Cases for Final Exam

Question 1

Martin v. State

Answer 1

(Actus Reus)

Facts: Appellant was drunk in his home and arrested and taken on a public highway

Holding: Specific elements of the statute all met, but the general element of actus reus missing because he was not voluntarily there

Question 2

United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez

Answer 2

(Actus Reus - Involuntary Intoxication)

Facts: Defendant became intoxicated and woke up in US; claims illegal entry was not voluntary

Holding: Court ruled that intoxication was voluntary. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense as to the act being involuntary except for specific intent crimes

Question 3

Watson v. State

Answer 3

(Possession as Actus Reus)

Facts: Police entered bedroom and observed the appellant sleeping on the bed and his cousin doing cocaine off a dresser

Holding: Because the appellant was asleep and did not have knowledge of the drugs he did not have the actus reus for the crime

Question 4

State v. Winsor

Answer 4

(Possession as Actus Reus)

Facts: Defendant arrest and brought to county jail where they found he had marijuana on him; charged with possession of marijuana while in county jail

Holding: Even though his presence in jail was not a voluntary act, possession of the marijuana was voluntary and that was the main part of the crime

Question 5

United States v. Cortes – Caban

Answer 5

(Specific Intent – Mens Rea)
Facts: Defendants claimed that the police hadn’t met quota so they planted controlled substances on people and then arrested them

Holding: Additional intent (specific intent) needed to be proven above the general intent of distributing drugs; needed to prove the they intended to distribute drugs AND intend to conduct a fraudulent police search

Question 6

State v. Thompson

Answer 6

(First Degree Murder)

Facts: Defendant says to wife “if you divorce me I will kill you”. A week later defendant drags wife into home by hair and over a 911 call they heard 4 gun-shots

Holding: Need proof of actual reflection, not just proof of the time to permit reflection.For this statute, the only difference between first and second degree murder is the mere passage of time (instantaneous killing would be second degree because if it was instantaneous, it was not done with premeditation). There was overwhelming evidence of his reflection (evidence of threats, time elapsed between each gun shot, and victims screams as recorded) and therefore convicted for life sentence

Question 7

Hines v. State

Answer 7

(Felony Murder)

Facts: Defendant was a convicted felon and was hunting with a friend and mistook him for a turkey and shot him. Charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (a felony)

Holding: This felony was sufficient to convict for felony murder

Question 8

State v. Sophophone

Answer 8

(Felony Murder)

Facts: Defendant charged with felony-murder charge when he was caught and put police car during aggravated burglary when his co-felon was shot and killed by a police officer

Holding: Felony-murder Doctrine did not apply because it was a lawful killing by the police officer. Using the agency theory which limits the doctrine to the homicide committed by the felon and the defendant nor his agent killed anyone

Question 9

State v. Doub

Answer 9

(Depraved Heart - Second Degree Murder/ Extreme Indifference to Human Life)

Facts: Defendant had been drinking and drove into two parked vehicles. He drank more and smoked crack and was driving at a high speed on the wrong side of the road when drove up onto a vehicle, killing a child. Drove away and did not stop to help the victim.

Holding: Sufficient evidence to convict of depraved heart murder

Question 10

People v. Pouncey

Answer 10

(Reducing to Voluntary Manslaughter)

Facts: Group of people gets into dispute; there was no physical action or threatening with weapons. Defendant goes into the house and gets a shotgun and shoots the victim. Charged with murder; tries to have it reduced to manslaughter

Holding: Court had 3 Conclusions: (1) words alone do not constitute adequate provocation, (2) there is no heat of passion if the defendant testifies that he was not angry, and(3) There was sufficient cooling time when he entered house to retrieve gun

Question 11

State v. Williams

Answer 11

(Involuntary Manslaughter/Negligently)

Facts: American Indian couple charged with crime of manslaughter when child died from an infected abscessed tooth. Did not take him to the doctor because they did not know he was that sick and also other Indian couples had their children taken away by the Welfare Department when they took them to the doctors

Holding: Not providing medical care met the standard of ordinary negligence. Failure to take the child to the doctor was the proximate cause of death

Question 12

People v. Hall

Answer 12

(Recklessly)

Facts: While sking, the Defendant, a ski instructor, speedily flew off a knoll and collided with the victim, killing him. Was an experienced skier and was speeding excessively

Holding: Consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death could have occurred from his actions and therefore his actions were reckless

Question 13

State v. Larson

Answer 13

(Negligently)

Facts: Defendant was drunk and driving at a high rate of speed and overcorrected his car, causing him to crash and kill his 3 passengers

Holding: Enough evidence to prove negligent homicide

Question 14

State v. Fennell

Answer 14

(Doctrine of Transferred Intent)

Facts: Defendant gets in dispute with man and then shoots at him and kills him but also injures another man; defendant did not intend to injure the second victim

Holding: Imposed the doctrine of transferred intent to hold the defendant accountable for knowing actions could have injured the unintended

Question 15

State v. Lane

Answer 15

(Cause-in-fact, Actual cause)

Facts: A man was drunk, ∆ punched him and he fell and hit the pavement, there for a while until the police came.

Holding: That the state reasonably infer that the punch was the cause in fact, Steve testified to seeing ∆ swing around the head and the medical examiner said that injury could have been from blow to the head or head hitting something - reasonable evidence

Question 16

Oxendine v. State

Answer 16

(Cause-in-fact/Actual cause - intervening cause)

Facts: Girlfriend punches child to the point that he would die soon, dad then comes and punches the kid. Doctors couldn’t determine if the second round was an accelerant

Holding: Remand for assault instead of manslaughter since they could not determine if it was an accelerant

Question 17

State v. Pelham

Answer 17

(Proximate cause - Dependant/intervening cause)

Facts: Car accident, where the passenger went into disabling condition and eventually removed life support. Was pulling life support a supervening cause?

Holding: Does not arise to be independent intervening which would cut off criminal liability. Everyone has the right to accept, reject, or continue medical treatment in form of life support – does not break the chain because this right is foreseeable – not an intervening cause

Question 18

State v. Lamprey

Answer 18

(Proximate cause - Independant)

Facts: She was doing swervies with the kids in the bed of the truck, hit a tree and a child died. ∆ said it was a car defect.

Holding: Substantial factor test: have to find that the mechanical defect was the sole cause of death?; “contributed to” standard.Court says that the mechanical defect has to be the sole cause for her liability to be cut off

Question 19

State v. Crossman

Answer 19

(Statutory Burglary)

Facts: The defendant, at night, removed exterior doors and windows from a vacant house

Holding: Even though he was not inside the house, he is guilty for entry because he had to reach inside to undo the hinges.

Question 20

Commonwealth v. Powell

Answer 20

(Armed Robbery)

Facts: Defendant robs a store and told the cashier to give her cash otherwise he would shoot her. Victim could tell something was in his jacket; it turned out to be a wooden gun replica

Holding: If the fake gun was displaying in such a way that it reasonably appeared capable of causing death or serious injury, then it would constitute a dangerous weapon. Focus on the fact that the victim was just as terrified as if this had been a real gun and reasonably believed that it was capable of inflicting injury. Can’t just say you have a gun and not – wouldn’t be armed robbery.

Question 21

Commonwealth v. Jones

Answer 21

(Timing of Use of Force for Robbery)

Facts: Defendant put boots in his pants and then exited the store (committed larceny) Manager followed him out into the parking lot and confronted him when the defendant pulled out a gun and threatened him

Holding: The defendant had custody of the items while within the store and the manager maintained constructive possession over the items; as the larceny was continuing but before his custody was converted into possession, the manager interposed himself to prevent the theft and that is when the defendant introduced force and when the crime was transformed into robbery

Question 22

Baldwin v. Commonwealth

Answer 22

(Attempt - Sufficiency of the Evidence)

Facts: Pulled over; Cop was on the side of the vehicle and had to push off to avoid having his foot ran over; turned the wheel and sped off; at worse officer’s foot would have been run over; since he was on the side he could not aim the vehicle at the cop

Holding: Not enough evidence to prove intent to kill; just the intent to get away; reversed.
Some acts in furtherance of that intent

Question 23

Evans v. State

Answer 23

(Attempt - Sufficiency of the Evidence)

Facts: Discussed the actual crime; possessed all the materials necessary to commit the crime; found with materials near the place of commission; drove around multiple parking lots for 45 minutes

Holding: Acts were already performed in pursuance of the intent; acts could not be interpreted to show lawful intent

Question 24

People v. Saephanh

Answer 24

(Uncommunicated Solicitation - Sufficiency of Evidence - Actus Reus)

Fact: Sent a letter asking a companion to abort his child before it is due; letter was intercepted by guards and charged with solicitation. Def. claimed Crime cant be committed if the solicitation was never sent. Causation could never happen.

Holding: Court found attempted solicitation:
Must have specific intent to commit the crime and substantial step to commit the crime.

Question 25

State v. Disanto

Answer 25

(Distinguishing Solicitation from Attempt - Sufficiency of the Evidence)

Fact: Defendant hired a hitman(undercover) to kill his ex-girlfriend, boyfriend, and his daughter; provided location, photos; instructions on the method of killing; final command to kill. Told a third party he wanted to halt; stated not backing out but wanted it on hold. Charged with attempted murder.

Holding: Defendatn cannot be convicted of attempted murder because he only solicited McCabe to murder Olson and Egemo. Defendant should have been charged with solicitation to commit murder. No attempt because there was no overt act.

Question 26

United States v. Fitz

Answer 26

(Evidence of Conspiracy-Agreement)

Facts: 3 Individuals travel to another city with drugs hidden in the car; defendant claims he was not aware of the drugs

Holding: Mere presence is not enough to show that you agreed to be part of the crime.

Question 27

United States v. Jones

Answer 27

(Conspiracy - Mens Rea)

Facts: Defendant accompanied another individual to purchase a gun. Other party falsified forms in order to transport gun over state lines.

Holding: Since defendant claimed he was there to purchase drugs, not enough evidence of him agreeing to help falsify the Gun Form or sell the gun. No evidence of explicit or implicit agreement and no evidence he took part in any part of the gun transaction.

Question 28

State v. Barnum

Answer 28

(Accomplice Liability - Actus Reus)

Facts: Defendant and others took the girl under the bridge where she was beaten, burned, and stripped. Defendant yelled to “run [victim] over with the van”. Defendant claimed could not be charged as an accomplice because they didn’t run her over.

Holding: Court ruled that her general words of encouragement during the assault were enough for a conviction

Question 29

United States v. Cruz

Answer 29

(Accomplice Liability - Mens Rea)

Facts: Defendant hired to support a man’s “business deal.” Defendant claimed he was not aware of the nature of the deal, drove boss away from the deal, and then was busted by DEA.

Holding: An aiding and abetting conviction must be based on evidence that the defendant had the specific intent to achieve the underlying crime committed by another person.

Question 30

Vermont v. Trombley

Answer 30

(Purposely)

Facts: Defendant charged with aggravated assault for knocking victim’s teeth out by repeatedly punching him

Holding: The defendant charged with purposely causing serious bodily injury. Purposefully: You wanted what happened to happen, aware of what you’re doing and have conscious objective

Question 31

Holloway v. United States

Answer 31

(Purposely - Conditional Intent)

Facts: Defendant conducted carjacking; claimed he did not intend to use the gun, everyone complied

Holding: The intent element is satisfied if the defendant possesses the requisite intent only upon the happening of a condition; the condition being that if someone resisted, Holloway would’ve used gun

Question 32

United States v. Youts

Answer 32

(Knowingly)

Facts: Defendant decided to drive a train home and crashed the train

Holding: Terminology willfulness in statutes is often best understood as a knowledge requirement. Defendant acted knowingly with respect to the material element of this offense. Change willingly to knowingly b/c the definitions fit – reasonable person would think sending a train backward they would be practically certain that something would happen to the train

Question 33

United States v. Pierotti

Answer 33

(Knowingly - Willful Blindness)

Facts: Defendant changed his response on an ATF form to purchase weapon; history of domestic abuse

Holding: Changing the correct answer to the wrong answer demonstrated either direct knowledge of or deliberate avoidance of the truth

Question 34

People v. Shannon

Answer 34

(Larceny - Conditional Intent - Sufficiency of the Evidence)

Facts: Defendant put clothes in a bag in store and planned to return them for a profit. Contended this wasn’t theft as she intended to return the clothes to the store.

Holding: Theft under false pretenses. Intended to return the clothes conditionally; still stealing money instead of the clothes (purpose was to sell them back to store and keep the money)

Question 35

Patterson v. State

Answer 35

(Abandonement/Renunciation)

Facts: Attempted to enter the home of an elderly woman at night. Broke glass and alerted her. Hid behind the house after realizing cops were coming, claimed he abandoned burglary before it started

Holding: Court found this was not abandonment; only left when there was the threat of being caught; was still in close proximity

Question 36

State v. Harvill

Answer 36

(Duress)

Facts: Buyer contacted Harvill to purchase cocaine. Buyer worked with him and heard him bragging of smashing a bottle over someone’s head causing brain damage; received multiple calls; had nearly broke his brothers arm before; size difference; stabbed someone. Claimed he felt forced to go through with the sale

Holding: The affirmative defense of duress is appropriate when there is a direct or indirect threat of immediate bodily harm to an individual who reasonably believes the threat will be carried out if he does not perform an illegal act.

Question 37

Jacobson v. United States

Answer 37

(Entrapment - Subjective Predisposition)

Facts: Jacobson accidentally received child pornography in the mail before it was illegal, prompted investigation The government fabricated a number of fake organizations condoning CP and attempted to solicit membership from Jacobson. Jacobson responded and requested magazines.

Ruling: In order to convict an individual of a crime after the government intervenes, the government bears the burden of proof to prove that a defendant is predisposed to violate the law before the government intervened. Only evidence was the letters and brochures sent by the government.

Question 38

People v. Moore

Answer 38

(Entrapment - Objective Approach)

Facts: defendant sold pills to an acquaintance. Acquiantance was acting as an informant for the police. Moore charged with two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. Moore testified that he felt he was under pressure to sell the drugs. Moore said he was telephoned him two times per week for about one month asking to purchase the pills.

Holding: Since defendant’s sale to informant was regular prior to investigation, defendant was already predisposed to commit the crime. No evidence ofcoercionor no close relationship between the two.