Criminal Law FL Distinctions Flashcards Preview

Bar Rules > Criminal Law FL Distinctions > Flashcards

Flashcards in Criminal Law FL Distinctions Deck (19)
Loading flashcards...
1

Under Florida Law, common law crimes:

A Are retained implicitly through case law.

B Have been abolished expressly.

C Are retained by an express retention statute.

D Have been abolished implicitly by enactment of the criminal code.

C Are retained by an express retention statute.

Florida follows the majority rule, which retains common law crimes. Florida has always had a retention statute, retaining the common law crimes where there is no existing provision by statute on the subject.

2

In Florida, can an accessory before the fact be found guilty of the criminal offense?

A Yes, because Florida has abolished the distinction between a principal and an accessory before the fact.

B Yes, but only if the principal has also been convicted of the criminal offense.

C No, an accessory before the fact cannot be found guilty of the criminal offense.

D No, only principals can be found guilty of the criminal offense.

A Yes, because Florida has abolished the distinction between a principal and an accessory before the fact.

Yes. Florida has abolished the distinction between a principal and an accessory before the fact. Therefore, both can be found guilty of the criminal offense because they are both parties to the crime.

3

Where the principal committed an offense against a child, the principal’s sister, who later helps him cover up his crimes, is:

A An accessory after the fact, if the crime was committed in her home.

B Not an accessory after the fact, because by statute a close relative is exempt from punishment.

C An accessory after the fact, unless the court finds that the principal’s sister was forced to help through acts of domestic violence.

D Not an accessory after the fact, because she was not involved in the initial criminal act.

C An accessory after the fact, unless the court finds that the principal’s sister was forced to help through acts of domestic violence.

Pursuant to Florida law, close relatives of the principal offender are exempt from punishment as an accessory after the fact, unless the principal committed a capital, life, first-degree or second-degree felony. Regardless of the relationship to the other person, however, any person who assists another, knowing that the other person has committed an offense against a child and with the intent that the other person avoids punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.

4

The accused solicited another person to commit a felony. However, after the solicitation occurred, the accused had a change of heart, and she persuaded the other person not to commit the crime. Is the accused guilty of criminal solicitation?

A Yes, because once the solicitation has been made, the solicitor is guilty.

B No, as long as the circumstances show that the accused completely and voluntarily renounced the criminal purpose.

C No, because the felony was not committed by the other person or the accused.

D Yes, because the circumstances show a criminal mindset on the part of the accused.

B No, as long as the circumstances show that the accused completely and voluntarily renounced the criminal purpose.

No. The accused is not guilty of criminal solicitation because Florida law provides a defense in circumstances where the accused, after having solicited another person to commit an offense, then persuades the other person not to commit the offense or otherwise prevents its commission. This defense is available where the circumstances manifest a complete and voluntary renunciation of the criminal purpose by the accused.

5

When is a conspiracy complete under Florida law?

A When the co-conspirators all agree and show the intent to commit the crime.

B When one of the co-conspirators commits an act in preparation to commit the crime.

C When all of the co-conspirators jointly commit an act in preparation to commit the crime.

D When the crime is committed.

A When the co-conspirators all agree and show the intent to commit the crime.

Florida law does not require an overt act to complete the crime of conspiracy. Therefore, a conspiracy is deemed complete when the agreement with the requisite intent is reached.

6

In Florida, is the defendant required to provide notice of an insanity defense?

A No, the defendant is not required to provide notice of any planned defenses.

B No, the defendant is not required to provide notice of an insanity defense.

C No, the defendant is not required to provide notice pursuant to the M’Naghten Rule.

D Yes, the defendant must provide notice of his intent to rely on an insanity defense.

D Yes, the defendant must provide notice of his intent to rely on an insanity defense.

Yes. Florida law requires the defendant to give notice of his intent to rely on an insanity defense.

7

When a party seeks to provide evidence of a defendant’s sanity, must expert testimony be used?

A Yes, Florida law requires proof of sanity only by a recognized expert witness’s testimony or report.

B No, Florida law permits nonexpert evidence to be used to prove a defendant’s sanity.

C Yes, Florida law requires proof of sanity by a recognized expert witness’s testimony or report if the defendant has relied on expert testimony to prove insanity.

D No, Florida law does not permit the use of expert testimony for proving a defendant’s sanity.

B No, Florida law permits nonexpert evidence to be used to prove a defendant’s sanity.

No, evidence of a defendant’s sanity does not need to be provided by an expert witness. Florida allows introduction of nonexpert evidence of a defendant’s sanity.

8

Under Florida law, failing to disclose or report the knowledge of a commission of a felony:

A Is a misdemeanor.
B Is punished according to the felony committed.
C Is not a crime.
D Is punished on a case-by-case basis.

C Is not a crime.

Under Florida law, misprision of a felony – the failure by someone other than a principal or accessory before the fact to disclose or report knowledge of the commission of a felony – is not a crime.

9

When evaluating a claim of perjury, under Florida law, materiality:

A Is a statutory element of the crime.

B Is a question of fact for the jury.

C Is a threshold question of law for the court prior to trial.

D Is not taken into consideration.

C Is a threshold question of law for the court prior to trial.

Under Florida law, materiality is a threshold question of law for the court to decide prior to trial. It is not a statutory element of the crime of perjury and thus is not a question of fact for the jury.

10

Which of the following is prima facie evidence of an element of burglary?

A Proof of stealthy entry without consent.

B Proof of stealthy entry, with or without consent.

C Proof that the owner of the dwelling or structure knew the defendant had entered.

D Proof that the defendant had never previously had permission to enter the building.

A Proof of stealthy entry without consent.

Proof of stealthy entry without consent constitutes prima facie evidence of entering with intent to commit an offense, and such intent is required to prove a charge of burglary.

11

Which of the following is a required element of burglary under Florida law?

A Breaking and entering.

B That the building in question is a dwelling.

C That the offense occurs during nighttime.

D None of the above is required.

D None of the above is required.

Florida has modified the common law definition of burglary by statute. Florida has eliminated the breaking, entry, dwelling, nighttime, and felony requirements. Burglary is: (1) entering a dwelling, structure, or conveyance, with intent to commit an offense therein, unless premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter; or (2) remaining surreptitiously with intent to commit offense therein; remaining after permission to remain has been withdrawn with intent to commit an offense therein; or remaining to commit or attempt to commit a forcible felony.

12

Which of the following offenses have been replaced by a general theft statute in Florida? (Select all that apply)

A Receiving stolen property.
B Larceny.
C Embezzlement.
D Robbery.

A, B, & C.

Florida has abrogated larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, and receiving stolen property, and has replaced these offenses with a broad general theft statute. Theft is a modern statutory crime, and not a traditional common law offense.

13

When must the state commence a prosecution of a felony that results in death?

A Within one year from the infliction of injury.

B Within one year and one day from the infliction of injury.

C Within one year and one day from the death of the victim.

D There is no time limit for commencing the prosecution.

D There is no time limit for commencing the prosecution.

Florida provides no time limit for commencing the prosecution of a felony that results in a death, and has accordingly abolished the common law “year and a day” rule.

14

All of the following are elements of assault under Florida law, except:

A An apparent ability to do violence to the person of another.

B An attempt to commit a battery.

C An unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another.

D An act that creates a well-founded fear in another person that violence is imminent.

B An attempt to commit a battery.

In Florida, assault in an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent. Florida does not follow the minority rule, which finds that assault is limited to an attempt to commit a battery.

15

What test will Florida courts generally apply to determine whether entrapment has occurred?

A An objective test, where the defendant is entitled to acquittal where the police activity is reasonably likely to cause an innocent person to commit the crime.

B A balancing test, where the court balances the extent of the police involvement against the defendant’s level of intent.

C A subjective test, where the court determines whether the method of inducement creates a substantial risk that an innocent person will commit the crime.

D A preponderance of the evidence test, where the defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant did not initially intend to commit the crime.

C A subjective test, where the court determines whether the method of inducement creates a substantial risk that an innocent person will commit the crime.

Generally, when evaluating a defense of entrapment, Florida employs a subjective test of whether the method of inducement creates a substantial risk that the crime will be committed by a person other than one who is ready to commit it. However, where egregious law enforcement conduct is present, the entrapment defense must be objectively reviewed under due process provisions.

16

Nondeadly force may be used to resist arrest. True or False?

A False, using any force to resist arrest by one who reasonably appears to be a police officer is prohibited.

B True, if the person being arrested believes the arrest to be improper.

C True, but only if the officer making the arrest is easily identified as a police officer.

D False, where the crime allegedly committed is a felony.

A False, using any force to resist arrest by one who reasonably appears to be a police officer is prohibited.

False. Florida prohibits using force to resist arrest by one who is known or reasonably appears to be a law enforcement officer.

17

Under Florida law, in which scenario would A be permitted to use deadly force against B?

A Where A finds out from B’s associate that B plans to rob a bank the following week.

B Where A believes that he is defending his store from protesters.

C Where B is trespassing on the land by A’s home, with the intent to take a short cut to another location.

D Where A attempts to keep B from entering a bank where B intends to commit a robbery.

D Where A attempts to keep B from entering a bank where B intends to commit a robbery.

Florida permits the use of deadly force in defense of property other than a dwelling to prevent imminent commission of a forcible felony. Forcible felonies include treason, murder, robbery, burglary, arson, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, aircraft piracy, bombing, and any other felony involving use or threat of physical violence against any person.

18

Florida permits the use of deadly force in self-defense in all of the following instances, EXCEPT:

A To prevent a felony from being committed in a home.

B Where the individual is part of the criminal enterprise.

C To defend property other than a home from imminent commission of a forcible felony.

D In defense of others.

B Where the individual is part of the criminal enterprise.

Under Florida law, an individual is permitted to use deadly force in self-defense, in defense of others, to prevent commission of a felony in a dwelling, and in defense of a property other than a dwelling to prevent imminent commission of a forcible felony.

19

Under Florida law, voluntary intoxication is admissible as a defense to show the defendant lacked the specific intent necessary to commit an offense. True or false?

A True. Voluntary intoxication evidence may be offered as a defense where the defendant is charged with a specific intent crime.

B False. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any crime.

C True. Voluntary intoxication evidence may be offered as a defense where the defendant is charged with a crime of negligence.

D True. Voluntary intoxication evidence may be offered as a defense where the defendant is charged with a crime of strict liability.

B False. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any crime.

False. Florida law holds that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any offense proscribed by law, and is not admissible to show that the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit an offense or that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense. The only exception to this rule is where consumption or use of a controlled substance was pursuant to a lawful prescription issued to defendant by a practitioner.