Barbri Crim Law/Pro MC Review Flashcards
(107 cards)
The neighbors to the north and south of a poorly maintained house, a mechanic and a doctor, decided to “send a message” by placing a smoke bomb on the owner’s front porch. The doctor and mechanic consulted with another neighbor, an army veteran who was known to be an explosives expert, to help them. The army veteran agreed, but unbeknownst to the two neighbors, the army veteran manufactured a bomb containing a lethal quantity of explosives because he wanted to make sure the owner had a good scare. He gave the bomb to the mechanic and doctor, along with a timed fuse. In the middle of the night, the mechanic set the bomb on the owner’s porch. A few minutes later, a huge explosion rocked the neighborhood. Although nobody was injured, the blast blew away the front of the owner’s house.
Who, of the following, is likely to be found guilty of attempted murder?
Neither the mechanic nor the doctor nor the army veteran.
no specific intent to kill (necessary for crime of murder)
attempt is also a specific intent crime
before crim conviction for attempt, must be established that actor had specific intent to engage in the behavior or cause harm prohibited by crim statute
Nobody died either
Two police officers stopped an automobile for improperly proceeding through a red light. When one of the officers approached the car, she observed a baggie containing a white powder on the front seat near the driver. The officer’s training gave her probable cause to believe the baggie contained cocaine. She ordered the driver out of the car, examined the baggie, and determined that it likely was cocaine. The officer then arrested the driver and guarded him in the back seat of the police cruiser while the second officer searched the entire car, including the trunk. In the trunk, the officer found two rare paintings that had recently been stolen from the city’s art museum.
The driver was charged with possession of stolen goods and brought a motion to suppress the introduction of the paintings into evidence.
If the driver’s motion is denied, it will be because the second officer conducted which type of search properly?
Automobile search
lessened expectation of privacy & inherent mobility of car prevents cops easily getting search warrant
so cops are permitted to make complete search of auto if probable cause to believe car contains fruits, evidence or instrumentalities of a crime
when cops have probable cause to search entire car, they can conduct warrantless search of all parts of car & its contents
cops had probable cause to to believe car had cocaine, so can search trunk & when seeing fruits of another crime in plain view when opening trunk, they can seize it
Search incident to an arrest
after arresting occupant of auto, cops may search car incident to arrest only if arrestee may gain access to car and cops reasonably believe evidence of offense (reason person arrested) can be found in car
Define robbery
taking of personal property of another from other person or presence
by force or threats of immediate death or physical injury to victim, family, some person in victim’s presence
w/intent to permanently deprive them of it
mistake of fact is a defense
While on routine patrol late one night, a police officer noticed that a car was weaving recklessly across several lanes of traffic. He stopped the driver, believing that he was driving while intoxicated. By state law, the officer was empowered to arrest the driver and take him to the nearest police station for booking. As he approached the vehicle, the officer saw the driver put what appeared to be a bottle in the glove compartment. The officer arrested the driver and then searched his vehicle. In the glove compartment, the officer discovered a vial containing a small amount of cocaine. The driver was charged with possession of cocaine. At a preliminary hearing, the driver’s attorney moves to prevent introduction of the cocaine into evidence on the grounds that the search violated his client’s federal constitutional rights.
Will this motion most likely be granted?
No, because the search was incident to a constitutionally valid custodial arrest.
After arresting occupant of car, cops may search interior of the auto if the police reasonably believe that evidence of the offense for which the person was arrested may be found in the vehicle.
court is likely to find that, based on what he saw, cop reasonably believed that he would find evidence of intoxication (given that he put a bottle in his glove compartment after being pulled over for weaving across lanes of traffic).
a valid search incident to arrest encompasses the area within the defendant’s “wingspan.” This includes the glove compartment.
Police officers suspected that an 18-year-old living with his mother was selling the illegal drug Ecstasy to his high school classmates. The police went to the young man’s house without a search warrant. The young man was not at home, but his mother was, and she allowed the police officers entry. She also gave them permission to search the teen’s bedroom. In the bedroom, the officers found a locked suitcase under the teen’s bed. The mother said that it was her son’s suitcase and she did not have a key for it. But she told them they could search it if they could get it open. The officers then broke the lock, opened the suitcase and found a substantial amount of what they believed and later tests revealed to be Ecstasy. The young man was charged with possession of Ecstasy with intent to distribute it.
If the young man brings a pretrial motion to suppress the Ecstasy, how should the court rule on the motion?
Grant it, because the mother’s consent to search the suitcase was invalid.
search is valid if cops reasonably believe that they obtained valid consent for the search.
Generally homeowner has authority to consent to a search of her own home, so long as she has apparent access to the place searched.
Here, nothing indicates teen’s bedroom door was locked. Thus, the mother had apparent authority to grant permission to search his room. However, it appears unreasonable for the police officers to believe that the mother had authority to consent to a search of the suitcase because it was locked and she did not have a key. The parent-child relationship does nothing to change this analysis. A parent of an adult teenager does not have automatic authority to search the adult teen’s locked things
Where it’s apparent homeowner does not have access (for example, when something is locked and she does not have a key), police officers may not reasonably believe she may consent to the search of the locked area.
to be effective, a consent to search must be voluntary and given under no threat or compulsion
Late one night, a young couple were killed instantly when their car was struck by a speeding truck as the couple’s car crossed an intersection with the light green in their favor. Several weeks later, a burglar awaiting trial on burglary charges asked a jail officer to let him speak with a highway patrol officer. When the highway patrol officer came to the cell, the burglar told him that he was the driver of the truck that had struck the car and had been speeding away from a burglary when the accident occurred.
The burglar was charged with felony murder, on the theory that he had not yet reached a place of temporary safety when the accident occurred. At trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce the burglar’s statements to the highway patrol officer regarding the events of the night of the accident. The burglar’s attorney objects.
Which of the following is the strongest argument for permitting the statements into evidence?
The burglar made the statements spontaneously, without inducement or interrogation by the police.
Miranda applies only when the D in custody and only when the D’s statements are result of interrogation. Although almost any words or actions on the part of cops that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response qualify as interrogation
Miranda does not apply to spontaneous statements not made in response to interrogation
D doesn’t need to be charged for Miranda rights to apply as long as he’s in custody (i.e., not free to leave). Being in jail on another charge (as the burglar was) satisfies the custody requirement.
A suspect was captured in a high-speed police chase five minutes after a bank robbery in which the robbers had handed the teller a handwritten note demanding money. The suspect was taken to the police station where, over his protests, he was required to write out the words of the note. He was then charged with the robbery. At a pretrial suppression hearing, the suspect challenged the prosecution’s plan to offer in evidence the writing that he had been required to make by the police so that the jury could compare it with the robbers’ note.
How should the court rule on the admissibility of the writing?
Admissible
The handwriting sample is relevant to the issue of the identity of the bank robber and is admissible because it was properly obtained and violated no rule of privilege.
A handwriting sample is not testimonial in nature and, therefore, does not require Fifth or Sixth Amendment protections
presence of counsel is not required at a scientific identification made by the police for the purposes of investigation, such as taking a handwriting sample
A hunter drove to one of his old spots for target shooting. When he arrived at the spot, he noticed that an adjacent area that had formerly been an open field now contained a new jogging track where several people were exercising. The hunter tacked a paper target to a tree that was located between the track and the point from which he planned to shoot. He fired a number of shots at the target, and all but one hit the target. The one shot that missed that went wide of the target, ricocheted off a tree, and flew into the jogging track, striking and killing a person.
If the hunter is tried for the death of the person, what is the most serious crime of which he can be convicted?
Murder, because the hunter acted with reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life when he chose to shoot the gun in an area near the jogging track.
Depraved heart
Conviction for common law murder requires malice. At common law, malice exists if the killing is committed with: (i) the intent to kill (express malice); (ii) intent to inflict great bodily injury; (iii) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (“depraved heart”); or (iv) intent to commit a felony (“felony murder”).
hunter did not intend to kill the person when he fired at the target, so he did not demonstrate express malice.
A man and his friend were walking across a bridge on their way home from watching a wrestling event when they began to playfully reenact their favorite wrestling moves. As part of one of the wrestling moves, the man lightly shoved his friend. The friend exaggeratedly stumbled backward into the bridge’s railing. Unbeknownst to the man and his friend, the bridge’s railing was weak and in need of replacement, and the friend fell through the railing and into the water below.
The friend died as a result of the fall.
In a jurisdiction that follows common law, what is the most serious crime, if any, with which the man can be charged?
no crime
lacked necessary intent to kill or harm his friend
An employee of the state government always received his state paycheck on the last workday of the month. The employee was not a good money manager, and just barely managed to make it from paycheck to paycheck each month. On the second to the last workday of the month, the employee had $45 in his checking account, and, needing to buy a birthday gift for his sister, he wrote a check to a gift boutique for $100. He knew that he would be receiving his paycheck the next day, so he could deposit the paycheck before the check would be sent to the bank.
However, unbeknownst to the employee, the state legislature was having a budget impasse. Because the state constitution prohibited any deficit spending, state employees were not paid as usual. Without a paycheck to deposit, the check written to the gift boutique was returned for insufficient funds. The merchant complained to the police, who arrested the employee and charged him under a statute that prohibited “issuing a check knowing that it is drawn against insufficient funds, with intent to defraud the payee of the check.”
What should be the outcome of the employee’s prosecution?
Not guilty, because the employee intended to deposit his paycheck the next day.
basically, false pretenses — D lacked the intent to defraud required by the statute
If the employee intended to deposit sufficient funds to honor the check before it reached his bank, then the employee did not intend to defraud the gift boutique
Knowledge that the check was drawn against insufficient funds is just one element of the statute. The intent to defraud is also required to convict under the applicable statute
A thief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. After making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. A short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. He fell to the ground and severely injured his back. The thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for “maliciously causing serious physical injury to another.” The thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. After a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges.
If he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule?
Affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice.
Crimes imposing a mens rea of malice generally do not require the proof of intent that specific intent crimes require.
sufficient if D recklessly disregarded an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result would occur.
thief knew of the probability that the ladder would collapse without the braces when someone climbed down it, and acted in reckless disregard of that risk by removing the braces.
generally not necessary to show an intent to injure for a crime requiring a mens rea of malice
A husband who believed that his wife was having an affair with his brother hired an arsonist to burn down the brother’s house. They planned for the husband to take his brother to a ballgame so that the arsonist would be able to set the house on fire without detection. After the husband and brother left for the ballgame, however, the arsonist decided to abandon the plan and immediately left town without doing anything further. When the husband returned from the ballgame with the brother, he saw the house still standing and blurted out what was supposed to have happened. The husband and the arsonist were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit arson. At the arsonist’s trial, his attorney argued that he was innocent of the conspiracy because he decided not to go ahead with the plan, and nothing criminal had in fact occurred.
At common law, how should a jury find the arsonist?
Guilty, because the arsonist agreed to set the brother’s house on fire.
once the arsonist was hired by the husband and they came up with a plan to burn down the brother’s house, the crime of conspiracy was completed
In a property settlement after a divorce, the wife was awarded all personal property that had been accumulated during the marriage, including the husband’s classic 19-inch black-and-white TV set. In order to get his prized TV set back, the husband lied to his friend, telling him that the wife took the TV set in violation of the property settlement. The friend remembered that the wife gave the friend’s wife a key to her new home, and he volunteered to go with the husband to get the TV back while the wife was at work. The husband and the friend went to the wife’s house, but, unbeknownst to them, the wife had taken the day off work. After the friend noisily opened the back door with his wife’s key, the wife called the police, who quickly arrived and arrested the husband and the friend.
As to a charge of common law conspiracy to commit larceny, how should the friend be found?
Not guilty, because he did not intend to steal.
The object of the agreement must be something unlawful.
Here, the friend did not intend to achieve the objective of the conspiracy-to permanently deprive the owner of her property-because the friend thought the husband was the true owner of the TV
A man and woman agreed to burn down a neighbor’s house in retribution for some wrong the neighbor allegedly committed against them. Both the man and woman were arrested shortly after they poured gasoline on the neighbor’s front porch. The man revealed to the police that he participated in the plan to ensure that nothing bad would happen to the neighbor, and that he had made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime, which enabled the police to arrest him and the woman “in the act.” The woman stated that she would not have participated if not for the man’s encouragement.
If the woman is charged with a conspiracy at common law to commit arson, how should she be found?
Not guilty, because the man did not intend to commit arson.
having two or more persons is a necessary element of conspiracy under common law.
Here, the facts indicate that the man did not intend to achieve the objective of the conspiracy-to burn the dwelling house of another. Thus, the woman cannot be guilty of conspiracy to commit arson.
Three thieves agreed to rob a bank. The first was to steal a car to be used for the getaway, the second agreed to procure weapons, and the third would check the bank for cameras. The car thief stole a car and parked it in a lot behind his girlfriend’s apartment building. While visiting her the night before the robbery, the car thief suffered a series of convulsive seizures. He was rushed to the hospital where he was placed in the intensive care unit and heavily sedated. Meanwhile the two other thieves, unaware of their accomplice’s illness, met and decided to rob the bank on their own, despite the absence of a getaway car and driver. They robbed the bank, but were quickly apprehended as they tried to escape and implicated the car thief under police questioning.
The car thief can be charged with:
Theft of the car, conspiracy to commit robbery, and robbery.
- Theft – He stole the car. ✅ Obvious.
- Conspiracy – He agreed with others to rob a bank and did something (stealing the car) to help make it happen. ✅
- Robbery – Even though he wasn’t there, he’s still guilty if:
The robbery was part of the plan, and
It was a foreseeable result of their agreement.
🚫 Why he can’t escape blame:
He didn’t withdraw from the plan. Getting sick doesn’t count — you need to actively back out and warn your co-conspirators in time.
The defendant stabs the victim but does not kill him; due to construction at the hospital where the victim is admitted for treatment of the stab wound, the victim contracts asbestosis and dies from it one year later.
Would the defendant most likely be convicted of homicide?
NO
D must have actually and proximately caused the death.
An intervening act that presents a foreseeable risk will generally not break the chain of causation.
An unforeseeable risk, such as an injury due to hospital construction, will most likely break the chain of causation.
The statutes of a state define the following crimes (with the most serious listed first):
First degree murder-Premeditated or intentional killing.
Felony murder-Killing while in the act of committing a common law felony.
Second degree murder-Killing with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Manslaughter-Killing with adequate provocation or through criminal negligence.
A competitive camp counselor who was determined to have her team win a relay race decided to put a colorless and odorless drug into the other teams’ water bottles. The counselor wanted the other teams to become sick to their stomachs so that they could not run as fast in the race. The counselor knew that people could become very ill, or even die, if they consumed too large a quantity of the drug but she only intended to place a small amount in each water bottle. The day before the race, the counselor went into the nurse’s office and took a bottle of the drug. The next day she woke up early and went to the cafeteria to put small quantities of the drug into the other teams’ water bottles. She unintentionally put a large amount in a few of the water bottles. Several campers became extremely ill and one eventually died.
What is the most serious crime for which the counselor may be convicted?
Second degree murder.
counselor consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the drug she was placing in the water bottles could be seriously harmful or even fatal
The counselor cannot be convicted of felony murder because she did not commit a felony; a majority of jurisdictions would consider simple battery to be a misdemeanor. Furthermore, the felony generally must be independent of the killing. A battery (or aggravated battery) would not be considered independent of the conduct which kills (although it might be considered to be a valid basis for a manslaughter conviction)
A wife suffered from a particularly virulent form of cancer, and had lapsed into a nearly comatose state. Because the doctors had indicated that any treatment they could prescribe would be of little value, her husband decided to administer various poisons to his wife, thinking that they might stimulate her natural body defenses, or kill the cancer cells, resulting in her recovery. He tried doses of many different types of poison. Despite his ministrations, his wife died three days later. An autopsy performed by the county coroner established the cause of death as cancer.
If the husband is prosecuted for the murder of his wife, which of these is the best reason why he would be acquitted?
He did not cause her death.
To be guilty of murder, the D’s action must be both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the victim’s death.
victim died only from cancer and woulda died from cancer even w/o poison
if the other elements of murder are established, administering poison might be sufficient to establish malice aforethought. Malice aforethought for murder can be established by conduct done with the awareness of an unjustifiably high risk to human life, and the husband knew that the poisons were dangerous and could kill
The victim owned a cottage in an ocean resort area. He stayed there only during the summer months, and left the cottage unoccupied during the balance of the year. The defendant, a resident of a neighboring cottage, was aware of this practice. For a change in his routine, however, the victim decided to spend a week at the cabin in the off-season. Unaware that the victim was occupying the cottage, the defendant decided to borrow a portable television set that he knew the victim kept in the cottage. To avoid being seen, he entered the cottage late at night, using a key under the front doormat. He found the television set, disconnected it, and headed for the rear of the house to leave. He opened the kitchen door and found the victim seated there in the dark, having a late night snack. Both men were startled and neither man recognized the other in the dark. The defendant assumed that the victim was a burglar, and was afraid that he might be armed. Trying to flee the kitchen as quickly as possible, the defendant dropped the television set in the middle of the kitchen floor. As the set hit the floor, the picture tube exploded with a loud noise. The noise so frightened the victim that he had an immediate heart attack and died.
If the defendant is charged with felony murder as the result of the victim’s death, what is his best defense?
This is testing felony murder — His only intent was to borrow the television set for a few days.
✅ Why this is the best defense:
Larceny (theft) requires an intent to permanently take someone’s property.
If the defendant only intended to borrow the TV, then there’s no larceny.
If there’s no larceny, then there’s no burglary (because burglary also requires intent to commit a felony inside).
And if there’s no felony, then there can’t be felony murder — because felony murder requires a death during a felony.
** intent to kill is not required.
The law treats you as guilty of murder if someone dies during your felony, even by accident.
A student and a few of his friends were making their way to spring break. Along the way, the old van that they were driving broke down. Not wanting to miss any part of spring break festivities, the student asked the mechanic on duty at the repair shop for a rush job. The mechanic provided the student with a repair estimate, and the student, on the basis of the estimate, authorized the repair and promised to pay when he came back to pick up the van. When the mechanic called the student to tell him that the van was repaired, the student, rather than paying for the repair, told one of his friends that the mechanic had agreed to finance the repair charges and that the only thing left to do was pick up the van in the garage’s parking lot. The student handed the friend a key to the van and told him to go pick the van up so that they could continue their trip to spring break. The friend did so.
The mechanic makes a criminal complaint against the student for larceny of the van. If the case is prosecuted, will the student likely be found guilty?
Yes, because the friend took the van from the mechanic without the mechanic’s knowledge or permission.
Larceny is the taking and carrying away of the personal property of “another” with the intent to permanently deprive the other person of the property.
It is possible to commit larceny of your own property if another person, such as a bailee, has a superior right to possession of the property at that time. B
Because the mechanic had a right to possession of the van until he was paid, the student committed larceny when he had his friend take the van without the mechanic’s consent.
He would be guilty even if he had not made the promise to pay for the van; he incurred an obligation to pay by having the repairs done.
Acting on a hunch, a police officer went to a young woman’s apartment, broke in, and searched it. The officer found exactly what she was looking for under the woman’s bed: a sack filled with jewels. The attached note read, “Sweetheart, here are the goods from the estate heist. Your loving boyfriend.” It was well known in the community that the woman’s boyfriend was a jewel thief. The officer also knew that the estate of a local socialite had been burglarized three days ago. Just as the officer finished reading the note, the woman returned. The officer immediately placed the woman under arrest as an accessory to the estate burglary. Based on the evidence obtained from the woman’s apartment, a search warrant was issued for her boyfriend’s apartment. The search yielded burglar tools and more jewels from the estate. The boyfriend was immediately arrested and charged with the estate burglary. At the boyfriend’s trial for the estate burglary, his attorney files a motion to suppress the evidence consisting of the bag of jewels and note, the tools, and the jewels from the boyfriend’s apartment.
How should the court rule on the motion?
Deny the motion, because the police had a warrant to search the boyfriend’s apartment.
The exclusionary rule and its offspring — fruit of the poisonous tree — only protect people whose own Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Illegal search didnt violate his rights
🔒 You can’t object to an illegal search unless your own reasonable expectation of privacy was violated. He cant challenge OG search
officer illegally broke into gf’s apt, so she could move to suppress jewels & note if she were on trial
BF has no standing to suppress evidence from her apt — not his home, he doesn’t own it (no facts showing reasonable expectation privacy)
Cops use note & bag jewels as probable cause for warrant to search BF’s apt
The police, suspecting that the defendant was dealing drugs, observed several people walk up to the defendant’s door, knock on his door, and then exchange cash for small packages that the police believed contained drugs. Two uniformed police officers then walked up to the door and knocked. The defendant answered the door, and one police officer asked if they could come in and take a look around. The defendant, believing that he had no other choice but to let the officers inside, agreed. Once inside, they discovered equipment used for making methamphetamine and several tablets of methamphetamine that were sitting on a table covered by a bed sheet. One officer promptly arrested and handcuffed the defendant while the other seized the equipment and tablets. Prior to his trial for the illegal manufacture and possession of methamphetamine, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence as having been illegally seized.
Should the motion be granted?
No, because the defendant allowed the police officers to enter his home and look around.
xception to warrant req is when cops have valid consent to search the premises
knowledge of right to withhold consent not a prereq to establish voluntary consent
The police received information linking a man to drug trafficking and went to the man’s residence, where he lived with his mother. The police found the mother at home, and she told them that her son was not expected back until later. The police informed the mother that they suspected the man of selling drugs and asked if they could search his room. She replied, “I’m finished with that no-good bum; not only is he into drugs, but he has been stealing my money to pay for them, and all the time I’m making his bed and fixing his food. You can search his room. He likes to keep his private stuff under his pillow. I hope he goes to jail.” The police searched the man’s room and discovered a quantity of marijuana under the pillow of his bed.
If before trial the man’s attorney moves to suppress the marijuana on grounds that the search was invalid, should the court grant the motion?
No, because the man’s mother had the authority to consent to the search of his room.
search of residence can be based on voluntary consent of occupant
parent can give valid consent to gen search of room if they hav gen access (even if kid is adult)
mom is saying “and all the time I’m making his bed”
