MBE Crim Flashcards
(8 cards)
Which of the following is NOT an accurate statement of the law?
A) A foreseeable intervening event will not supersede and break the chain of causation
B) Dependent interventions will not supersede unless they are a totally abnormal response to the defendant’s act
C) Coincidental interventions will not supersede the defendant’s responsibility except when an independent intervening force was foreseeable.
D) An intervening event will not break the chain of causation if the defendant’s actions were the substantial contributing cause of harm
D) An intervening event will not break the chain of causation if the defendant’s actions were the substantial contributing cause of harm
NOTE: This is not an accurate statement of the law. “Substantial factor” speaks to actual cause (cause-in-fact), which precedes the proximate cause analysis. Intervening events break the chain of proximate cause, which must be shown even if actual cause is present.
What is required to show CONCURRENCE?
Concurrence requires the prosecution to prove that the act that caused the criminal result was actuated (set in motion) by the requisite criminal state of mind.
Which of the following is a valid defense to a charge of ASSAULT?
A) There was no intent to commit a battery.
B) The victim was unaware of the attempted battery.
C) The victim only experienced a reasonable apprehension of harm, but not an actual physical harm.
D) The defendant was not presently able to commit the battery.
A) There was no intent to commit a battery
NOTE: A defendant commits criminal assault by attempting to commit a battery or intentionally causing the victim to fear an immediate battery. Because assault is a specific-intent crime, this would be a valid defense.
Which of the following does NOT require the mens rea intent to permanently deprive?
A) Larceny by taking
B) Embezzlement
C) False Pretenses
D) Larceny by Trick
C) False Pretenses
NOTE: False pretenses requires a showing of intent to defraud, rather than the intent to permanently deprive.
Once a solicitation is communicated, may the solicitor withdraw from the solicitation?
NO — The offense is complete once the solicitation is made. Once the solicitation is communicated, the solicitor cannot withdraw from the solicitation.
What is the key difference between the COMMON LAW and the MODERN MAJORITY RULE when it comes to the crime of CONSPIRACY?
The modern majority rule requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
NOTE: Similarities between the two include:
A) The CL requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime
B) The CL does not follow the Pinkerton Doctrine
C) The modern majority rule does not recognize the Wharton rule
Which of the following is an accurate statement?
A) Accomplice liability is not a standalone offense
B) An accomplice will not be charged as a principal offender, but will be prosecuted on a lesser charge than the one who committed the offense
C) A provider of services who has knowledge that he is assisting in the commission of a crime and benefits from it can be charged as a conspirator
D) An accomplice may assert a defense that he did not expect the crime to occur
A) Accomplice liability is NOT a STANDALONE offense
NOTE: Accomplice liability is NOT an offense. Rather, it is a way to link an accomplice to a crime committed by someone else. An accomplice is generally charged as if they were the principal (the one who committed the crime).
What are the recognized tests to determine INSANITY as an excuse of lack of mental responsibility?
A) The M’Naghten test (FLORIDA)
B) The Durham product test
C) The substantial capacity test
NOTE: NOT the Hinkley Reform Act; there is no such thing. However, the Insanity Reform Act of 1984 was passed to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant to prove insanity.
