CRIMINAL LAW QUESTIONS, GOULD S LEGAL EDUCATION, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

51. One day, David was roaming around his neighborhood, aimlessly, and did not know what to do with himself. He decided to telephone Henry. Henry was not doing anything, so David decided to go over to Henry s house. While talking with Henry at Henry s house, David thought that Henry wanted to go downtown in order to threaten tourists. When David and Henry got downtown, David threatened tourists. If no other facts are presented and David is charged with conspiracy, what is the most likely reason? A. David is in a jurisdiction that uses the bilateral theory of conspiracy. B. David took a reasonable act in furtherance of the conspiracy. C. David is in a jurisdiction that uses the unilateral theory of conspiracy. D. David agreed to do a criminal act.

51. CORRECT ANSWER: C. Under the Model Penal Code, MPC, a unilateral conspiracy will be present where one defendant agrees to commit a crime, even if the other person does not agree to commit a crime. Therefore, the most likely reason that David would be charged with conspiracy, is that he is in a unilateral theory of conspiracy jurisdiction.

52. Dennis went to a Friday night movie with his sweetheart, Penny. They cared about each other, and knew a lot about each other, because they had been boyfriend and girlfriend for almost two years. When they left the movie theater together, Dennis was approached by a homeless man, who asked Dennis for some cash. Dennis did not like homeless men, and he was deeply insulted. Dennis first winked at Penny, and then he proceeded to beat the pulp out of the homeless man, leading to the death of the homeless man, two days later. Mike, the movie manager saw Penny standing nearby when Dennis administered the beating, and she did nothing to provide aid to the homeless man. Further, after Dennis finished his attack of the homeless man, Penny encouraged Dennis to flee the scene. If Penny is charged and tried as an accomplice to manslaughter, what will the result be? A. Acquitted, because Penny was not under a special duty to aid or rescue the homeless man. B. Convicted, because Penny encouraged Dennis to flee the scene of the crime. C. Convicted, because Penny made no effort to try and save the homeless man from a severe beating. D. Acquitted, because Penny did not help Dennis beat the homeless man.

52. CORRECT ANSWER: D. A person may be guilty as an accomplice or accessory if he/she intentionally aids, abets or facilitates the commission of a crime. The fact that Penny did not actively endeavor to save the homeless man from a severe beating by Dennis, has no bearing on whether or not she provided the requisite encouragement to commit the crime, which is necessary for accomplice liability. Additionally, Penny did not have a special relationship with the homeless man, and thus she did not have a duty to aid or rescue the homeless man. Penny was merely present at a crime scene, and she had no idea would take place at that crime scene. Accomplice liability will not attach to a person for their mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence that they took actions to aid, encourage, or abet the principal.

53. Abe and Ben were enforcers in an area gang. They went around the neighborhood, and enforced the rules from the gang. One day they approached Pedestrian, and Abe told Ben to teach a lesson to Pedestrian. Ben proceeded to batter Pedestrian. If Abe is charged with battery, what is the likely result? A. Not guilty, because Abe did not batter Pedestrian. B. Guilty, because Abe told Ben to teach a lesson to Pedestrian. C. Not guilty, because Abe was merely present at the scene of the crime. D. Guilty, because Abe was present at the scene of the crime.

53. CORRECT ANSWER: B. Accomplice liability for a crime will attach when a defendant aids or encourages another to commit a crime, with an intent that the crime be completed. If the crime is completed, an accomplice will be liable for the completed criminal act. Mere presence at a crime scene, without more, is not enough to establish criminal liability under accomplice liability. In this situation, Abe and Ben were friends and enforcers in an area gang. As such, they knew the secret language of each other. When Abe told Ben to teach a lesson to Pedestrian, Abe encouraged Ben to batter Pedestrian. Therefore, Abe is likely to be found guilty of battery.

54. Carl had always wanted an expensive sports car, and had often made plans to steal sports cars. One day, he saw his friend Fred driving Fred s expensive sports car. When Fred stopped, Carl asked Fred if he, Carl, could drive Fred s car around the block. Fred consented. Carl drove Fred s car around the block. What is Carl s best argument to a charge of larceny? A. He returned the car. B. He only drove the car around the block. C. Fred was a friend of Carl s. D. He did not want to steal Fred s car.

54. CORRECT ANSWER: D. The criminal intent (mens rea) must concur with the criminal act (actus reus), for a reasonable larceny charge to exist. Here, even though Carl had made plans in the past to steal sports cars, if he did not want to specifically steal Fred s sports car, the larceny charge would fail.

55. Jonnie was charged with larceny. Jonnie introduced evidence that he was intoxicated at the time that he took the property of another, and thus he could not have formulated the requisite intent necessary for larceny at the time of the alleged crime. As related to Jonnie s intent to commit a larceny, which of the following statements regarding the burden of proof should be read to the jury? A. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Jonnie had the capacity to form the necessary intent. B. Jonnie must establish by clear and convincing evidence that his capacity to form the necessary intent was diminished. C. The prosecution must establish by clear and convincing evidence that Jonnie had the capacity to form the necessary intent. D. Jonnie must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his capacity to form the necessary intent was diminished.

55. CORRECT ANSWER: A. The burden of proof in a criminal law context is on the prosecution. The prosecution must establish each element of a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the correct answer, is that the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Jonnie had the capacity to form the necessary intent.

56. Henry was a nice man. However, he was unhappy to hear that the Christmas display had been taken down from the town square, due to pressure from a public interest group. Henry did not know what to do, and ruminated for many hours. Then, he decided to drive to the home of the public interest group director. He broke into the director s home, and set up a Christmas tree, and lit real candles that he placed loosely in the branches of the Christmas tree, intending that the director of the public interest group experience what a real Christmas felt like. After Henry left the director s home, a couple of the candles fell to the ground, and lit the floor on fire. Soon, the entire home was engulfed in flames, and the director was killed due to smoke inhalation from the fire. The jurisdiction follows the common law as related to arson and involuntary manslaughter. Henry should be convicted of which of the following crimes? A. Arson, but not involuntary manslaughter. B. Involuntary manslaughter, but not arson. C. Arson and involuntary manslaughter. D. No crime.

56. CORRECT ANSWER: C. Under the common law Henry would be convicted of both involuntary manslaughter and arson. The requisite intent for involuntary manslaughter is present, because Henry acted with gross negligence when he broke into the director s home, and lit candles that he placed loosely on a Christmas tree, that could easily fall, and cause a fire, that could result in a fire that could kill other people. Henry could also be convicted of arson, even though he did not have an intent to cause a fire, because his actions to loosely place lit candles on the branches of the Christmas tree, were done in a willful and wanton manner, that created a substantial likelihood that a burning would occur, thus meeting the requirements for one of the two malice states for arson. Therefore, Henry could be convicted of both involuntary manslaughter and arson.

57. Rick pretended as though he was an insurance salesman, even though he wanted to gain access to Peter's house in order to steal some of Peter's belongings. Peter, believing that Rick was an insurance salesman, let Rick into his, Peter's, house. Rick then struck Peter in his mouth with an open fist, and locked Peter in a windowless bathroom, that had a lock on the outside of the door. Rick took a television set and a watch, and as Rick was leaving, Peter suffered a massive heart attack due to the stress of the situation, and died. Rick could reasonably be charged with which of the following crimes, in a jurisdiction that does not the common law. A. Burglary and robbery. B. Robbery and murder. C. Murder, robbery, and burglary. D. Robbery, false imprisonment, murder, and burglary.

57. CORRECT ANSWER: D. Rick intended to steal Peter's belongings, and Rick tricked Peter into letting him, Rick, into Peter's house, by fashioning a ruse that Rick was an insurance salesman, which he was not. The use of fraud to gain entry to a structure is called constructive entry, and combined with a felonious intent, will amount to a burglary. Rick took Peter's television set, and a watch, which would amount to larceny. However, the larceny was enacted by hitting Peter in the mouth, thus the larceny was enacted through force, amounting to robbery. Rick locked Peter into the bounded space of a bathroom, with no reasonable means of escape, indicating a false imprisonment. Additionally, before Rick had reached a safe harbor, Peter perished due to a massive heart attack, thus Peter's death took place during the commission of a felony robbery. Therefore, Rick could reasonably be charged with robbery, false imprisonment, murder, and burglary.

58. Barry picked up a Hitchhiker. The Hitchhiker pulled out a gun and told Barry, to drive to Sacramento. Barry was in fact headed for San Francisco, but Barry decided that he would drive to Sacramento, because he wanted to do as Hitchhiker had suggested. Barry drove for hundreds of miles, and Hitchhiker then told Barry to stop the car, and asked Barry for Barry s cell-phone. Hitchhiker used Barry s cell-phone to speed dial Barry s Father, as Hitchhiker got out of the car and walked back and forth, alongside of the car. Hitchhiker asked Barry s Father for money, or else, as Hitchhiker stated, Barry would suffer. The Hitchhiker got back in the car, and had Barry drive for twenty more minutes. The Hitchhiker then decided to get out of the car before Sacramento, and without receiving a ransom from Barry s Father. Before Hitchhiker left the car, he hit Barry over the head with the gun. Barry used his cell-phone to call the police, and Hitchhiker was arrested. What crimes could Hitchhiker reasonably be convicted of? A. Robbery, larceny and kidnapping. B. Kidnapping and battery. C. Larceny, battery, kidnapping and extortion. D. Battery and larceny.

58. CORRECT ANSWER: B. There are no facts indicating that the Hitchhiker intended to keep Barry s cell-phone, and thus larceny of the cell-phone is not a proper charge. Hitchhiker did not take any personal property as part of the threat of future harm, and therefore, extortion is a not viable charge. Even though Hitchhiker did not receive a ransom for taking Barry, a ransom is not necessary for a kidnapping charge. In this situation, Hitchhiker secreted Barry across hundreds of miles, and Barry was not free to leave the car, as he was held at gunpoint. Additionally, Barry was struck in his head with a gun. Therefore, Hitchhiker could reasonably be convicted of kidnapping and battery.

59. Michael was a criminal, but he did not enjoy his criminal profession. One night he opened the door to his neighbor s house, using a paper clip, and without breaking anything on the door. The neighbor worked the night shift. Michael then entered his neighbor s house, and proceeded to watch television and drink his own beer. As Michael was leaving the house, his neighbor returned home, and Michael slugged the neighbor in the mouth with a beer bottle. Barry could reasonably be charged with which of the following crimes. A. Burglary and battery. B. Burglary and robbery. C. Battery. D. No crime.

59. CORRECT ANSWER: C. There is no burglary in this instance, because Barry had no intent to commit a felony in neighbor s dwelling house. Therefore, the correct answer choice is that Barry would reasonably be charged with battery.

60. Amy went on a crime spree. First, she took a shirt from the department store, with an intent to keep it. Then, she struck Barry in the head, just for the fun of it. Then, she opened a screen door to get into her next-door neighbor s house at 2 AM, with the intent to drink a few beers she had brought along with her. The next day, feeling remorseful, she returned the skirt to the store. In a jurisdiction that follows the common law, Amy could reasonably be charged with which of the following crimes? A. Battery, burglary, and attempted larceny. B. Battery and larceny. C. Battery and burglary. D. Battery, larceny and burglary.

60. CORRECT ANSWER: B. As soon as Amy took the skirt one step, with intent to steal it, the larceny was completed, and it is of no import that she later returned the skirt. The battery was completed at the time that Amy struck Barry. All of the elements of common law burglary are present, except for the intent to commit a felony in the dwelling house of another. Therefore, the only possible answer choice is battery and larceny.

CONTACT INFORMATION e.mail contact@gouldslegaleducation.com Office Telephone 1-312-607-4143 Website http://www.gouldslegaleducation.com