Criminal Law II Module Quizzes

Dent and Elkin decided to kill Galt. They met at Dent’s house one afternoon to make their plans, and agreed that Dent should do the killing. Dent took his gun and walked off to the Hicks Manufacturing Company where Galt worked, while Elkin stayed behind as planned, to prepare for disposal of the gun afterwards. Soon after Dent left, Elkin had a change of heart. He called Dent and begged Dent to call the whole thing off. Dent listened, but told Elkin he was going to kill Galt anyway. Elkin went to the bus station and left town. Dent arrived at Hicks Manufacturing Company just at quitting time. He stopped outside the gate and started loading his gun, when a company security guard saw him and took the gun away. Dent offered no resistance. Upon examination it was found that the firing pin of the gun was broken, and the gun could not be fired. Statutes in the jurisdiction adopt the common law of crimes. If Elkin is prosecuted for conspiracy, he will most likely be found:

guilty, his change of heart and phone call statement to Dent were no defense because Elkin and Dent agreed to commit an illegal act.

Dent and Elkin decided to kill Galt. They met at Dent's house one afternoon to make their plans, and agreed that Dent should do the killing. Dent took his gun and walked off to the Hicks Manufacturing Company where Galt worked, while Elkin stayed behind as planned, to prepare for disposal of the gun afterwards. Soon after Dent left, Elkin had a change of heart. He called Dent and begged Dent to call the whole thing off. Dent listened, but told Elkin he was going to kill Galt anyway. Elkin went to the bus station and left town. Dent arrived at Hicks Manufacturing Company just at quitting time. He stopped outside the gate and started loading his gun, when a company security guard saw him and took the gun away. Dent offered no resistance. Upon examination it was found that the firing pin of the gun was broken, and the gun could not be fired. If Dent is charged with attempted murder, the fact that he could not have fired the gun

does not prevent him from being found guilty, if Dent actually believed that the gun could be fired.

Sam asked Chris to help him hold up a laundromat located across the street from Chris’ home. Sam told Chris the laundromat was equipped with a silent alarm and that the police would respond quickly after the holdup. Thus, Sam told Chris that he wanted to hide in Chris’ garage right after the holdup until the police had left. Chris refused to agree to allow Sam to hide in his garage and went back inside his house and closed the door. Sam stood outside, but decided to go ahead with the holdup of the laundromat when he noticed that no one was in the laundromat at that moment. Sam entered the laundromat and began breaking open cash boxes with a hammer and putting the money in a laundry bag. Before Sam could remove the money from all of the laundry machines, a customer walked in and screamed when she saw Sam break open a cash box with a hammer. Sam grabbed the bag of money and ran to Chris’ house and hid in the garage by entering an unlocked side door to the garage. Chris heard the police sirens and went into his garage where he found Sam hiding behind some boxes. Chris then took $100 from Sam and agreed to let Sam stay in the garage until the police left. If Sam is charged with the crime of solicitation, the jury would most likely find him

guilty, because the crime of solicitation was complete once Sam asked Chris to allow him to hide in the garage

A law prohibits the holding of sporting events on Sundays, and makes attendance at such events a crime. Recently, the law was amended to permit attendance at amateur football games. Daisy was aware of the law, but unaware that an amendment made an exception for amateur football. Believing that she was committing a crime, she attended an amateur football game on a Sunday, and was arrested by a police officer who was also unaware of the law’s recent amendment. If Daisy is prosecuted for attempting to violate the Sunday law, her most effective argument in defense will be that:

she cannot be convicted of a crime simply for having an evil mind

Carter knew that Baker hated Adams. Carter gave Baker a gun and told him to use the gun to shoot and kill Adams. Carter knew that the firing pin had been removed from the gun and that it could not fire a bullet. Thereafter, Baker approached Adams, pointed the gun at him, and pulled the trigger. The gun did not discharge. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding Carter’s and Baker’s criminal liability?

Baker is guilty of the attempted murder of Adams and Carter is not guilty of solicitation.

Sally had a long-running feud with Maria. One night Sally hid behind some shrubbery in front of Maria’s home. Armed with a baseball bat, Sally intended to break Maria’s kneecaps when she came home from work. Eliza, who resembled Maria, came walking down the street. Sally mistakenly believed that Eliza was Maria. Sally jumped out of the bushes and hit Eliza’s kneecaps with the baseball bat. Eliza, who was a hemophiliac, died as a result of the injuries suffered in the beating. Sally is:

guilty of attempted battery of Maria and murder of Eliza

A and B were struggling law students. Needing money for tuition, they decided to rob a local bank on the following Friday, when they expected deposits in the bank to be at their peak. In accordance with their plan, on Wednesday, A purchased two ski masks to be used in the robbery. On Thursday, after learning that A had bought the masks, B changed her mind and told A that she was backing out of the robbery scheme. On Friday, A carried out the robbery without B’s participation. This jurisdiction requires an overt act for the crime of conspiracy. Is B guilty of conspiracy?

Yes, because the purchase of the ski masks was a sufficient overt act in the furtherance of the crime

Arturo wanted to have Dexter killed. Arturo approached Hitman to get him to do the killing. Arturo believed that Hitman was a criminal who would be willing to do the killing for money, but in actuality Hitman was an FBI agent. Arturo told Hitman that he would pay him $50,000 if he would kill Dexter. Hitman said he would, and accepted $10,000 as a down payment on the job. Hitman never intended to go through with the plan but was simply trying to gather evidence to convict Dexter of a crime. The next day Arturo learned that Hitman was really an FBI agent. Fearful that he might be prosecuted for planning Dexter's murder, Arturo contacted the police and renounced his participation in the criminal endeavor. Under the Model Penal Code, which of the following statements is correct?

Arturo is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder

Racer was late for an appointment. As a result, he was driving his car recklessly at a high rate of speed through a residential neighborhood. When he looked at his cellphone to check the time, he failed to see Timmy crossing lawfully at an intersection. Racer's car struck Timmy, causing him to suffer severe internal injuries and fracturing both of his legs. As a result of the collision, Timmy was permanently crippled. If Racer is charged with attempted murder, he should be found:

not guilty, because Racer did not intend to kill Timmy

After a lengthy argument with B, A decided to get revenge on B. He called his friend, C, and left a message on his answering machine telling him that if he (C) would administer a beating on B, he would pay him $500. C’s roommate, D, came home and listened to the message on the answering machine. Since D felt he could use the money, D administered a beating on B. Did A commit the crime of soliciting D to do an unlawful act?

No, because A did not intend that D do the beating.

Arthur, Jack, and Mike were drinking in the Iron Bar one night, when Vick stopped in for a drink. Arthur, who was sitting next to Vick at the bar, invited Vick to shoot a game of pool with him on the pool table located in the back of the barroom. During their game, Arthur asked Vick if he would buy Arthur a drink. When Vick refused Arthur became violent, and started to shove Vick and yell obscenities at him. Vick cried out, “Help, he’s beating me!” Jack, who was angry with Vick because Vick had once refused to loan Jack Vick’s car, hoped that Arthur would succeed in overpowering Vick, and said, “I’m not going to help you. I hope he gives it to you good. Beat his brains out, Arthur!” Mike watched silently because he was enjoying the sight of Vick’s fear and the prospect of watching Arthur administer a physical beating to Vick. Arthur severely beat Vick, overpowering Vick’s physical resistance, as Jack and Mike continued to drink at the bar. On a charge of battery of Vick, Jack is:

guilty, because he knew Arthur was attempting to physically beat Vick and he shouted encouraging words to Arthur

Arthur, Jack, and Mike were drinking in the Iron Bar one night, when Vick stopped in for a drink. Arthur, who was sitting next to Vick at the bar, invited Vick to shoot a game of pool with him on the pool table located in the back of the barroom. During their game, Arthur asked Vick if he would buy Arthur a drink. When Vick refused Arthur became violent, and started to shove Vick and yell obscenities at him. Vick cried out, "Help, he's beating me!" Jack, who was angry with Vick because Vick had once refused to loan Jack Vick's car, hoped that Arthur would succeed in overpowering Vick, and said, "I'm not going to help you. I hope he gives it to you good. Beat his brains out, Arthur!" Mike watched silently because he was enjoying the sight of Vick's fear and the prospect of watching Arthur administer a physical beating to Vick. Arthur severely beat Vick, overpowering Vick's physical resistance, as Jack and Mike continued to drink at the bar. On a charge of battery of Vick, Mike is:

not guilty, because he had no purpose to assist Arthur.

A state statute makes it a crime to impair the morals of any person under the age of 18 years. Under the decisional law of the jurisdiction, having sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 18 years is a violation of this statute. Another statute in the same jurisdiction provides that all persons over the age of 16 years are adults for purposes of fixing criminal responsibility. Davis, a female over the age of 18 years, and Vic, a male aged 16 and one-half years, engaged in sexual intercourse on three occasions. On one of the occasions, they were observed by a police officer who placed both of them under arrest. They are tried jointly for violation of the statute prohibiting impairing the morals of a minor. Davis is charged with impairing the morals of Vic, and Vic is charged with being an accessory to the crime. Vic’s best argument for a dismissal is:

The legislature did not intend to punish a minor involved in a sexual relationship with an adult.

Violet, an elderly woman, was leaving the bank when Danny, a narcotics addict, ran up to her, pushed her down, grabbed her purse, and started running away with it. Violet stuck out her foot and tripped him as he attempted to run by, causing him to fall and drop the purse onto Violet’s lap. When Danny reached for the purse, Violet drew a pistol from a holster which she wore on her thigh underneath her skirt, and fired several shots at Danny. Because Violet had broken her hip when she fell, the pain interfered with her aim so that all her shots missed. With her last bullet, Violet steadied herself and took careful aim at Danny’s chest, which was a few inches from the muzzle of her gun. As her finger tightened on the trigger, Danny took a switchblade from his pocket and stabbed Violet in the chest. A police officer drawn to the scene by the sound of gunshots seized Danny and placed him under arrest. Which of the following statements is accurate?
I. If the knife wound in Violet’s chest was superficial, and she died solely as a result of breaking her hip, Danny is guilty of first-degree murder.
II. If Violet died because of the knife wound in her chest, Danny is guilty of intent-to-kill murder.
III. If Violet survived, Danny is guilty of attempted murder

I, II, III

Donald was working as a cashier at a restaurant. Over a period of several months, Donald stole several thousand dollars from the cash register. When Donald heard that the restaurant was going to hire an auditor to examine the restaurant’s financial records, Donald became fearful that his theft would be discovered. Donald hired Harold, a professional assassin, to kill the auditor. Donald paid the assassin $1,000 to kill the auditor. The assassin took the money and killed the auditor. If the police arrest Donald and he confesses to stealing the money from the cash register, he can be convicted of theft and:

Conspiracy and murder

After his parents divorced and his father obtained custody, Dane was compelled to enroll at a private boarding school. A few weeks after enrolling, Fred, an older student, offered to admit Dane to a secret society of students called the “Better Way.” Fred told Dane that, in order to be admitted, he had to physically attack a student from a rival school. Dane obtained a metal crowbar and, accompanied by Fred, went downtown late one Saturday. Dane saw a young man wearing a jacket with the name of a rival school. Upon seeing Fred’s signal, Dane walked up behind the student with the crowbar raised to strike. Dane suddenly had a change of heart and turned to leave, but Fred ran and pushed Dane, causing Dane to fall against the student and knock the student onto the pavement. Which of the following most accurately states the criminal liability of Dane and Fred?

Fred is guilty of battery as a principal in the first degree, and Dane is not liable for battery

Sam asked Chris to help him hold up a laundromat located across the street from Chris’ home. Sam told Chris the laundromat was equipped with a silent alarm and that the police would respond quickly after the holdup. Thus, Sam told Chris that he wanted to hide in Chris’ garage right after the holdup until the police had left. Chris refused to agree to allow Sam to hide in his garage and went back inside his house and closed the door. Sam stood outside, but decided to go ahead with the holdup of the laundromat when he noticed that no one was in the laundromat at that moment. Sam entered the laundromat and began breaking open cash boxes with a hammer and putting the money in a laundry bag. Before Sam could remove the money from all of the laundry machines, a customer walked in and screamed when she saw Sam break open a cash box with a hammer. Sam grabbed the bag of money and ran to Chris’ house and hid in the garage by entering an unlocked side door to the garage. Chris heard the police sirens and went into his garage where he found Sam hiding behind some boxes. Chris then took $100 from Sam and agreed to let Sam stay in the garage until the police left. Chris can be convicted of:

being an accessory after the fact

Jane and Barbara were roommates at a local college. Jane was a drama major and was auditioning for a part in a school play called "Stabber." One afternoon, Jane asked Barbara to leave their apartment for a couple of hours because she needed privacy and wanted to practice for her audition. Barbara agreed to leave the apartment for two hours. 30 minutes later, Barbara decided to reenter the apartment because she was curious and wanted to see Jane act out her role in the play. Without Jane's knowledge, Barbara secretly re-entered the apartment through the backdoor and hid behind a curtain in the dining room to watch Jane rehearse her part.
Jane, who played a serial killer in the play, suddenly pulled out a butcher knife and started violently stabbing at an imaginary victim. Jane then approached the curtain in the dining room and started stabbing the curtain with her knife. Unknown to Jane, Barbara, who was hiding behind the curtain, was struck in the chest with the knife, killing her. If Jane is prosecuted for Barbara's death, she should be found:

not guilty of murder, manslaughter, or battery

Mike was angry because he felt he should have received a promotion from his employment company some time ago. He believed the main reason he had not been promoted was that Pete had not yet retired. Although Pete was two years past the current mandatory retirement, due to when he started working for the company, Pete was grandfathered in so he did not have to retire. Mike searched on the internet for a way to make Pete sick so he would hopefully retire. Mike discovered that he can buy a colorless gas in a time release canister. The information states that the gas was to be used to decontaminate an area that has been subject to an airborne virus. It indicated that being exposed to the gas could cause long term illness in the areas of neurology and respiration, but was not fatal. Mike purchased a canister of the gas and placed it in the air conditioning vent above Pete’s cubicle. He then programmed the time release mechanism to go off the next morning at 7:00 AM. He did so because he knew that Pete was always the first to arrive in the office at 7:00 AM, and that nobody else arrived until 30 minutes later. When the canister went off the next morning Pete had just arrived at his cubicle. However, on this day Pete was accompanied by Mike’s wife, with whom he has been having an affair. The release of the gas caused Pete to be hospitalized and ultimately forced him to retire. Unfortunately, Mike’s wife died as a result of exposure to the gas because she has taken a prescription medication that caused an adverse reaction. Mike is charged with the attempted murder of Pete. What should be the jury’s verdict?

Not guilty, because he did not intend to kill Pete

Under which of the following situations is Lee most likely to be acquitted of attempted murder?

Lee has always hated Oscar and his whole family. They had degraded Lee his whole life because of a birth defect that made him look odd. Lee saw Oscar lying on the ground in an alley, surrounded by a large pool of blood. Believing Oscar was dead, he decided to let Oscar’s family feel what he had felt his entire life. He cut off Oscar’s arm and threw it in the river. In fact Oscar was not dead and survived the ordeal

Dan and Victoria were planning their wedding which was scheduled for the following month. Dan became upset when he found a picture of Victoria’s old boyfriend in a very expensive locket in the back of one of her dresser drawers. He decided on the spot that he would take the locket, put a picture of himself over the picture of the boyfriend, and replace the locket in the same drawer after the dresser was moved to their new home. While on their honeymoon, Victoria mentioned that she had missed the locket while packing and wondered if Dan had seen it. He lied and told her he had no idea what she was referring to, eventually persuading her that it must be lost. When they got home from their honeymoon, Dan forgot all about the locket and now cannot remember where he hid it. Which of the following crimes, if any, has Dan committed?

Dan is guilty of none of the mentioned crimes

Dee wanted to go to the theater to watch a matinee, but she had no transportation. Dee went outside and noticed that her neighbor had forgotten to lock up her bicycle. Dee took the bicycle, intending to call her neighbor when Dee arrived at the theater and tell her neighbor to come pick up the bicycle. When Dee was riding the bicycle, she was struck by a car and the bicycle was destroyed. If charged with larceny of the bicycle, Dee will most likely be found:

not guilty, if her plan to call the owner upon reaching the theater did not create a substantial risk of permanent loss

Dick was shopping in the grocery store when he suddenly realized he had left his wallet at home and had no money. Dick was very hungry and, deciding that it would take too much time to drive home and return, Dick picked up a frozen steak package and put it inside his coat pocket, intending to take the steak home and eat it for dinner. A grocery store manager saw Dick put the steak in his coat pocket and confronted Dick as Dick was about to walk out the front door of the market. The manager told Dick, “I saw you take that steak — go ahead this time, but don’t let me see you ever try that again!” Dick is guilty of:

Larceny

Zak is a troubled teen. His father is a wealthy industrialist who travels frequently with his mother, and Zak is often left alone to fend for himself. His father has made it clear that his antique Porsche is off limits and that if Zak in any way uses it he will be sent off to reform school. On Monday, while his parents are out of town, Zak decided to take the Porsche for a spin. While doing so he got into a fender bender that resulted in a dent in the back quarter panel. Zak immediately called Joe’s Service Station and spoke with Joe. Knowing that his parents were scheduled to return on Saturday, Zak stated that he needed the Porsche repaired and ready to be picked up by Friday morning. Joe replied that it would cost him $2,000 for the rush job. Zak knew he could not pay for the repair but told Joe he would drop off the car within the hour. Joe left a message on Zak’s answering machine on Thursday afternoon stating that the Porsche was ready for pick up. Thursday evening Zak asked his friend, Arthur, to go pick up the car. He marked his copy of the invoice “paid: ck. # 235,” and sent Arthur to pick up the car knowing that Pete, the night attendant, would not check the original invoice. Arthur picked up the car and returned it to Zak. If Zak is charged with larceny, what is the likely result of the charge?

Guilty, because he received the property from Arthur without the consent of Joe.

Davis asked Victoria to loan him $200. As security for the loan, Davis stated that he would give Victoria his prize golden retriever dog which she could keep until Davis paid the loan back. Victoria had always wanted Davis’s golden retriever and quickly agreed to loan Davis the $200 and to return the dog upon payment of the loan. Unknown to Davis, when Victoria gave Davis the $200 loan and Victoria took the dog, Victoria never intended to return the dog. Several weeks later, when Davis paid Victoria the $200 owed on the loan, Victoria falsely told Davis that the dog had run away when in fact she had taken the dog to her summer cabin. In a jurisdiction that recognizes larceny, larceny by trick, embezzlement, and false pretenses as separate crimes, Victoria is guilty of:

Larceny by trick

Don and Fred were walking down the sidewalk one day when Fred saw something on the ground. After he picked it up, Don asked, “What have you found?” Fred responded, “It looks like a brand new Rolex watch and I am going to keep it!” Upon closer inspection, Fred saw an inscription on the back that had the name and phone number of someone with the phrase, “If found, please contact....” Don told Fred he should call the number and attempt to return the watch, but Fred refused and restated his intent to keep the watch. If Fred is prosecuted for a theft crime, he should be found:

guilty of larceny, because there were clues to the identity of the true owner of the watch.

Sampson owned a bar. Over the years of serving and drinking with those at the bar he had fallen into the ancillary business of loaning money. One day Sally came into the bar and indicated that she was in big trouble and needed $250. Sampson agreed to lend Sally the money for 30 days if she was willing to post some collateral. Sally showed Sampson a beautiful engagement ring which Sampson accepted as collateral, telling her that if she did not repay the money within 30 days he would sell the ring. Twenty-eight days later, one of Sampson's friends saw the ring and offered him $1,000 for it. Sampson had not seen or heard from Sally since he loaned her the money and figured that she was not coming back, so he sold the ring to his friend. On the 29th day Sally came in with the $250 and tries to reclaim the ring. Sampson told her it was stolen during an armed robbery at the bar a couple of weeks ago. Of what crime is Sampson guilty?

Embezzlement

Zak is a troubled teen. His father is a wealthy industrialist who travels frequently with his mother, and Zak is often left alone to fend for himself. His father has made it clear that his antique Porsche is off limits and that if Zak in any way uses it he will be sent off to reform school. On Monday, while his parents are out of town, Zak decided to take the Porsche for a spin. While doing so he got into a fender bender that resulted in a dent in the back quarter panel. Zak immediately called Joe's Service Station and spoke with Joe. Knowing that his parents were scheduled to return on Saturday, Zak stated that he needed the Porsche repaired and ready to be picked up by Friday morning. Joe replied that it would cost him $2,000 for the rush job. Zak knew he could not pay for the repair but told Joe he would drop off the car within the hour. Joe left a message on Zak's answering machine on Thursday afternoon stating that the Porsche was ready for pick up. Thursday evening Zak asked his friend, Arthur, to go pick up the car. He marked his copy of the invoice "paid: ck. # 235," and sent Arthur to pick up the car knowing that Pete, the night attendant, would not check the original invoice. Arthur picked up the car and returned it to Zak. What is the result if Arthur is charged with larceny?

Not guilty, because he did not know that Zak had not paid the bill for the car.

Casey gave his brother, Kevin, a new set of golf clubs. Kevin was thrilled. Several weeks later Kevin told Casey that he appreciated the gift but that he wanted to pay him back for the clubs. Casey replied that he should not worry about it because he bought them cheap because they were “hot.” At first, Kevin was furious. However, after reflection he figured they will never find the real owner and he may as well keep the golf clubs. Kevin is guilty of:

No crime

Arnie had been going through an ugly divorce. There have been numerous hearings on everything from child custody to times of visitation, and each side had mounted numerous claims against the other. At the conclusion of the divorce proceedings, the judge hearing the case ruled, among other things, that Arnie’s wife got full title to the house in which they lived for the 20 years of their marriage. Arnie felt that he was treated unfairly by the judge and decided to get “his own brand of justice.” One night Arnie went to his ex-wife’s house with the intent to burn it down. After concluding that nobody was at home, he entered the house by opening a window he knew was always left unlocked. As he was about to start pouring gasoline which he intended to ignite, he heard a noise upstairs. He immediately left the house through the side door and jumped into his wife’s car, getting the keys out from under the seat, where he knew she always left them. His intent was to drive the car two blocks to where he parked his car and leave it parked at the side of the road. As he was backing out of the driveway, he hit a 10-year-old boy riding by on a bicycle, killing him. What is the likely result if Arnie is charged with larceny of his ex-wife's car?

Not guilty, because he only intended to use it during his flight

Grant wanted to kill Craig because he believed that Craig had defrauded him in a business venture. He knew that Craig had difficulty sleeping and took medication which resulted in Craig being nearly unconscious as he slept. Grant decided to burn down Craig’s home while Craig slept, hoping that Craig would perish in the fire without waking up. Grant went to Craig’s home with a container of lighter fluid. He went into Craig’s bedroom and lit a cigarette and placed it on top of the open container of lighter fluid next to the bed. Grant assumed that when the cigarette burned closer to the can it would light the bed on fire and kill Craig. Grant then left the house. The lighter fluid burst into flame just as Grant had planned, except that Jack, a neighbor of Craig’s, smelled the smoke and called for help before the bed ignited. Craig was killed when his bed became engulfed in flames, but there was no other damage to Craig’s home except the blackening of the ceiling of the bedroom from the smoke. If Grant is prosecuted for arson of Craig’s house, he should be found:

not guilty, because there was insufficient damage to the structure of the house

Marcus works in a jewelry store. He developed a plan to steal jewelry from the store using a friend, Tom, who would come into the store while Marcus was on duty. According to the plan, Tom would select an inexpensive piece of jewelry. Marcus would then substitute a more expensive piece of jewelry and record the sale as for the inexpensive piece, and only charge Tom for the cheaper item. After several months of taking expensive jewelry, Tom told Marcus he no longer wanted to participate. Tom and Marcus divided up the expensive jewelry they had taken and agreed to go their separate ways. When Tom went to an appraiser to determine the value of his share of the proceeds, he discovered that Marcus had given him cheap imitation jewels instead of the expensive items Tom had taken from the jewelry store. Tom was furious and went to visit Marcus to confront him. When Marcus did not answer the door, Tom broke in and stole a ring which he recognized as one of the items he had “purchased” from the jewelry store as part of their plan. If Tom is arrested and charged with burglary in connection with the break-in at Marcus’s house, his best defense will be to argue that:

he lacked the requisite intent to commit burglary because he honestly believed that under the terms of their plan, the ring he took represented his fair compensation for participating in the crime

Sam asked Chris to help him hold up a laundromat located across the street from Chris’s home. Sam told Chris the laundromat was equipped with a silent alarm and that the police would respond quickly after the holdup. Thus, Sam told Chris that he wanted to hide in Chris’s garage right after the holdup until the police had left. Chris refused to agree to allow Sam to hide in his garage and went back inside his house and closed the door. Sam stood outside, but decided to go ahead with the holdup of the laundromat when he noticed that no one was in the laundromat at that moment. Sam entered the laundromat and began breaking open cash boxes with a hammer and putting the money in a laundry bag. Before Sam could remove the money from all of the laundry machines, a customer walked in and screamed when she saw Sam break open a cash box with a hammer. Sam grabbed the bag of money and ran to Chris’s house and hid in the garage by entering an unlocked side door to the garage. Chris heard the police sirens and went into his garage where he found Sam hiding behind some boxes. Chris then took $100 from Sam and agreed to let Sam stay in the garage until the police left. If Sam is later arrested, can he be convicted of robbery?

No, because the owner of the laundromat was not present when Sam took the money

When Nan’s husband, Rob, told her he was leaving her to marry another woman, Nan decided that she had to kill Rob and the other woman. Soon after the divorce, Nan climbed the large tree outside the bedroom of the home in which Rob and his new wife were living, carrying with her a long stick with a rattlesnake attached to the end. Nan knew that Rob always left his bedroom window open and she used the stick to release the rattlesnake into the bedroom while Rob and his new wife were sleeping. The next day, both Rob and his new wife were found dead after having suffered from the poisonous bite of the rattlesnake. If Nan is prosecuted for common law burglary of Rob’s house, she should be found:

not guilty, because Rob left the window open

One day, Dave learned that Victor was going to be out of town for the next 2 weeks. Dave read in the newspaper that Victor owned an expensive painting that Dave thought he could sell to a fence he knew. One night when he thought the house was vacant, Dave broke a kitchen window to gain access to the house. Unfortunately for him, a housekeeper was living in Victor’s house while he was away. The housekeeper heard the window break and rushed downstairs, demanding that Dave leave. Thinking quickly, Dave grabbed a knife from a kitchen drawer, and demanded that the housekeeper hand over all her money. The housekeeper gave Dave $50. Dave left with the money but not the painting. Which of the following most accurately describes the crimes Dave committed?

Burglary, robbery, and larceny.

Arnie had been going through an ugly divorce. There have been numerous hearings on everything from child custody to times of visitation, and each side had mounted numerous claims against the other. At the conclusion of the divorce proceedings, the judge hearing the case ruled, among other things, that Arnie’s wife got full title to the house in which they lived for the 20 years of their marriage. Arnie felt that he was treated unfairly by the judge and decided to get “his own brand of justice.” One night Arnie went to his ex-wife’s house with the intent to burn it down. After concluding that nobody was at home, he entered the house by opening a window he knew was always left unlocked. As he was about to start pouring gasoline which he intended to ignite he heard a noise upstairs. He immediately left the house through the side door and jumped into his wife’s car, getting the keys out from under the seat, where he knew she always left them. His intent was to drive the car two blocks to where he parked his car and leave it parked at the side of the road. As he was backing out of the driveway he hit a 10-year-old boy riding by on a bicycle, killing him. If Arnie is tried for burglary, what is the likely outcome?

Guilty

Under the common law, in which situation is the defendant most likely to be found guilty of arson

Fred is bored one afternoon and sees that his neighbor has a huge pile of leaves next to his house. Fred goes over and lights them on fire because he figures seeing the fire will be exciting. Once they light, Fred leaves because it isn't as exciting as he thought. Eventually the burning leaves catch the house on fire and the family room is destroyed.

Arnie had been going through an ugly divorce. There have been numerous hearings on everything from child custody to times of visitation, and each side had mounted numerous claims against the other. At the conclusion of the divorce proceedings, the judge hearing the case ruled, among other things, that Arnie’s wife got full title to the house in which they lived for the 20 years of their marriage. Arnie felt that he was treated unfairly by the judge and decided to get “his own brand of justice.” One night Arnie went to his ex-wife’s house with the intent to burn it down. After concluding that nobody was at home, he entered the house by opening a window he knew was always left unlocked. As he was about to start pouring gasoline which he intended to ignite he heard a noise upstairs. He immediately left the house through the side door and jumped into his wife’s car, getting the keys out from under the seat, where he knew she always left them. His intent was to drive the car two blocks to where he parked his car and leave it parked at the side of the road. As he was backing out of the driveway he hit a 10-year-old boy riding by on a bicycle, killing him. If Arnie is charged with attempted arson, what is the likely result?

guilty

Defendant, needing money for an operation for his daughter, decided he had no choice but to steal it. He went to a very busy restaurant at closing time. Once inside, he opened his coat and showed everyone a bunch of tubes taped together with wires coming from it. It looked like a bomb, but was not. When the restaurant owner backed away from the cash register, Defendant grabbed the money from the register and left. With what crime should Defendant be charged?

Robbery

Donald hated Victor because Victor was dating Donald’s ex-wife. One night Donald hid behind some shrubbery in front of Victor’s home. Armed with a crowbar, Donald intended to break Victor’s kneecaps when he came home from work. Casey, who resembled Victor, was walking down the street. Donald mistakenly believed that Casey was Victor. Donald jumped out of the bushes and hit Casey’s kneecaps with the crowbar. Casey, who was a hemophiliac, died as a result of the injuries suffered in the beating. Donald is:

guilty of attempted battery of Victor and murder of Casey

Andrew had been dating Linda for over a year. One day Andrew observed Linda kissing and passionately embracing a man he did not know. Andrew, who was extremely jealous, became despondent about what he saw and went into a bar to have a drink. After consuming a couple of beers, he started conversing with Ben, a customer seated next to him. As they talked, the two continued to drink beer. They soon became intoxicated. As they discussed ways to get back at Linda, Ben suggested that they set fire to her home. The two men staggered from the bar and went to Linda’s home. Under the cover of night, Andrew and Ben picked up little twigs and tree branches and stacked them along the outside of Linda’s home. Andrew then lit them with his cigarette lighter. As the twigs and branches ignited in flames, Andrew and Ben hurriedly ran away. Seeing smoke from her bedroom window, Linda ran outside and immediately extinguished the fire with a garden hose. The fire slightly charred a small section of the exterior of Linda’s home but did not cause any significant damage. If Andrew is prosecuted for common law arson, he should be found:

guilty, because voluntary intoxication is no defense since he knew he was setting fire to the dwelling house of another.

During Defendant's trial, Victim testified that she was working as a clerk at a convenience store and that, while she was in the back room taking inventory, she heard a noise and saw the back of Defendant leaving the store. She indicated that it was a long night and she was feeling sleepy because she was taking medication for a cold. When she checked the register all the money was gone. She called the police and they reviewed the store surveillance tape. The tape was also entered into evidence at the trial. The tape showed Defendant bursting through the door with a semi-automatic handgun drawn and pointed toward the register area. When he saw no one was behind the counter he put the gun in his belt and quickly removed all the cash from the register. Of what crime is Defendant likely to be convicted?

Larceny

Victor had a serious back condition that resulted from his military services overseas. Following his return home, Victor's doctor warned him that if he ever injured his back, even in a slight accident or by lifting a heavy object, he could be permanently paralyzed. Don was aware of Victor's medical condition. One day, after learning that Victor was dating Don's ex-wife,
Don became upset and decided to "get even" with Victor. A few days later, when he was at Victor's home, he cut through one of the legs on Victor's favorite chair. The next day, when Victor sat down in his favorite chair, the chair toppled over and Victor was thrown to the floor. Victor was immediately taken to the hospital, but died the next day because of his back's weak condition. Don is charged with the murder and voluntary manslaughter. Don claims he is not guilty of murder because he did not intend to kill Victor. Don would most likely be found:

guilty of second-degree murder

On Monday, Anna, Belinda, and Cora decided to rob the Central Bank on the following Friday morning. On Tuesday, Cora, without notifying Anna or Belinda, stole a car to be used as the getaway vehicle in the robbery. On Wednesday, Cora was arrested by the police for parole violations and was placed in jail without bail. Nevertheless, Anna and Belinda proceeded with their plan to rob the bank. Belinda, however, was a police informant who notified the police of the impending robbery. The police were waiting at the bank and arrested Anna as she entered. Cora may be convicted of:

theft, conspiracy to commit robbery, and attempted robbery.

Diego and Enrico agreed to rob a local grocery store and steal cigarettes, beer, and cash from the register. The plan was for Diego to use an unloaded gun and Enrico to be the getaway driver. Diego entered the store while Enrico waited outside in the car. Diego forgot to remove the bullets from his gun, however, and entered the store and stuck the gun in the stomach of the store clerk. Before the clerk could hand Diego any money, Diego glanced outside the store window and saw a police officer questioning Enrico because his car was parked in a handicapped zone. The police officer then entered the store and was shot and killed by Diego. This jurisdiction follows common law conspiracy rules. Under these facts, what crimes can Enrico be convicted of?

Conspiracy, attempted robbery, and felony murder

Debbie went to a local store to buy some sunglasses. She found a pair she liked, and then decided to browse around the store. As she walked down the next aisle, she saw an expensive camera she really liked, though she could not afford to pay for it. She picked up the camera, examined it, and decided to steal it. She put the camera underneath her sweater, but noticed an employee watching her from the back of the store. Because she feared getting arrested for shoplifting, she quickly removed the camera from her sweater, put it back on the shelf, and left the store. She had put the sunglasses in her purse and inadvertently forgot to pay for them. When she got home, she realized her mistake and decided to return to the store and pay for the sunglasses, which she did. Debbie may be guilty of which, if any, of the following crimes?

Larceny of the camera, but not larceny of the sunglasses

Vera owed Dick $100, but each time Dick asked for the money Vera refused to pay, saying she was short on cash. Finally, Dick went to Vera’s home to collect the debt. It was 9:00 P.M. when Dick arrived. He knocked at the front door but nobody responded. Dick then opened the door, which was unlocked, and entered the living room. He heard Vera in an upstairs bedroom. Angered by Vera’s refusal to pay him the $100, Dick grabbed a portable television set. He carried it outside and set it afire. In a common law jurisdiction, Dick is charged with the crimes of arson, burglary, and larceny. He should be found guilty of:

larceny only

Owner mistakenly left the gate to his back yard open, allowing his dog Rex to run away. Later that day, Frank was returning home from work and saw Rex wandering unattended. Frank noticed that Rex was not wearing a collar or any identifying tags, so he took the dog home and placed an ad describing Rex in the “Lost and Found” section of a local newspaper. A couple of days later, Owner read the ad, called Frank and arranged a meeting at the local park. When the parties met, Owner identified Rex as his dog and agreed to pay Frank a $50 reward for finding Rex. Owner then realized that he did not have $50 cash to pay Frank. He asked Frank to hold on to Rex for a few minutes while he drove to an ATM to get the money. Frank agreed and told Owner that he would look after Rex until he returned with the $50. However, when Owner drove off Frank changed his mind and decided to keep Rex. Thereupon, Frank left and took Rex back home with him. Of what crime, if any, could Frank be convicted?

Embezzlement

Don, age 25, met Valerie at a party. Although Valerie appeared to be young, she was partying and drinking with a number of friends, all of whom appeared to be Don’s age or older. As the evening progressed and it became dark, Don suggested to Valerie that the two of them take a drive together. When Don found a secluded spot, he made sexual advances to Valerie, who appeared to consent, permitting him to remove her top and bra. When Don began to remove Valerie’s pants, she protested. Don said, “Come on, you know you really want it!” When Valerie tried to push him away, Don grabbed her roughly by the throat and said, “Don’t make me mess up that pretty face of yours; you’re going to give it up, one way or another.” Valerie stopped resisting and Don proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her. At the time of the above-described events, Valerie was 16 years old. Statutory rape is defined in this jurisdiction as sexual intercourse with a woman younger than 18 years of age. Don was subsequently prosecuted for rape and statutory rape. What should be the outcome of this prosecution?

Don can be convicted of both charges, but if he reasonably believed that Valerie had consented to sexual intercourse, he may be acquitted of the rape charge

Art and Bob, two customers in a bar, got into a loud shouting match.  After trading a number of insults, Art raised his fist and shouted, "I ought to teach you a thing or two!"  Carl, another customer in the bar who had heard the entire shouting match, called out, "Do It, Art! Bob's needed a beating for some years!"  Art then grabbed Bob and punched him in the face several times. Art was subsequently convicted of battery against Bob. If Carl is prosecuted for battery against Bob, he should be found

guilty, because he encouraged Art to attack Bob

A chef was working in a restaurant when he noticed that a former employer of his who had

years ago stolen a large amount of money from him had sat down at a table with a woman.

When he received the order from the waiter for his former employer, the chef decided to put an

extremely deadly poison into the man's food to kill him as revenge for the previous injustice.

When the waiter served the food to the table, his former employer and the woman decided to

switch dinners. The woman, who was immune to the poison, ate the dinner and did not become

ill, and in fact personally thanked the chef for a wonderful meal.

At common law, can the chef be convicted of attempted murder?

Yes, because he intended to kill the man and took the last act necessary to commit the

crime.

Defendant and Wife were having dinner one evening when wife suggested that they rob the

1st National Bank on Saturday morning. Defendant did not respond and immediately left the

table. No more discussion was had between them on that evening. On Saturday morning,

Defendant came to breakfast carrying two black ski masks, one of which he handed to Wife.

They then went outside to the car with Defendant behind the wheel and headed toward the

bank. Before they got there, Wife said that she no longer wanted to go through with the robbery.

Defendant turned around and drove home. This jurisdiction requires an overt act as an element

of conspiracy.

May Defendant and wife be convicted of conspiracy?

Yes, because handing the ski mask to Wife was an overt act in furtherance of the

conspiracy.

A pilot had loaned some money to a co-pilot at 100% per week interest, and the co-pilot failed

to repay the loan. The pilot telephoned his friend's residence, which the friend shared with his

father, and left a message for his friend on the telephone answering machine telling him that the

co-pilot had defaulted on the loan and that the friend should break the co-pilot's left arm that

same night, but not kill him. Unknown to the pilot, his friend was at the racetrack all day and did

not return to his residence. The friend's father heard the telephone message and, because he

had offered on numerous occasions to do such work for the pilot, thought that the pilot had

finally decided to give him a job as an enforcer. The friend's father immediately began searching

for the co-pilot. The friend's father found the co-pilot selling drugs to adolescents at a shopping

mall, took the co-pilot to the rear of the mall, and broke his arm by dropping a heavy cement

block on it. The block crushed the co-pilot's arm and severed a major artery, causing the co-pilot

to bleed to death within a few minutes.

Is the pilot guilty of soliciting his friend's father to commit a crime?

No, because the pilot intended to instruct his friend, not the father, to break the co-pilot's

arm.

A caterer hated her assistant and decided to kill her. The caterer poured a glass of wine for

the assistant that contained enough poison to kill several people. As the caterer was handing

the wine to the assistant, the assistant's mother suddenly swept into the dining room, grabbed

the glass of poisoned wine from the caterer, and sipped from it. The mother immediately

became ill, vomited, and was left with only a slight headache and a persistent nausea. The

caterer was indicted for the attempted murder of her assistant's mother.

How should the jury find?

Not guilty, because she did not intend to kill the mother.

A teacher and a principal worked at the same school and frequently parked near each other in the school's parking lot, since each arrived at work at about the same time. One evening, the teacher left work a few moments before the principal. The teacher stopped at the principal's car and placed the following note on the windshield: "Let's meet tonight at midnight outside of the liquor store on 18th Street, break in and steal what we can. Signed, Teacher." The teacher then drove away. A gust of wind soon blew the note off the principal's car. Another employee, who was leaving work, saw the note blow onto the ground and attempted to return it. However, the employee was confused as to which car the note had come from and replaced the note on the windshield of the car driven by a coach, who had parked next to the principal. When the coach left work, she found the note on her car and, mistakenly believing the note was intended for her, decided to meet the teacher later that night to participate in the theft at the liquor store. An hour later, the principal stopped by the local bar to get a drink. At the bar, she met the teacher, who asked if she had read the note. When the principal said she did not know what note the teacher meant, the teacher told her of her plan to rob the liquor store. The principal said it sounded like a good idea and that she would be there by midnight. At 11 p.m. the teacher called the principal and told her that she had changed her mind about robbing the liquor store. As a result, neither the teacher nor the principal went to the liquor store. The coach arrived at the liquor store at midnight, but when the teacher did not show up, the coach left. Assume the jurisdiction follows the common law on the crime of conspiracy. Was there a conspiracy formed to rob the liquor store?

Yes, between the teacher and the principal.

A librarian and a teacher were customers in a bar, and late in the evening, they got into a loud shouting match. After trading a number of insults, the librarian raised his fist and shouted, "I ought to teach you a thing or two!" A former student of the teacher was a customer in the bar. The former student called out, "Do it! That guy's needed a beating for some years!" The librarian then grabbed the teacher and punched him in the face several times. The librarian was subsequently convicted of battery against the teacher. If the former student is prosecuted for battery against the teacher, how should the court rule?

Guilty, because he encouraged the librarian to attack the teacher.

A student and his friend were both quarterbacks on the local high school football team, but the student was the starting player while his friend rarely got to play. The friend determined that he would get to play if the student was no longer around, so he decided to have the student killed. The friend knew that the student dined every Thursday night at the local coffee shop. On Wednesday afternoon, he purchased some rat poison from the hardware store. After determining that one spoonful would be enough rat poison to kill an average person, he approached a classmate, who worked as a waiter at the coffee shop. The friend told the waiter of his desire to kill the student and offered to pay the classmate $10,000 to put a spoonful of rat poison into the student's beverage when he came in to dine Thursday night. The waiter agreed. When the waiter awoke Thursday morning, he was extremely ill, too sick to go to work. He called his brother, who also worked at the coffee shop, and explained that he had intended to use the rat poison to kill the student but that he was too sick. The waiter offered to pay his brother $5,000 to carry out the plan. The brother agreed and took the rat poison. Later that day, as the brother was driving to the coffee shop, he saw the student walking down the street. Deciding not to wait until that night, the brother took out a gun he kept in the glove box and shot and killed the student. The brother sped away, but was apprehended several blocks later. If the friend is prosecuted for the murder of the student, he should be found

Guilty, because he hired the waiter to kill the student

A man, his friend, and his cousin were sitting around a local pub, shooting the breeze. The cousin, an employee at a large electronics store, could hardly stop talking about his bosses' recent move to a new showroom. According to the cousin, the bosses were ridiculously unprepared for the move; they'd spent the entire time transporting all the big-screen televisions and stereo equipment to the new showroom only to discover that the room lacked a working alarm system and wasn't even properly lit. In fact, the cousin told his friends, they had left candles burning to serve as nighttime security lights. Because the bosses had been unable to get the showroom alarm to function, they had instructed store employees, the cousin included, to return to the showroom at 6 a.m. to move all the merchandise back to the old store for safekeeping. Listening to the cousin rant, the man and his friend spy a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Later that night, they travel to the new showroom and load up their truck with the stereo equipment and televisions. On their way out, the friend accidentally knocks over one of the burning candles. Although they see a fire extinguisher right next to the door, they are both eager to make their exit, and neither does anything to extinguish the fire. As a result, the building burns to the ground. What criminal liability, if any, does the cousin bear for his friends' crime(s)?

None

A landscaper was working in the yard of a client one night when he saw the client's estranged sister trying to get inside a window into the client's house. The sister told the landscaper she was just trying to retrieve some jewelry that the client had taken from her. The landscaper, who had a grudge against the client, told the sister that the client had just bought some new, very expensive jewelry and that the sister should take that for herself as well. The sister said she did not want to steal anything. The landscaper helped the sister get inside the window. When the sister got inside, she saw the new jewelry the landscaper mentioned and recalled that he said it was very expensive, which made her decide to take the jewelry with her. The sister was arrested but acquitted of burglary. At common law, will the landscaper be found guilty of burglary as an accessory before the fact?

No, because the sister was acquitted of burglary.

An artist, a painter, and a sculptor played softball every Saturday at the local park. Although the three were good friends, they were quite competitive when it came to softball, and that led to some arguments over the years. Normally, the three played on the same team, but on occasion, they split up, if necessary, to make the teams even. On this particular Saturday, the artist played on one team, and the painter and the sculptor played on the other. In the late innings with the score tied and the painter on second base, the sculptor hit the ball into right field. The painter ran to third and slid into the base with his foot held high, striking the artist, who was playing third base, in the chest. The artist fell back in pain. After a few minutes, the artist jumped up and started menacingly toward the painter with his fist raised. The sculptor ran over to the third base area and determined that the artist was going to strike the painter, but because he was mad at the painter for a previous incident in which the painter had insulted the sculptor, he decided not to intervene, hoping the artist would hit the painter. The artist did punch the painter in the face, causing him to suffer a broken nose.

If the sculptor is prosecuted for battery, how should the court rule?

Not guilty, because mere presence at the scene of the crime, without more, is insufficient to constitute aiding and abetting.

A student asked to borrow her roommate's sapphire earrings to wear to her sorority formal,

because they matched her blue dress. The roommate refused. On the night of the formal, the roommate was away visiting her parents, and so the student wore the earrings, intending to return them after the event. Late in the evening, the student removed the earrings because they were pinching her earlobes, and left them on the table in front of a friend. The student asked the friend to "keep an eye on" the earrings and then returned to the dance floor without waiting to hear whether the friend agreed. An hour later, a waiter noticed the earrings on the table. He pawned the earrings for cash, but intended to reclaim them and return them to the owner if anyone inquired about lost sapphire earrings.

Who is guilty of larceny?

No one

A restaurateur receives a call from a friend who says that he has a load of pork chops that he can sell to the restaurateur "real cheap." Knowing that his friend moves in shady circles, the restaurateur asks if the meat is stolen. The friend tells him no, the meat is legitimate. The restaurant has been slow lately and the restaurateur could use some savings, so he agrees to purchase the pork chops. However, when the delivery arrives, the restaurateur finds that his friend has sent him filet mignon, which the restaurateur has never seen at such a low price.When the restaurateur asks his friend if he sent him the wrong load of meat, his friend tells him, "Don't worry about it. You just got lucky." The restaurateur loads the meat in his freezer. Later, the police inform the restaurateur that the filet mignon was stolen merchandise and arrest him for receiving stolen property.

Can the restaurateur be found guilty?

Yes, because the restaurateur should have known the merchandise was stolen.

A sales associate with a real estate agency is very excited because she just found out that she passed the test for her real estate license. Now she can become a full sales associate and work unsupervised without splitting her commissions. She is sure that she will be making six figures in no time. She decides that she needs a car that will support her image, so she heads for the local luxury car dealership. The new sales associate convinces the dealership to sell her a brand new car with nothing down by showing them the income projections she came up with for herself. The sales associate does well in real estate, but she comes nowhere near the six-figure salary she foolishly believed she would make. After six months, the dealership has to repossess the luxury car.

If the sales associate is charged with false pretenses, what is the likely outcome?

The sales associate will be found not guilty, because she did not make any false

representations.

An actor who is also a drug addict has used heroin daily for the last ten years. He spends his days hustling and panhandling for money to support his habit. He has little self-esteem but is proud of the fact that he has never committed a criminal act to support his habit. However, of late, he has found it difficult to make enough to support his habit. One day, the actor walks past a car with a partially open window and sees an open purse lying on the seat. Tempted, he hesitates for a few moments. Then, when he thinks that no one is watching, he makes his move. He is reaching for the pocketbook when he hears someone yell, "Hey, someone stop that junkie, he's taking something from that car!" The actor runs for his life. Just as he feels he can't run any farther, he sees a car parked in front of a store with its engine running. He jumps into the car and drives away, despite the fact that he does not have a valid driver's license. Uncertain whether he is being followed, the actor keeps checking behind him and sees no one. Just as he begins looking for a place to park and abandon the car, a pedestrian suddenly darts out into the street, and the actor hits him. The pedestrian dies instantly.

With regard to his taking of the car, is the actor guilty of larceny?

Yes, because he intended to abandon the car which, although taken for temporary use,

demonstrates a recklessness which will make him criminally responsible for larceny.

The manager of a fast-food restaurant was responsible for gathering all money received

during the preceding 24-hour period at 3 p.m. each weekday and depositing that money in the restaurant account at the local bank. The manager was in financial difficulties but had practiced a method of playing casino blackjack that he felt would enable him to win consistently if only he had a stake to begin playing with. One Friday, while driving to the bank, the manager decided to take the restaurant cash and drove across the state line to a city where gambling was legal. The manager played blackjack using his system for the entire weekend, pausing only to sleep, but on Sunday evening was only a few hundred dollars ahead of the amount he had started with. The manager drove back to his home and the next morning deposited in the restaurant bank account an amount equal to the Friday restaurant receipts, plus an appropriate amount of interest.

Based on these facts, of what crime could the manager be convicted?

Embezzlement

An avid late-night jogger decided to run from his home to his brother's home 15 miles away. Despite the late hour, the summer night was sweltering, and at about ten miles into his run, the jogger began to have difficulty. He realized that, unless he drank some fluids, he wouldn't make it to his brother's. The jogger ran up the driveway of the only house in sight and knocked on the front door, but no one answered. He decided to see if he could find a way into the house to get just a couple of glasses of water. To his relief, he found the back window ajar. He pushed up the window, entered the kitchen and began checking the cabinets for a cup. Yes, he would be stealing water, the jogger figured, but under the circumstances, he was certain the homeowner wouldn't mind.

Just then, however, the homeowner arrived home and was shocked to find the jogger in his kitchen. The homeowner detained the jogger and called the police to have him arrested. In the town where the incident occurred, there was an edict in effect decreeing that water be provided free of charge, and the water utility charter contained language granting the use of water to anyone desiring it. The police charge the jogger with burglary.

Should he be convicted?

No, because what the jogger intended to do inside the homeowner's home was not a crime.

A restaurant had ceased to be profitable when a competitor opened a buffet restaurant

across the street. The restaurateur projected that he would go bankrupt in three months unless his patronage immediately rose to the levels he had enjoyed prior to the opening of the competitor's restaurant. The restaurateur asked his bookie whether he knew anyone who would do a job, no questions asked, for cash. The bookie said to contact a certain woman who frequented a local bar. The restaurateur went to the bar, met the woman, and offered the woman $5,000 to burn down the competitor's restaurant. The woman, an undercover police officer, immediately arrested the restaurateur. The restaurateur was subsequently charged with solicitation to commit arson. The jurisdiction has not altered the common law by any statute.

Should the restaurateur be found guilty or not guilty?

Guilty, as solicitation is completed upon attempt

A comedian wanted to kill a poet. He knew that the poet had difficulty sleeping and took medication which nearly rendered him unconscious during the night. The comedian decided to burn down the poet's house as the poet slept, and seized his opportunity one night when he knew the poet was home. The poet had taken his medication and was sleeping deeply. The comedian broke into the poet's house, got a coffee cup, filled it with lighter fluid, lit a cigarette, and put the cup underneath the poet's bed with the burning cigarette balanced on the cup's edge. The comedian knew that, as the cigarette burned, it would tip and fall into the cup of lighter fluid, setting the bed on fire. The comedian then left the house. The igniter worked just as the comedian had planned, except that the poet's neighbor smelled the smoke and called for help before the bed could ignite. The poet was killed by the toxic fumes emitted by the burning lighter fluid, but there was no other damage to his home except the blackening of the ceiling of the bedroom from the dense smoke.

If the comedian is prosecuted for arson of the poet's house, should he be found guilty or not guilty?

Not guilty, because there was insufficient damage to the structure of the house.

4. Gambler is an avid sports fan and gambler. Thinking that Ace, the star quarterback for the local football team, would not be able to start today’s game since he recently suffered an injury, Gambler put a large bet on the game game against the local team. When he heard a report that Ace was actually going to start at quarterback in today’s game, he decided he needed to concoct a way to stop Ace from starting as quarterback. Gambler called Ace’s wife Sally, a real estate agent, and told her that he had a property to list and could she meet him. They agreed to meet at the property 30 minutes before the game was scheduled to start. Just before the meeting was to take place, Gambler called Ace and told him that he had Ace’s wife Sally, and if Ace started as quarterback he would kill her.

When Sally arrived at Gambler’s property, he started to show Sally the house, including long explanations of everything about the house, in an effort to stall her from leaving. When they reached the kitchen, a television was on and Sally heard a report of the threat against her life. She laughed and indicated that she needs to call her husband and tell him she is all right. She made the call and then left. The police traced the origin of the phone call and arrested Gambler.

The jurisdiction in question had adopted the Model Penal Code. Which of the following is a

correct statement?

Gambler is not guilty of kidnapping, felonious restraint, or attempted kidnapping

Shortly after midnight, the defendant forced open the skylight of an expensive suburban residence in order to steal jewelry the occupants were reputed to have. When he had searched the entire house, he discovered that the residents had taken their jewelry on vacation with them. The defendant then noticed that a built-in security system installed by the owners had filmed him as he moved about the house. The defendant positioned a wooden bookcase under the camera, stacked some newspapers on it, set the papers afire, and then left the premises. By the time the fire department, summoned by the house's security system, arrived and doused the flames, the bookcase was burned to cinders and the wall and ceiling near the security camera were charred and peeling. The camera and its film were unharmed, and the defendant was subsequently apprehended and charged with common law burglary and arson.

What should the jury's verdict be?

The defendant is guilty of both burglary and arson.

In which of the following cases is the defendant most likely to be found guilty, even though

the defendant did not intend to bring about the harm that the statute was designed to prevent?

The defendant gets into a fight with a drunk in an alley behind a bar. As the fight escalates, the defendant hits the drunk with a beer bottle, intending to inflict serious bodily harm. The beer bottle breaks and slices the drunk's carotid artery, causing him to bleed to death. The defendant is charged with murder.

In which of the following situations is the person most likely to be guilty of the charge made?

A street vendor offered to sell a watch to the victim for $500, misrepresenting that it was anexpensive designer watch when the street vendor knew that the watch was a cheap imitation. The victim recognized that the watch was not genuine and refused to purchase it. The street vendor is charged with attempted false pretenses.

Intending to steal a DJ's electronic equipment and to sell it to a "fence" for cash, the defendant waited until the DJ and his wife left on vacation, then went to their house after dark, forced open a window at the back, and climbed inside. The defendant hurriedly gathered the components of the DJ's stereo entertainment center: a computer, monitor, and keyboard, and some camera equipment, and stacked them all outside in the DJ's driveway, preparing to load them into the defendant's pickup. As the defendant started to load the equipment into his truck, he remorsefully recalled that the DJ was his brother-in-law and the loss of all the electronic gear would probably make his sister, the DJ's wife, sad. The defendant decided to return everything. He had all the equipment back in place when a passing police patrol car spotted his truck and the open front door, investigated, and apprehended him. The defendant was subsequently charged with burglary and larceny. Assume the jurisdiction in question follows the common law definition of the applicable crimes.

He should be found

guilty of burglary and larceny, because he completed the requirements of both crimes before "undoing" them.

A lawyer specialized in bringing collection actions for small businesses. Her practice was cost-effective because she supervised a well-trained staff of paralegal and clerical workers who utilized custom software to generate letters and various relevant pleadings. The lawyer owed $15,000 for her latest purchase of a desktop publishing system, which the seller was threatening to repossess because the lawyer was delinquent in her payments. The seller had previously hired the lawyer to collect an overdue account for $15,000 a customer owed her. The lawyer instructed her paralegal to send the standard first demand letter to the customer, threatening legal action. The lawyer hoped that the customer would pay immediately without court action, because the lawyer intended to apply the funds collected from the customer to the lawyer's account with the seller. When the customer received the letter, he phoned the paralegal and said he would deliver a check for $15,000 to the paralegal that afternoon. The paralegal deposited the customer's check into the office account. The lawyer wrote a check from that account to the seller for $13,500, which represented the $15,000 from the customer, less the lawyer's ten percent fee, and sent the $13,500 to the seller as a payment for her desktop publishing system.

If the lawyer is prosecuted for a theft offense, she should be found

guilty of embezzlement, because the lawyer converted the seller's money to her own use.

After waiting for all customers to leave the store, Defendant entered the store and approached the clerk. He told the clerk to hand over all the money or he would "get hurt." The clerk fainted, hit his head on the counter and fell to the floor. Defendant walked around to the back of the counter, but was unable to open the cash register. Defendant ran from the store when a customer entered. The customer turned out to be an off-duty police officer who immediately arrested Defendant.

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

Attempted robbery.

Assuming that a teacher testified truthfully in each of the following circumstances, in which is the teacher most likely to be acquitted of the charged offense?

The teacher was charged with attempted murder of an archer after he shot the archer in the shoulder with a target arrow. The teacher testified that he was so intoxicated he thought that the archer was a target in a realistic practice archery range that used silhouettes of animals as targets.

A sculptor had been in a romantic relationship with a man, and the man often sat as a model for the sculptor who created various sculptures based on the man's physique. The man came to find that the sculptor had been carrying on an affair with a fellow artist, and that the sculptor had not really been interested in a long-term relationship but had primarily been interested in him as an artistic subject. The man asked the sculptor to end the relationship with the artist, but the sculptor refused and instead broke off the relationship with the man. A month later, the man saw an article in a local paper that included pictures from the sculptor's art studio. One picture featured a life-sized sculpture of the man that she had previously promised to give to the man, and the caption indicated it was to be sold to a collector for $50,000. Furious, the man broke into the sculptor's art studio and set fire to the statue. Soon the fire spread and one entire room of the three-room art studio was severely damaged by fire. If the man is charged with common law arson, what is his best defense?

The sculptor conducted work at the studio, but neither she nor anyone else lived there.

A defendant noticed his neighbor driving around in a vintage hot rod that the neighbor had recently purchased, and was determined to get his hands on the hot rod for himself. In which of the following factual scenarios is the defendant most likely to be found guilty of the crime of false pretenses?

The defendant, a mechanic, offers to examine the hot rod for free. The neighbor agrees. The defendant tells the neighbor that the motor is shot and will be very expensive to replace, which is a lie. The defendant offers to buy the hot rod for less than it is worth, and the neighbor agrees, signing over title in exchange for the defendant's cash offer.

Under which of the following situations would the defendant be most likely to be found guilty of common law kidnapping?

Detective hears that Jonesy, the suspected number one cocaine distributor in the area, was getting a record size shipment of cocaine. Detective beats the streets for days trying to get enough information from his snitches to obtain a search warrant. When he does not succeed he gets so frustrated that he goes to the local school and takes Jonesy's 8-year-old son. He transports the so to a local safe house sometimes used by police and locks him in a closet. Then he calls Jonesy and tells him to come into the police station with all the cocaine or he will never see his son alive again. Detective succeeds in getting over 300 kilos of cocaine off the street.

An accountant and a banker were leaving the gym where they played handball when a young woman confronted them. She held a large clutch purse in her left hand; her right hand was inside the purse. "I have a pistol in my purse," she said to the accountant. She pointed the purse at the banker and said to the accountant, "Give me your watch, rings, and wallet or I'll kill your friend." The accountant immediately complied, dropping all of his jewelry plus his wallet into her purse, which she held so that he could not see inside. As the woman turned to leave, a police officer on walking patrol rounded the corner. The accountant and the banker both called for help, and the officer arrested the woman. A search of her purse for weapons revealed that she had no gun or any other weapon.

If the young woman is prosecuted for robbery, what should be the result?

She should be convicted of robbing the accountant, because she took the accountant's

property from him by threat of force.