor
-
No, because it would have been impossible for the woman to kill the competitor by this method
-
Yes, because the woman believed that she had an agreement with the man that would bring about the competitor's death
-
Yes, because the woman took a substantial step toward bringing about the competitor's death by paying the man $25,000
Correct Answer
A. Yes, because the woman believed that she had an agreement with the man that would bring about the competitor's deathExplanation
The correct answer is Yes, because the woman believed that she had an agreement with the man that would bring about the competitor's death. This is because the woman contacted the man with the intention of hiring him to commit murder, offering him a large sum of money for the job. Despite the fact that the man was an undercover police officer and did not actually intend to carry out the murder, the woman's belief and intent to conspire to commit murder make her guilty of conspiracy. The fact that she made a substantial payment of $25,000 further demonstrates her intent and involvement in the conspiracy.Rate this question:
-
- 29.
A homeowner met a man, who was known to him to be a burglar, in a bar. The homeowner told the man that he needed money. He promised to pay the man $500 if the man would go to the homeowner's house the following night and take some silverware. The homeowner explained to the man that, although the silverware was legally his, his wife would object to his selling it. The homeowner pointed out his home, one of a group of similar tract houses. He drew a floor plan of the house that showed the location of the silverware. The homeowner said that his wife usually took several sleeping pills before retiring, and that he would make sure that she took them the next night. He promised to leave a window unlocked. Everything went according to the plan except that the man, deceived by the similarity of the tract houses, went to the wrong house. He found a window unlocked, climbed in and found silver where the homeowner had indicated. He took the silver to the cocktail lounge where the payoff was to take place. At that point police arrested the two men. If the homeowner and the man are charged with a conspiracy to commit burglary, their best argument for acquittal is:
-
The man was taking the place of the homeowner during the incident
-
They did not intend to commit burglary
-
There was no overt act
-
There was no agreement
Correct Answer
A. They did not intend to commit burglaryExplanation
The best argument for acquittal is that the homeowner and the man did not intend to commit burglary. Although the homeowner promised to pay the man to take the silverware, he made it clear that the silverware was legally his and his wife would object to selling it. The man, deceived by the similarity of the houses, went to the wrong house and found the silverware where the homeowner had indicated. This suggests that their intention was not to commit burglary, but rather to carry out a transaction involving the homeowner's own property.Rate this question:
-
- 30.
At a party, the defendant and the victim, who was her brother, agreed to play a game called “spin the barrel.” The victim took an unloaded revolver, placed one bullet in the barrel, and spun the barrel. The victim then pointed the gun at the defendant's head and pulled the trigger once. The gun did not fire. The defendant then took the gun, pointed it at the victim, spun the barrel, and pulled the trigger once. The gun jammed. The defendant looked at it, spun it again, pointed it at defendant, and fired it again. This time the gun fired, and the victim fell over dead. A statute in the jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as a killing done with premeditation and deliberation, or one occurring during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. It defines murder in the second degree as a killing with malice aforethought, but without premeditation and deliberation. It defines voluntary manslaughter as a killing in the heat of passion upon an adequate legal provocation, and involuntary manslaughter as a killing caused by gross negligence. The most serious crime for which the defendant can be properly convicted is:
-
Murder in the first degree, because the killing was intentional and premeditated, and in any case, it occurred during commission of the felony of assault with a deadly weapon
-
Murder in the second degree, because the defendant's act posed a great threat to human life.
-
Involuntary manslaughter, because the defendant's act was grossly negligent and reckless.
-
no crime, because the victim and the defendant voluntarily agreed to play a game and each assumed the risk of death.
Correct Answer
A. Murder in the second degree, because the defendant's act posed a great threat to human life.Explanation
The correct answer is murder in the second degree, because the defendant's act posed a great threat to human life. This is because the defendant knowingly pointed a loaded gun at the victim and pulled the trigger, even though the gun had previously jammed. This act demonstrates a reckless disregard for human life and meets the criteria for murder in the second degree, which is a killing with malice aforethought but without premeditation and deliberation.Rate this question:
-
- 31.
An inventor, believing that a woman suffered from arthritis, told her that for $100 he could cure her with a device he had invented. The device was a large box with a series of electric light bulbs along the sides. The woman, after examining the device, agreed to take the treatment, which consisted of placing her hands inside the box for several ten-minute periods. The woman gave the inventor $100 and went through the treatment. The inventor is charged with obtaining money by false pretenses. Each of the following, if true, will absolve the inventor of guilt for obtaining money by false pretenses EXCEPT:
-
The inventor honestly believed that the device would cure arthritis, but his belief was unreasonable.
-
The inventor was playing a practical joke on the woman and intended to return the money.
-
The woman was an undercover police officer and did not believe that the device would cure arthritis.
-
The woman honestly believed that the device would cure arthritis, but her belief was unreasonable.
Correct Answer
A. The woman honestly believed that the device would cure arthritis, but her belief was unreasonable.Explanation
The woman honestly believed that the device would cure arthritis, but her belief was unreasonable. This statement does not absolve the inventor of guilt because even though the woman's belief was unreasonable, the inventor still made false claims about the device's ability to cure arthritis and obtained money from her under false pretenses.Rate this question:
-
- 32.
A woman became angry after she was unexpectedly laid off from her longtime job as a factory worker. The next day, she returned to the factory floor and indiscriminately fired shotgun rounds into the air. The woman later testified, without contradiction, that she had not intended to kill anyone but had simply sought to exact revenge on the factory’s owners by shutting down operations for the day. Unfortunately, one of the bullets ricocheted off the wall and killed the woman's best friend. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness. On these facts, what is the most serious offense for which the woman could be convicted?
-
Murder
-
Voluntary Manslaughter
-
Involuntary Manslaughter
-
Assault
Correct Answer
A. MurderExplanation
The most serious offense for which the woman could be convicted is murder. This is because she fired shotgun rounds into the air with the knowledge that it could cause harm or death to others. Despite her intention not to kill anyone, her actions resulted in the death of her best friend. This meets the criteria for murder, which is the intentional killing of another person, even if it was not premeditated.Rate this question:
-
- 33.
Which one do you like?
-
Option 1
-
Option 2
-
Option 3
-
Option 4
Correct Answer
A. Option 1 -
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Sep 1, 2023 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Sep 01, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 07, 2020Quiz Created by
K_monck
Back to top