Missed MBE Flashcards
The fact that other preexisting conditions contributed to the death does not absolve the defendant
see example on back side
A patient suffering from a life-threatening blood disorder could be saved only by undergoing a new treatment only offered by a physician in another city. It was therefore arranged that the patient would fly to the city where the physician would perform the treatment. The day before the patient was to leave, his sole heir, who stood to inherit from him, poisoned him. The poison produced a reaction that required postponement of the journey. Meanwhile, the plane on which the patient was to have flown crashed and all aboard were killed. The next day the patient died from the combined effects of the poison and the blood disorder. His heir was arrested and charged with criminal homicide.
Here, heir is guilty of homocide bc he was proximate (foreseeable) and actual cause (but for) of pt’s death. The fact that other preexisting conditions contributed to the death does not absolve the heir
When the conspired act violates a statute designed to protect members of a given class, a member of that class cannot be guilty of the** criminal act** or conspiracy to commit it.
Although voluntary intoxication is a defense to a crime that requires purpose or knowledge, it is no defense to crimes involving recklessness.
A criminal attempt consists of
i.e. attempted murder
- a specific intent to commit the crime; and
- an overt act in furtherance of that intent
In other words, the defendant must have the intent to perform an act and obtain a result that would constitute the crime charged if achieved.
so, attempted murder would require the specific intent to kill another person, even though the mens rea (mental state) for murder itself does not require a specific intent to kill
There is no constitutional right to a jury of 12, but there must be at least six jurors to satisfy the right to a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and jury rulings must be unanimous
conspiracy withdrawal
if a conspirator has made a legally effective withdrawal from the conspiracy at the time of commission of such a crime, he will not be liable for that crime. Withdrawal requires an affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy and is done in time for them to have the opportunity to abandon their plans. Withdrawal, however, will not be a defense to the conspiracy charge itself
so withdrawal will absolve from the CRIME but not from the conspiracy
The police may not execute an arrest warrant in a **third party’s home **without a search warrant or exigent circumstances.
A man beat his girlfriend and fled. The girlfriend called the police and told them about the beating. She also told them that the man likely fled to his best friend’s house. The police obtained a valid arrest warrant for the man and went to the friend’s house. They knocked and the friend answered the door. The friend told the police that the man was not there. The police pushed past the friend and began searching for the man. The police did not find the man, but they did find a package of cocaine on a small end table in plain view. The police arrested the friend for possession of cocaine. Prior to trial, the friend moves to suppress the cocaine, claiming that it was unconstitutionally seized.
Should the court grant the motion?
A. Yes, because the man could not have been hiding on the table.
B. Yes, because the police did not have a search warrant.
C. No, because the cocaine was in plain view.
D. No, because the police found the cocaine while executing a valid arrest warrant.
double jeopardy
The Fifth Amendment right to be free of double jeopardy for the same offense has been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment.
Once jeopardy attaches, the defendant may not be retried for the same offense.
In jury trials, jeopardy attaches when the jury is empanelled and sworn, but the exception is that a state may retry a defendant when the first trial ends in a hung jury. even though this technically countas as jeopardy having attached
A jury deciding a case has not have been empanelled or sworn when the case was presented to a grand jury.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a third party’s home
During the investigation of a large gambling operation, the police obtained a warrant to search a bookie’s home based on the affidavit of an informant. The informant was a rival bookie who had never acted as an informant before, and much of the substance of the rival’s information came from third-party sources. During the search, the police seized a variety of gambling evidence, including betting slips and a check from the defendant. The bookie and the defendant were arrested for violating the state’s gambling laws, and separate trials were ordered. At a suppression hearing for the bookie, the court held that the search warrant for the bookie’s home was not supported by probable cause and suppressed introduction of the evidence seized. The defendant moved to suppress introduction of the betting slips and the check on the same basis.
If the court agrees that the search warrant of the bookie’s home was not supported by probable cause, should the defendant’s motion be granted?
No, because the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy was not constitutionally violated.
conspiracy
If a person withdraws from a conspiracy, he is no longer liable for future crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, but he remains liable for the crime of conspiracy, which was complete at the time of the agreement.
and remember: to have a successful withdrawal, a person must communicate the withdrawal to **all **his co-conspirators.
The trunk cannot be searched as a search incident to an arrest BUT can be searched when there is probable cause that an particular item of seizure may be located in the trunk
An undercover agent for a federal drug enforcement agency informed a state law enforcement agency that a large amount of cocaine was being mailed to a resident of that state. The cocaine would be mailed in a large box and wrapped distinctively. The agent further informed the agency that the resident was not the purchaser of the cocaine, but was only acting as an intermediary. The cocaine would be picked up within a few days by the buyer, who was from a neighboring state. The agency immediately placed the resident’s house under surveillance. In a few days, a large box wrapped as the undercover agent described was delivered by the post office. The agency did not make an arrest, but kept the house under surveillance. Two days later, a man driving a car with plates from the neighboring state arrived at the house. He entered the house and came back out shortly thereafter carrying what appeared to be the same box. The suspect placed the box in the trunk of his car and drove off. Two blocks later, the car was stopped, the suspect arrested, and officers for the agency searched the entire vehicle, acting without a warrant. The box in the trunk was opened and cocaine was found. The suspect was charged with possession of cocaine. At a pretrial hearing, he moved to suppress the cocaine.
How should the court rule on the motion?
A. Deny it, because the officers had probable cause to search the trunk.
The police may NOT search an automobile’s passenger compartment incident to any arrest of an occupant. Such a warrantless search is** valid only if**: (i) the arrestee is unsecured and still may gain access to the interior of the automobile or (ii) the police reasonably believe that the automobile contains evidence of the crime for which the occupant was arrested.
A police officer witnessed a bar patron exit a bar with an open bottle in his hand, get into a car, and turn the wrong way from the bar’s parking lot onto a one-way street. The officer immediately turned on his siren and pursued the car for a couple of miles. During that pursuit, the car repeatedly weaved in and out of its lane of traffic. Eventually, the car pulled over, and the officer placed the driver under arrest for drunk driving. After handcuffing the driver and placing him in the back seat of his squad car, the officer looked under a blanket lying on the floor of the car’s passenger compartment. Under the blanket, he found an open bottle of beer. Before his trial on charges of drunk driving and driving with an open container of alcohol in the car, the defendant moves to suppress from evidence the open bottle of beer.
Should the motion be granted?
A No, because incident to the arrest of the driver of an automobile, the police may search the passenger compartment of the automobile.
B No, because the officer had reason to believe that the car contained evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested.
(A) is incorrect because it is overbroad.
double jeopardy
Where charges can be tried in a single trial, but the defendant consents to having two separate trials, there is no double jeopardy violation.
A defendant was charged with robbery and felony murder based on a death that arose during the robbery. The defendant pleaded not guilty and insisted on a jury trial. Right before the trial began, he fired his attorney and decided to defend himself. The court made a finding that the defendant was competent to represent himself at trial. The defendant then insisted on trying both of his charges separately in two different trials. The trial judge asked the defendant if he was confident that he wanted to have two separate trials. The defendant replied: “I am, your Honor.” The felony murder case was tried first, and the jury found the defendant not guilty. The defendant then moved to dismiss the robbery charge based on double jeopardy.
How should the court rule on the defendant’s motion?
Deny the motion, because the charges could have been tried together but the defendant consented to the separate trials.
double jeopardy generally does apply to lesser included offenses,
