Crim Law Module 1 End of Module Questions

While climbing a steep mountain, a woman’s climbing rope failed, and she fell off the side of the mountain. She landed on a small ledge 30 feet below. Behind her, a man continued climbing. The woman shouted, “Hey! I’m here! Throw me a rope so I can get up!” The man, who did not know the woman but had all the gear that would be necessary to safely rescue her, looked down at her and said, “Sorry, I’d like to help, but I have to reach the summit before dark.” He continued on to the summit. On the way back down, he looked down to see that the woman had fallen off the ledge to her death.

What is the most serious crime for which the man can be convicted?

Murder.

Voluntary manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter.

No crime.

Answer choice D is correct. A legal duty to act and the failure to do so results in criminal liability in certain instances, such as when there is a special relationship between the parties (e.g., a parent’s duty to her child) or when a party fails to aid the victim after causing the victim’s peril. When there is no duty to act, a defendant is not criminally liable just because he fails to help others in trouble. In this case, the woman and the man do not have a special relationship, as it appears they are strangers. Neither did the man cause the woman to fall down the side of the mountain onto the small ledge or voluntarily assume to render aid. Thus, the man had no legal duty to act. Although the woman died and the man could have prevented her death, he is not liable for her death. Answer choices A, B, and C are therefore incorrect.

To test his new, high-powered cross-bow, the defendant went out into the woods behind his home, which bordered the backyard of a house where the defendant knew several children lived and played. The defendant posted a target on a tree and began firing arrows at the target. As he was testing his cross-bow, the defendant heard the children playing nearby, but took no action to warn them as to the danger. Even though the children began to run directly behind the target the defendant continued testing his cross-bow. The defendant accidentally misaimed and shot an arrow to the side of the tree with the target, striking and killing one of the children. The defendant was convicted of murder for the death of the child. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction of murder.

What action should the appellate court take with regard to this appeal?

Vacate the conviction, because although the evidence would have been sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter, it was not sufficient for murder.

Vacate the conviction, because although the evidence would have been sufficient to support a conviction for voluntary manslaughter, it was not sufficient for murder.

Vacate the conviction, because the evidence showed no intent to kill by the defendant.

Affirm the conviction, as the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of murder.

Answer choice D is correct. Conduct that manifests a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, unaccompanied by the intent to kill, and that actually results in death, is known as "depraved heart murder." Here, the jury could reasonably have found on the evidence at trial that testing the cross-bow in an area where children were known to play constituted conduct that manifested a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. Answer choice A is incorrect. The jury could reasonably have concluded that the defendant's actions rose above mere criminal negligence, required for involuntary manslaughter, to a "depraved-heart" standard, which can form the basis for a finding of murder. Answer choice B is incorrect. Voluntary manslaughter requires that the defendant act in response to adequate provocation (i.e., in the heat of passion). Here, there are no facts to indicate the defendant acted in the heat of passion. Answer choice C is incorrect. As noted above, "depraved heart murder" does not require intent to kill, just conduct that manifests a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life.

A wife discovered that her husband had been having an affair with her best friend for many months. Enraged, the wife decided to invite her best friend over for poolside cocktails, spike her drinks with a strong sedative, and then push her into the pool to drown after she passed out. The best friend agreed to come over, but because the wife was extremely nervous, she took ten times the recommended amount of her prescribed anti-anxiety medication. The best friend arrived to find the wife acting erratically, clearly under the influence of the drugs. However, the wife managed to add the sedative to the best friend’s cocktails, and when she passed out, the wife pushed her into the pool. The best friend drowned. The police eventually arrested and charged the wife with first-degree murder. The jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as a deliberate and premeditated unlawful killing of another human being.

Does the wife have a valid intoxication defense to the first-degree murder charge?

Yes, because the wife’s intoxication is a defense to specific-intent crimes.

Yes, because the wife’s excessive level of intoxication brought on actual insanity.

No, because the wife was not intoxicated by alcohol or illegal drugs.

No, because the wife formed the intent to kill before she became intoxicated.

Answer choice D is correct. Voluntary intoxication is the intentional taking of a substance known to be intoxicating. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a specific-intent crime when the intent was formed before intoxication. Here, the wife committed first-degree murder, a specific-intent crime, because it was premeditated and deliberate. However, because she formed the intent to kill her best friend before she took the anti-anxiety drugs, voluntary intoxication is not a defense. Answer choice A is incorrect. Although voluntary intoxication can be a defense to specific-intent crimes, here, the wife formed the requisite intent before her intoxication. Answer choice B is incorrect. Intoxication and insanity are two separate defenses, and the call of the question specifically asks whether the wife has a valid intoxication defense. Additionally, while it is possible for excessive drinking and drug use to bring on actual insanity, intoxication will only give rise to an insanity defense if the requirements for an insanity defense are met. Here, no facts are provided that would support an insanity defense. Answer choice C is incorrect. Intoxication can be caused by any substance (e.g., alcohol, drugs, or prescription medicine), including a prescribed anti-anxiety medication.

A man and a woman planned to rob a liquor store. The man entered the store while the woman stayed in the car to act as a lookout and getaway driver. As a police officer walked by the store, the woman turned on the car lights, which was the signal she had arranged to warn the man in the store if anyone was coming. Seeing the signal, the man ran out the door right into the police officer. Realizing that an armed robbery was in progress, the police officer shot and killed the man, after appropriate warnings.

Should the woman be found guilty of felony murder of the man?

No, because the killing by the policeman was justifiable.

No, because the death of the man was not foreseeable.

Yes, because she was a co-conspirator in the robbery.

Yes, under the proximate cause theory.

Answer choice A is correct. If a co-felon is killed by a police officer (or a victim) either in self-defense or to prevent escape, the defendant is not guilty of felony murder. The killing by the police officer is considered justifiable homicide. Therefore, the woman would not be guilty of felony murder in this case. Answer choice B is incorrect, as the man’s death was foreseeable here. It is reasonably foreseeable that a robber will be shot fleeing the scene of a crime. Answer choice C is incorrect. Although a co-conspirator is generally liable for any death that occurs during the course of a felony, there is an exception if a co-felon is killed by a victim or the police either in self-defense or to prevent escape. In that situation, the killing is considered justifiable. Answer choice D is incorrect because the proximate cause theory is a way to determine whether a bystander’s death should constitute felony murder. It is not applicable to the death of a co-felon.

A man who suffered from a mental illness shot and killed his neighbor after making plans to do so. The man was arrested and charged with murder. At trial, the man admitted that he intended to kill the neighbor, and that he appreciated that what he was doing was illegal. However, he also testified that he performed the killing under orders from his pet goldfish, who was possessed by a demonic spirit, and that he was unable to resist the goldfish’s constant urging to kill the neighbor.

The Model Penal Code test of criminal responsibility applies in the applicable jurisdiction.

If the man timely and properly pleads that he was not criminally responsible, can he be found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity?

Yes, because the man was unable to resist the goldfish’s constant urging.

Yes, because the man suffered from a mental illness.

No, because the man understood that killing his neighbor was illegal.

No, because the man planned to kill his neighbor.

Answer choice A is correct. Under the Model Penal Code test, a defendant is not guilty when, at the time of the conduct, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he did not have substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform his conduct to the law. Here, although the man appreciated the wrongfulness of the killing, he was unable to resist the urging of the goldfish. Answer choice B is incorrect because the fact that the defendant suffered from a mental illness is not sufficient to establish an insanity defense. Answer choice C is incorrect because, as noted, the Model Penal Code test contains not only a cognitive prong but also a volitional prong; satisfying either is sufficient to establish an insanity defense. Answer choice D is incorrect because the volitional prong does not require that the defendant act impulsively, merely that he lacks the will to conform his conduct to the law.

Immediately after she arrived home from work, a woman found her husband engaged in sex with a female who worked in the husband's office. Enraged, the woman retrieved a handgun from her dresser drawer. She fired the gun, intending to shoot her husband's co-worker. Her shot missed the co-worker, and instead killed her husband. The woman was charged with common-law murder of her husband.

Based on the foregoing facts, should she be convicted?

Yes, because the woman acted with reckless indifference with regards to her husband's life.

Yes, because of the doctrine of transferred intent.

No, because the act was provoked.

No, because the woman's extreme temporary distress completely excuses her actions.

Answer choice C is correct. Voluntary manslaughter is homicide committed with malice aforethought, but also with mitigating circumstances. It includes homicide committed in response to adequate provocation (i.e., in the "heat of passion"). The woman's enraged mental state mitigates the crime from murder to voluntary manslaughter. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while firing a handgun in a bedroom in the direction of the victim could arguably constitute the intent necessary for murder, the provocation would reduce the crime to voluntary manslaughter. Answer choice B is incorrect because, while the doctrine of transferred intent could supply the necessary intent for the killing of the husband to constitute murder, the adequate provocation would reduce the crime to voluntary manslaughter. Answer choice D is incorrect because a defendant's action in the "heat of passion" does not serve as a complete defense to any crime related to the killing. The woman could be convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

From across the street, a woman watched as a man exited a bank with a drawn gun and a bag. As she continued walking home, she realized that she knew the man. From subsequent news reports, she confirmed her suspicions that the man had robbed the bank and learned that the police were requesting that anyone with information about the robbery contact the police. The woman did not contact the police.

Is the woman an accessory after the fact to the robbery?

Yes, because she witnessed the man leave the scene of the crime and was subsequently aware that the man had committed a felony.

Yes, because, by opting not to inform police of the man’s identity, she effectively aided the man in avoiding apprehension.

No, because she did not help the man to escape arrest or conviction.

No, because she did not aid the man in the commission of the robbery.

Answer choice C is correct. An accessory after the fact is a person who aids or assists a felon in avoiding apprehension or conviction after commission of the felony. An accessory after the fact must know that a felony was committed, act specifically to aid or assist the felon, and give the aid or assistance for the purpose of helping the felon avoid apprehension or conviction. Here, the woman did not affirmatively act to hinder the man’s capture or arrest or otherwise to give aid to the man, and did not act intending to help him. Answer choice A is incorrect because knowledge that a felony has been committed and that a particular person has committed the felony is not sufficient make a person an accessory after the fact. Answer choice B is incorrect because the mere failure to give information regarding a felony is not sufficient to make a person an accessory after the fact to the felony. Answer choice D is incorrect. A person who gives aid to a felon during the commission of the felony is a principal in the second degree, not an accessory after the fact. Although the woman was present as the man fled from the bank, she did not affirmatively aid the man in the felony or his escape from the scene.

A daughter babysat her neighbor’s children every Thursday night. Her mother had coveted the neighbor’s antique vase for many years. The mother bought a cheap replica of the vase, broke it, and gave the pieces to her daughter Thursday morning. The mother told the daughter to leave the broken pieces in the neighbor’s trash, steal the antique vase, and claim that the children had broken it. The daughter reluctantly agreed. While she was babysitting that evening, the daughter put the pieces of the cheap replica in the garbage. However, before she actually stole the vase, her mother called her. The mother had changed her mind and told the daughter not to steal the vase. The daughter did not steal the vase, but forgot to take the pieces of the cheap replica out of the garbage. When the neighbor discovered the pieces of the replica in the garbage, she confronted the daughter, and the daughter confessed the whole plan. The neighbor called the police, who arrested the mother; she was subsequently charged with solicitation.

Is the mother guilty of solicitation under the common law?

No, because the daughter did not actually steal the vase.

No, because the mother renounced the crime by calling the daughter and telling her not to steal the vase.

Yes, because the mother encouraged her daughter to steal the antique vase.

Yes, because the mother took a substantial step towards committing the crime by buying a cheap replica of the vase.

Answer choice C is correct. Solicitation is the enticing, encouraging, requesting, or commanding of another person to commit a crime with the intent that the other person commits the crime. The encouragement may take the form of enticement, incitement, request, or command. The crime is completed upon the encouragement. The other person need not agree to commit the crime. Here, the mother is guilty of solicitation because she encouraged and commanded her daughter to steal the antique vase, and the crime was complete upon the encouragement. Answer choice A is incorrect because it is irrelevant that the daughter did not actually steal the antique vase; this has no bearing on the mother’s liability for solicitation. Answer choice B is incorrect because at common law, renunciation is no defense to solicitation. Answer choice D is incorrect because a defendant taking a substantial step towards committing the crime is not an element of solicitation.

A husband and his business partner owned a large technology company together. After a personally tumultuous but professionally successful decade working together, the husband discovered that the business partner had been fraudulently transferring company funds to the business partner’s personal account for years. Before he confronted his business partner about this, he called his own wife to tell her what he had learned. His wife reminded him that the company had a $2 million life insurance policy on the business partner. The couple formed a plan to murder the business partner for the insurance proceeds when he was alone in the office building. On the day that they planned to carry out the murder, the husband told the business partner that he had to leave early and asked the business partner to stay late to finish up a presentation. He knew that by doing so, the business partner would be alone at the office. Later that night, the wife went in and shot the business partner. She then panicked and fled the country. The husband was later charged with the murder and conspiracy to commit the murder, but the wife was never apprehended. The jurisdiction recognizes the majority rule regarding conspirator liability.

Is the husband likely to be found guilty of conspiracy and murder?

No, because the husband and wife were married.

No, because the wife was never convicted of the murder.

Yes, because the husband persuaded the business partner to stay late at the office.

Yes, because no overt act was required in furtherance of the crime.

Answer choice C is correct. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose with the intent to accomplish that purpose. The majority rule requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, although the common law does not. A conspirator can be convicted of both the offense of conspiracy and all substantive crimes committed by any other co-conspirators acting in furtherance of the conspiracy. In this case, the husband and wife formed a plan to murder the business partner, and the husband committed an overt act when he asked the business partner to stay late one night to carry out the murder. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the common law did not consider husband and wife as co-conspirators, nearly every jurisdiction has abolished this common-law concept. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although a conspirator cannot be convicted of conspiracy if all other conspirators are acquitted at the same trial, a co-conspirator can be convicted if other co-conspirators are never tried or apprehended. Answer choice D is incorrect because the husband did commit an overt act when he persuaded the business partner to stay late at the office.

A defendant entered a convenience store wearing a Halloween mask and carrying a gun. He pointed the gun at the store clerk and told him to empty the cash register into a bag and hand it over. The clerk told the defendant that he needed a key from below the counter to unlock the cash drawer. He leaned over, pulled out a gun from behind the cash register, and quickly fired a shot. The defendant had seen the clerk reach for the gun, however, and jumped out of the way before the shot was fired. The bullet hit a customer, who later died from the injury.

Is the defendant likely to be convicted of felony murder in a jurisdiction that follows the majority law?

No, because the clerk could not be considered the agent of the defendant.

No, because the defendant did not shoot the customer.

Yes, because the customer’s death was a natural and probable consequence of the robbery.

Yes, because the defendant is strictly liable for any death that occurs during an inherently dangerous felony.

Answer choice A is correct. Felony murder is an unintended killing proximately caused by and during the commission or attempted commission of an inherently dangerous felony, including a robbery. Most states apply the agency theory when a bystander is killed by a police officer or due to resistance by the victim of the felony. Under this theory, the felon will not be liable for the death of a bystander caused by a felony victim or police officer because neither person is the felon’s agent. In this case, the death of the customer (a bystander) was caused by the clerk, who was not the agent of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant will not be liable for the customer’s death. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the defendant did not shoot the customer himself, the defendant could still have been liable for the customer’s death if an agent of the defendant, such as a co-felon, had killed the customer. Answer choice C is incorrect because the proximate-cause theory, which holds that a bystander's death may fall within the felony murder rule because the death is a direct consequence of the felony, is not the majority rule. Answer choice D is incorrect because a defendant is not strictly liable for any death that occurs during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. Rather, the death must be a foreseeable result or a natural and probable consequence of the felony, caused by the defendant or a co-felon. Under the agency theory, a defendant is not liable for the death of a bystander caused by a felony victim, such as the clerk in this case.

One cold winter day, a senator was flying from one city to another in his home state to campaign for his reelection. On a commercial flight, he put his navy blue coat into the overhead bin. The flight was crowded, and many passengers also put their coats into the overhead bins. When he deplaned, the senator reached into the bin, took out a navy blue coat, and put it on. He then went to a campaign fundraising event, still wearing the coat. At the event, the senator was approached by the police and arrested for larceny. It turned out that the senator was wearing the wrong coat. The senator had taken a similar looking navy blue coat out of the bin, believing it to be his own. The true owner, a businessman, ended up with the senator’s coat, which had the senator’s business card in the inside pocket. The businessman disagreed with the senator’s politics, so he reported him to the police for larceny.

Will the senator be convicted of larceny?

Yes, because he intended to take the businessman’s coat.

Yes, because he was wearing the coat when the police arrested him.

No, because he thought the coat was his when he took it out of the bin.

No, because the businessman was acting out of political motivation.

Answer choice C is correct. A mistake of fact may negate criminal intent but it must be an “honest mistake.” A mistake of fact is a defense to a specific-intent crime, even if the mistake is unreasonable. Larceny is a specific-intent crime. The requisite intent for larceny is to permanently deprive the owner of personal property (i.e., intent to steal). Here, the senator made an honest mistake in taking the businessman’s coat, believing it to be his own. Therefore, the senator’s honest mistake would negate the requisite intent for larceny, regardless of whether the mistake was reasonable or unreasonable. Answer choice A is incorrect because the senator made an honest mistake, which negates his intent. Answer choice B is not relevant; for larceny, the defendant need not retain the stolen goods. Answer choice D is incorrect because the reporting witness’s motivation does not matter if the elements of the crime are otherwise satisfied.

Two men and a woman plotted to burn down a building. Before the men and woman took any overt act towards completion of the arson, the police discovered the plot and arrested the three plotters on charges of conspiracy to commit arson. For evidentiary reasons, the prosecutor decided that he could only charge the woman for the conspiracy and decided not to charge the two men.

The woman is convicted of conspiracy in a jurisdiction that follows the common law. On appeal, should the woman’s conviction be overturned?

Yes, because only one of the three alleged conspirators was actually charged with conspiracy.

Yes, because there was no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

No, because she and the men plotted to burn down a building.

No, because of the “Pinkerton Rule.”

Answer choice C is correct. At common law, all that is required for a conspiracy to be established is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose with the intent to accomplish that purpose. No overt act is required for the conspiracy to be complete at common law. Accordingly, answer choice B is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect, as the fact that all but one of the co-conspirators are not charged with conspiracy does not prevent a conviction of the conspirator who is charged, so long as the prosecution can show that there was an agreement to accomplish the unlawful act, with the intent to accomplish the act. Answer choice D is incorrect, as the “Pinkerton Rule” does not apply. The “Pinkerton Rule” says that every co-conspirator is guilty of any substantive offense committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, regardless of actual knowledge of its commission.

A criminal told his girlfriend that he was planning to rob a local liquor store and would give her a third of the proceeds from the robbery if she agreed to drive the getaway car. The girlfriend agreed and following the robbery, drove the criminal away from the scene of the crime. Subsequently, the police arrested the criminal for the robbery and he made a constitutionally valid confession, implicating the girlfriend.

With which of the following crimes may the girlfriend properly be charged?

Robbery only.

Conspiracy only.

Both robbery and conspiracy.

Neither robbery nor conspiracy.

Answer choice C is correct. By driving the getaway car, the girlfriend is liable as an accomplice to the same extent as the criminal for the robbery. She can therefore properly be charged with robbery. The girlfriend also conspired with the criminal with regard to the robbery, in that they made an agreement to commit the crime. As a conspirator, she can be convicted of both the offense of conspiracy and the substantive crime of robbery. Accordingly, answer choices A, B, and D are incorrect.

Two women who shared an apartment in a high-crime neighborhood decided to buy a taser for protection. As permitted by applicable state law, the taser had been advertised as a form of “non-lethal self-defense” when used properly. After purchasing the taser but before receiving the formal training required to learn how to use it, one of the women jokingly put the taser against her roommate’s chest and shocked her. The roommate went into cardiac arrest, and although the woman called 911 immediately, the roommate died. The jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as premeditated and deliberate murder, and gives second-degree murder the same elements as common-law murder.

For which of the following crimes is the woman most likely to be found guilty?

Involuntary manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter

Second-degree murder

First-degree murder

Answer choice A is correct. Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional homicide committed with criminal negligence or during an unlawful act. Here, the woman killed her roommate due to criminal negligence. The woman had no formal training in using a taser; in addition, it is criminally negligent to use a taser jokingly to shock another person. Thus, the woman is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Answer choice B is incorrect. Voluntary manslaughter is homicide committed with malice aforethought, but also with mitigating circumstances (e.g., the “heat of passion”). Here, there was no adequate provocation and no intent to kill. Answer choice C is incorrect. Common-law murder is a homicide committed with the necessary malicious intent: the intent to kill, the intent to do great bodily injury, or a depraved heart. Here, the woman did not have the necessary malicious intent to commit a homicide, and her conduct is incredibly unlikely to rise to the level of a depraved heart. Answer choice D is incorrect. First-degree murder is defined in the jurisdiction as premeditated and deliberate murder. Here, there is no evidence from the facts that the woman deliberately and with premeditation tried to kill her roommate.

A woman who was pregnant with her first child was driving a car when she thought that she was going into labor. As a consequence, she began speeding towards the local hospital. As she approached a four-way intersection, she saw no cars and decided to run the red light. She failed to see a pedestrian who was crossing the street. The woman’s car struck the pedestrian, causing him serious injuries.

Could the woman be properly charged with attempted murder?

Yes, because her recklessness results in a presumption of the intent to inflict serious bodily harm.

Yes, because she intended to drive through the red light and is therefore presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of such action.

No, because she was justified in running the red light.

No, because she did not intend to kill the pedestrian.

Answer choice D is correct. Attempted murder is a specific intent crime; the intent to kill is a required element. Since the woman lacked the specific intent to kill the pedestrian, she should not be charged with attempted murder. Answer choice A is incorrect. There can be no presumption of the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm in order to find a defendant guilty of attempted murder. There must be actual intent, which is lacking here. Answer choice B is incorrect. The mere fact that the woman here intended to speed through the red light does not create an actual intent to kill, which is required for a finding of attempted murder. Answer choice C is incorrect because, even though the woman thought she was about to give birth, and may have been justified in running the red light, such justification does not excuse her behavior with respect to the pedestrian.