Crim Law (2nd Half)

33 Questions | Total Attempts: 194

SettingsSettingsSettings
Please wait...
Crim Law (2nd Half)

.


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    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.
    • A. 

      Involuntary manslaughter

    • B. 

      Voluntary Manslaughter

    • C. 

      Murder

    • D. 

      None of the Above

  • 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
    • A. 

      Sustained, because the police officer reasonably believed the stranger was planning to kill him and that deadly force was required.

    • B. 

      Sustained, because the killing was in hot blood upon sufficient provocation.

    • C. 

      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.

    • D. 

      Denied, because the police officer was not defending his home and had an obligation to retreat or to repel with less than deadly force.

  • 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?
    • A. 

      Yes, because there was no way for Darla to determine whether Olive was the initial aggressor.

    • B. 

      Yes, because the man was threatening Olive with pepper spray, and Olive did not have the right to respond with deadly force.

    • C. 

      No, because Darla was effectuating a lawful citizen’s arrest.

    • D. 

      No, because Darla reasonably believed that the man was about to use deadly force against Olive

  • 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?
    • A. 

      No, because he had no obligation to retreat before resorting to non-deadly force.

    • B. 

      No, because there is no obligation to retreat when one is in an occupied structure

    • C. 

      Yes, because he failed to retreat even though there was an opportunity available.

    • D. 

      Yes, because the husband did not threaten to use deadly force against him

  • 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
    • A. 

      Aggravated assault.

    • B. 

      Burglary

    • C. 

      Assault.

    • D. 

      Trespass.

  • 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
    • A. 

      Not guilty, because of the defense of duress.

    • B. 

      Not guilty, because of the defense of necessity.

    • C. 

      Guilty of first-degree murder.

    • D. 

      Guilty of second-degree murder.

  • 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?
    • A. 

      Yes, because Visalia was not predisposed to buy the gun.

    • B. 

      Yes, because Pat did not reveal his true identity before Visalia gave him the money, which constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

    • C. 

      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.

    • D. 

      No, because she had participated in illegal gun trafficking previously, indicating that she was predisposed to commit that crime again.

  • 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:
    • A. 

      “No.”

    • B. 

      “Even if you were unreasonable as to your mistake about the value of the property, you may interpose a duress defense.”

    • C. 

      “You will be able to interpose both a necessity/choice of evils defense and a duress defense.”

    • D. 

      “If you were reasonable in your mistake about the value of the property, your mistake will negate the mens rea.”

  • 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?
    • A. 

      Yes, because the driver had a duty to protect the people using his taxi service.

    • B. 

      Yes, because the potential deaths of four people is a far greater harm than the destruction of an empty barn.

    • C. 

      No, because the driver did not know for certain that the barn was empty.

    • D. 

      No, because the driver contributed to or caused the threat.

  • 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
    • A. 

      Robbery only.

    • B. 

      Larceny only

    • C. 

      Either robbery or larceny

    • D. 

      Both robbery and larceny 

  • 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?
    • A. 

      Larceny

    • B. 

      Embezzlement

    • C. 

      Larceny by trick

    • D. 

      Obtaining by false pretenses

  • 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:
    • A. 

      Larceny

    • B. 

      Embezzlement

    • C. 

      False Pretenses

    • D. 

      None of the Above

  • 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?
    • A. 

      Embezzlement

    • B. 

      Obtaining property by false pretenses

    • C. 

      Robbery and larceny

    • D. 

      Robbery or larceny

  • 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
    • 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.

    • B. 

      Not guilty, because she did not emerge from the window completely before being apprehended, and therefore her crime was incomplete

    • C. 

      Guilty, because the tools were in her trunk at the scene of the crime

    • D. 

      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.

  • 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?
    • A. 

      Robbery

    • B. 

      Larceny by trick

    • C. 

      False pretenses

    • D. 

      Embezzlement

  • 16. 
    In which of the following cases is a conviction for robbery least likely to be upheld?
    • A. 

      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.

    • B. 

      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.

    • C. 

      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.

    • D. 

      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.

  • 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
    • A. 

      The intent required was not present.

    • B. 

      The liquor store was open to the public.

    • C. 

      He had a change of heart and withdrew before committing any crime inside the store.

    • D. 

      He was unsuccessful, and so at most could be guilty of attempted burglary.

  • 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
    • A. 

      Guilty of burglary and larceny.

    • B. 

      Guilty of burglary and attempted larceny.

    • C. 

      Guilty of burglary but not guilty of any larceny offense.

    • D. 

      Not guilty of burglary or any larceny offense.

  • 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
    • A. 

      Larceny, because he took the papers only to prevent identification and not for his own use.

    • B. 

      Larceny, because he did not take anything from a living victim

    • C. 

      Robbery, because he did not take the papers by means of force or fear

    • D. 

      Robbery, because he did not take anything of monetary value

  • 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?
    • A. 

      No, because he had not taken sufficient acts toward commission of the crime.

    • B. 

      No, because he was illegally arrested.

    • C. 

      Yes, because by objective standards the undercover detective and the drug dealer had made an agreement that the dealer would obtain cocaine

    • D. 

      Yes, because he unequivocally expressed his intent to obtain the cocaine

  • 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
    • A. 

      Not guilty, because the statute defines an attempted crime and there cannot be an attempt to attempt

    • B. 

      Not guilty, because to convict him would be to punish him simply for having a guilty mind

    • C. 

      Guilty, because he was close enough to entering the property and he had the necessary state of mind

    • D. 

      Guilty, because this is a statute designed to protect the public from violence, and the man was dangerous

  • 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.)
    • A. 

      Both the neighbor and the defendant are guilty of attempting to sell cocain

    • B. 

      Neither the neighbor nor the defendant is guilty of attempting to sell cocain

    • C. 

      The neighbor is guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but the defendant is not

    • D. 

      The neighbor is not guilty of attempting to sell cocaine, but the defendant is

  • 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
    • A. 

      Guilty of attempted murder, because he was not aware of the limited range of his pistol

    • B. 

      Guilty of attempted murder, because a reasonable person would not have been aware of the limited range of his pistol

    • C. 

      Not guilty of attempted murder, or any lesser included offense, because, under the circumstances, it was impossible for him to have killed his neighbor

    • D. 

      Not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of assault

  • 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?
    • A. 

      Attempted murder of the husband and murder or manslaughter of the maid  

    • B. 

      Only attempted murder of the husband

    • C. 

      Only murder or manslaughter of the maid

    • D. 

      No crime. 

  • 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:
    • A. 

      Acquitted, because he withdrew before payment and commission of the act

    • B. 

      Acquitted, because no substantial acts were performed

    • C. 

      Convicted, because the offense was completed before his attempt to withdraw

    • D. 

      Convicted, because the undercover officer agreed to commit the offense

Back to Top Back to top