CRIMINAL LAW

Question 1

What constitutes larceny?

Answer 1

The defendant creates a substantial risk the victim will be permanently deprived of personal property, including through destruction or theft

Question 2

How is embezzlement broader than larceny?

Answer 2

Embezzlement covers misappropriation of both personal and real property, while larceny traditionally only applies to personal property

Question 3

What must a defendant prove in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim?

Answer 3

(1) Counsel was ineffective; and
(2) a different outcome would have resulted with effective counsel.

Question 4

When is mistake of law a valid defense to a crime?

Answer 4

Where a defendant relies in good faith upon an erroneous official statement of law contained in an administrative order or in an official interpretation by a public officer or department

Question 5

What must a defendant demonstrate to have standing under the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 5

A reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or the item seized.

Question 6

What type of evidence does the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protect individuals from being compelled to disclose?

Answer 6

Communicative evidence, in contrast to physical evidence, which an individual can be compelled to disclose

Question 7

What is the burden of proof the government must meet to show the admissibility of evidence upon a motion to suppress?

Answer 7

The government must show admissibility of the proffered evidence by a preponderance of the evidence.

Question 8

What must the government prove upon a motion to suppress evidence?

Answer 8

The government must show the admissibility of the proffered evidence by a preponderance of the evidence.

Question 9

What constitutes voluntary manslaughter in cases of provocation?

Answer 9

A homicide may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant acted due to an objectively reasonable provocation, such as witnessing infidelity.

Question 10

What are the requirements for a presumed fact to be submitted to the jury in a criminal case?

Answer 10

The presumed fact must be provable beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence as a whole, according to the Revised Uniform Rule of Evidence 303(b).

Question 11

What is the definition of criminal battery?

Answer 11

The unlawful application of force to another person resulting in bodily harm or offensive touching.

Question 12

What does “knowingly” mean in a criminal statute?

Answer 12

It means the defendant is actually aware of the facts or circumstances required to commit the crime

Question 13

When is an individual criminally liable as an accomplice?

Answer 13

When they assist, encourage, or fail to act where legally required, with the intent to aid the commission of a crime.

Question 14

What is felony murder, and when is a defendant guilty of it?

Answer 14

Felony murder is an unintentional killing that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a serious or inherently dangerous felony (e.g., burglary, arson, robbery, rape, or kidnapping—”BARRK”). For felony murder liability, the resulting death must be a foreseeable outgrowth of the defendant’s actions. Courts generally apply this foreseeability requirement broadly, and most deaths during the commission of a felony are considered foreseeable. Even if the death occurs during the defendant’s flight from the scene, they may still be guilty.

However, under the Redline limitation, a felon is not guilty of felony murder if the killing is justifiable, such as when a co-felon is killed by the police or victim. For example, if a police officer shoots and kills a co-felon, the surviving felon is not criminally liable for the death.

Question 15

📌 What distinguishes robbery from other forms of larceny, and why is there no robbery in this case?

Answer 15

✅ Robbery Definition:

Larceny from the victim’s person or presence.
Accomplished by force or threats of force.
✅ Why No Robbery in This Case?

The force (bump) was not used to take the senior executive’s property.
The intent to take the map formed after the senior executive’s death.
Key Rule: Force must facilitate the taking, not be incidental to it.

Question 16

📌 What are the elements of arson at common law, and why has the friend committed both arson and larceny in this case?

Answer 16

✅ Elements of Arson (Common Law):

Malicious (or intentional) act
Burning
Of a dwelling
Of another
✅ Modern Rule Expansion:

Arson now includes the burning of personal property of another.
✅ Why Arson and Larceny in This Case?

The friend set fire to the man’s television, which constitutes burning personal property and thus arson.
By destroying the television, the friend permanently deprives the man of its use, committing larceny.

Question 17

📌 What constitutes solicitation, and why might the woman’s intoxication be a defense to the charge?

Answer 17

✅ Definition of Solicitation:

Solicitation is when one requests another to commit a crime.
The solicitor must have specific intent for the solicitee to perform criminal acts.
The offense is complete as soon as the solicitation is made.
✅ Intoxication as a Possible Defense:

The woman’s intoxication could negate specific intent, which is required for solicitation.
If she was intoxicated, she might not have realized that breaking into someone else’s car was a crime, potentially making her not guilty of solicitation.

Question 18

📌 What is the strongest argument for the defendant’s acquittal in the larceny case involving the raincoat?

Answer 18

✅ The defendant lacked the requisite state of mind (intent to steal).

Larceny requires the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property, either permanently or for an unreasonable length of time.
Here, the defendant did not intend to steal the other patron’s raincoat; he took it by mistake, and upon realizing the error, he immediately returned it to the restaurant.
Therefore, the defendant lacked the intent to steal and did not meet the necessary mental state to be convicted of larceny.

Question 19

📌 What crime is the defendant guilty of when he sold oregano to an undercover police officer, pretending it was marijuana?

Answer 19

✅ False pretenses

False pretenses involves:
False representation of a material fact by the defendant.
This representation causes the victim to pass title to the property to the defendant.
The defendant knows the representation is false.
The defendant intends to defraud the victim.
In this case, the defendant knowingly sold oregano as marijuana with the intent to defraud the undercover officer.
Thus, the defendant is guilty of false pretenses.

Question 20

📌 Can the gardener be convicted of attempted murder despite the fact that the groundskeeper was not actually inside the scarecrow?

Answer 20

✔️ Yes, because factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt.

Attempted murder consists of two elements:
Specific intent to kill (here, the gardener intended to kill the groundskeeper).
A substantial overt act toward committing the crime (here, the gardener brought a gun and shot at the scarecrow).
The gardener’s belief that the groundskeeper was inside the scarecrow and his actions of shooting at it show his intent to commit murder.
Factual impossibility (the groundskeeper not actually being inside the scarecrow) is not a valid defense to attempt.
Therefore, the gardener can be convicted of attempted murder.

Question 21

📌 Should the court sustain the defense’s objection to testimony about the defendant’s reputation for veracity, and why or why not?

Answer 21

✅ Court Should Not Sustain the Objection:

The fact that the defendant testified at trial makes her truthfulness an issue in the case.
Because the defendant’s veracity is relevant to the charge of perjury, the reputation for truthfulness becomes admissible.
✅ Why the Testimony Is Admissible:

The prosecution can introduce evidence about the defendant’s reputation for veracity because the defendant’s testimony has placed her truthfulness in question.

Question 22

📌 Can the bartender be charged with embezzlement for taking cash that belonged to the bar, even though she had lawful possession of it at the time of sale?

Answer 22

✔️ Yes, the bartender can be charged with embezzlement.

Embezzlement occurs when a person lawfully possesses another’s property and misappropriates or converts it for their own use.
In this case, the bartender was in lawful possession of the bar’s money upon the sale of each drink but took the money for herself, interfering with the bar’s ownership.
Conversion of the money is what makes her actions embezzlement.
Test tip: Employees who steal money from employers can often be charged with embezzlement if they have lawful possession of the property and misappropriate it for personal use.

Question 23

Should the partner be found guilty of common law burglary?

Answer 23

No, the partner should not be found guilty of common law burglary. At common law, burglary required breaking and entering into another’s dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony. “Breaking” required the defendant to create an opening. Here, the CEO left his bedroom window open, and the partner merely reached through it. Since she did not create an opening, there was no “breaking” under common law, meaning she cannot be convicted of burglary.

Question 24

A defendant is on trial for conspiracy to commit bank robbery. As part of her case-in-chief, the prosecutor offers into evidence the grand jury testimony of a witness who gave incriminating testimony about the defendant before the grand jury, but who has since died prior to trial. The prosecutor offers the original stenographic record of the witness’s sworn testimony before the grand jury. The defense counsel objects. Should the court admit the testimony?

Answer 24

No, because the witness’s grand jury testimony is hearsay not within an exception.
Prior grand jury testimony does not fall within the exception for former testimony because the party against whom the testimony is offered (the defendant here) did not have a full opportunity to and similar motive in examining the witness before the grand jury. During grand jury proceedings, the defendant is not afforded any opportunity to examine witnesses or otherwise present evidence, and the proceedings are controlled by the prosecutor. Therefore, the grand jury testimony does not meet the criteria for admissibility under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule.

Question 25

A reporter was contacted by a representative of the State Department who indicated that the Secretary of State desired his assistance. The representative indicated that the Secretary of State had provided oral assurances that anything discussed with the reporter would be privileged and all of the reporter's work on behalf of the Secretary of State would be privileged. The reporter agreed to help. The representative asked the reporter for assistance in hacking into the cell phones of several foreign ambassadors. The reporter agreed to do so and broke several federal laws in carrying out the work on behalf of the State Department. The representative was later arrested and put on trial, and the prosecution called the reporter to the stand to testify as to his activities on behalf of the State Department. The reporter refuses to take the stand. May the court compel the reporter to take the stand?

Answer 25

Yes, because he is not a defendant at the trial. Although the reporter has a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, he cannot refuse to take the stand unless he is the defendant in the trial. As a witness, the reporter may refuse to answer specific questions that could incriminate him, but he cannot refuse to testify altogether. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination in responses, but it does not protect a witness from being compelled to take the stand. Therefore, the court can compel the reporter to testify.

Question 26

Can the chemist be convicted of attempted arson?

Answer 26

No, because the chemist intended only to vandalize the house, not burn it. While arson requires only malice, which can include recklessness, attempt crimes require specific intent to bring about the criminal result. Since the chemist did not have the intent to burn the house, he cannot be convicted of attempted arson. However, if his actions had accidentally ignited the gasoline and burned the house, he could potentially be guilty of arson.

Question 27

In which of the following situations would the defendant be found not guilty by reason of insanity under the M'Naghten rule?

Answer 27

The correct answer is:A defendant suffered from schizophrenia. He had a delusion that the victim was trying to kill him. Under the mistaken belief that he was acting in self-defense, the defendant stabbed the victim to death. Discussion of correct answer:The M'Naghten test provides that a defendant is entitled to acquittal "if at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act that he was doing, or if he did know it, he did not know what he was doing was wrong." This answer choice presents a scenario where the defendant could claim a valid insanity defense under the M'Naghten rule, because if the facts were as the defendant believed them to be, he would have been acting in self-defense, making his actions not criminal.

Question 28

A man was sleeping in his bed when he was awoken at 3 AM by his home stereo system being played at full-blast. He received a video call on his cell phone from an employee at the high-tech surveillance firm owned by the man. The employee, who was at his own home miles away, explained that he had hacked into the man's security system and home media network and was thus controlling everything in the man's house. The man asked him why he was doing this, and the employee explained that he was going to release poisonous gas into the man's home, then take over the firm, but that he would enjoy watching the man squirm for the next hour before releasing the gas. As the employee finished his explanation, he let out a diabolical laugh. Just then an engine accidentally detached from an airplane flying high over the man's house and fell onto the house, and onto the man, still in his bed, killing him instantly. Is the employee guilty of murder?

Answer 28

The correct answer is:No, because the man's death was the result of an intervening cause. Discussion of correct answer:While the employee certainly intended to kill the man and had taken numerous steps to effectuate the man's death, he did not actually cause the man's death, as the man died from the falling jet engine, which is an independent intervening cause. In such a case, the employee will not be guilty of murder (although he will be guilty of attempted murder). As a test tip, the test often wants to use your emotions to trick you into picking the wrong answer. Clearly the defendant is a bad person but he can not be guilty of murder if his action did not in any way cause the man's death.

Question 29

An instructor was arrested and charged with attempted rape. He pled not guilty and asserted an alibi defense. At trial, the victim testified that the alleged perpetrator smelled as if he hadn't showered in months and wore dirty clothes. The prosecution then proffered the testimony of a witness who stated that a week before the instructor was arrested, he tried to force his way into her apartment, and she noticed that he smelled as if he hadn't showered in months and wore dirty clothes. Should the trial court admit the witness's testimony over the instructor's objection?

Answer 29

Yes, because the evidence suggests that the instructor was the person who committed the attempted rape. Discussion of correct answer:Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the past crimes or other wrongful acts of defendant are admissible as circumstantial proof of an element of the charged crime, such as motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or common scheme or plan (sometimes known as the "MIMIC" rule). In a jury trial, the trial judge must carefully consider whether the risk of undue prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the past crimes or wrongful conduct evidence. All "MIMIC" character evidence is in the form of specific acts (as opposed to reputation or opinion evidence). Here, the proffered evidence is relevant on the issue of identity. If the instructor is shown to have smelled as if he hadn't showered in months and worn dirty clothes during the alleged attempted break in to the witness's apartment, it tends to make it more likely that he is the person who attempted to rape the victim in the present prosecution.

Question 30

A woman heard a sound coming from her back porch. Curious, she approached the back door. A man wearing a ski mask was standing in her home pointing a knife in her general direction. The woman remarked, "Joey, I know it's you. If you need money, you could have just asked me instead of pulling this stunt." The man angrily grabbed a gold watch sitting on the dryer next to the back door and left the house. The woman called the police and reported the incident. The man was charged with robbery. Will the man be convicted of robbery?

Answer 30

is:No, because the woman did not actually fear the man's threat of violence. Discussion of correct answer:Robbery includes all of the elements of larceny, with two additional requirements: (1) the taking must be from the person or presence of the victim (meaning an area within the victim's control); and (2) the taking must be accomplished by actual force or violence or by intimidation or the threat of violence. However, where robbery is based only on the threat of violence, the threat must place the victim in actual fear at the time of the taking. Here, the man accompanied his taking only with a threat of violence (i.e., the holding of a knife pointed in her general direction); thus, his threat must have placed the woman in actual fear at the time of the taking. Because the woman clearly was not in any fear of the man's threats, the man did not commit robbery.

Question 31

A landlord of an apartment building received frequent complaints about a tenant who often had loud, all-night parties and who was rude to other residents in the common areas of the building. The landlord successfully pursued an eviction proceeding but the tenant refused to vacate and the police failed to intervene. The landlord decided to pump a massive amount of pesticide into the tenant's apartment through the air conditioning duct, knowing that the highly poisonous chemicals would drive the tenant out, as staying in the apartment would be deadly. Nevertheless, the tenant stayed in the apartment, although he did become quite ill and was eventually taken to the hospital. He remained sick as the pesticide slowly poisoned his body. Two years later, the tenant died as a result of the slow-working effects of the pesticide. This jurisdiction follows all of the traditional common law rules. If the landlord is charged with common law murder, what is his best defense?

Answer 31

The victim died two years after the act that caused his death. Discussion of correct answer:Although the landlord's act of pumping the pesticide into the apartment was the factual cause of the tenant's death, at common law, if the victim died more than one year and one day after the defendant's act, the courts would rule that the defendant's act was not the proximate cause of the killing. Note that most states have eliminated this rule or have extended the period within which the defendant is held legally responsible. However, the question specifies that this jurisdiction follows all of the traditional common law rules, which would include the year-and-a-day rule.

Question 32

After a long, drawn-out divorce from his wife, a husband was extremely angered at the judge's distribution of the marital assets. The wife had been awarded the house, both cars, the dogs, and custody of their two children. The husband decided that because he had lost everything in the divorce, it was only fair that his ex-wife should suffer just as much as he had. One night, when he expected his ex-wife and the children to be out, he entered her house with the intent of burning it to the ground. He had just begun pouring lighter fluid over the living room floor when he heard a noise from the kitchen. Startled, he fled the house, jumped into his car, and drove away as fast as he could. While speeding down a road about a block away from the house, a 10-year-old boy rode by on a bike. Distracted from the events of the evening, the husband did not notice the boy. His car struck the boy head-on, killing the boy instantly. Of what crime, if any, is the husband likely to be convicted with regard to the killing of the 10-year-old boy?

Answer 32

The correct answer is:Felony murder. Discussion of correct answer:When one causes the death of another during the commission of a dangerous felony or the immediate flight therefrom, he is guilty of felony murder. The felony is deemed to have terminated only when the defendant has reached a place of temporary safety. Here, the husband was fleeing from his attempted arson (an inherently dangerous felony) at the time that his car struck the boy and had not yet reached a place of temporary safety. As such, the husband is guilty of felony murder

Question 33

A chef was prosecuted under a state statute that made it a felony punishable by three to five years in state prison to "transport contraband into a state prison facility." The statutory definition of contraband included any food substance containing more than one percent alcohol. The chef had taken a box of rum-flavored chocolates to her husband, an inmate at a state prison, during her annual conjugal visit. The chef testified that she was unaware that the chocolates actually contained rum and that their alcohol content was five percent by weight. What should be the outcome of the chef's prosecution?

Answer 33

The correct answer is: Acquittal, if the chef's testimony is believed. Discussion of correct answer :Whether a statute defines a public welfare offense, and thus may impose criminal liability without faultor a finding of criminal intent, is determined by a number of factors, including the severity of the punishment provided for violation ofthe statute. The more severe the punishment, the more likely that the statute will be construed as requiring a showing of criminalintent or fault. Here, bringing contraband into the prison results in a felony conviction with three to five years imprisonment, a quitesevere punishment. It is unlikely that any court would construe this statute as a public welfare law imposing liability without fault.Thus, because the chef did not know that she was transporting contraband into the prison by bringing in rum-flavored chocolates,she did not have the requisite mental state for a conviction of violating the statute.

Question 34

The defendant was at a bowling alley with his girlfriend. The group bowling on the next alley became loud and obnoxious. The defendant asked then to quiet down and to refrain from using vulgar language. A man from the group then told the defendant to mind his own business. The defendant began to walk toward the man to try to reason with him. The defendant saw the man reach into his pocket and take something out. Believing it to be a knife, the defendant pulled his own knife and stabbed the man in the arm. The object that the man took from his pocket turned out to be a shoehorn that he used to put on his bowling shoes. Before the ambulance arrived, the man bled to death. This jurisdiction recognizes imperfect self-defense. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder. Of which of the following crimes may the defendant be convicted?

Answer 34

The correct answer is:Voluntary manslaughter. Discussion of correct answer:A defendant is guilty of voluntary manslaughter under two possible circumstances--where there is an intentional death resulting from either: (1) mistaken (imperfect) self-defense; or (2) adequate provocation. Here, the defendant was mistaken in his belief that deadly force was about to be used against him by the man. Put another way, he did not have a reasonable belief that deadly force was about to be used against him. Therefore, he cannot rely on the defense of self-defense, but can rely on imperfect self-defense. As a result, he is guilty of voluntary manslaughter.