GOULD’S “MCQ’s in the MORNING” Multiple Choice · PDF...

GOULD’S “MCQ’s in the MORNING”Multiple Choice Program:

CRIMINAL LAW QUESTIONS, 61-70

© 2012 GOULD’S, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


61. Isaac gave Cassia his computer to use over the weekend. Cassia said that she would return the computer by Sunday afternoon. Cassia did not return the computer on Sunday, and on Monday morning, Isaac pried open Cassia’s back door to her house, walked into Cassia’s den, and took the computer, while then walking away with the computer.

If Isaac is charged with burglary, in a jurisdiction that does not follow the common law, what is the likely result?

A. Not guilty, because Isaac was re-taking his own property. B. Not guilty, because Cassia had given her implied consent for Isaac to take back his computer.C. Guilty, because Isaac broke and entered Cassia’s home with the intent to take personal property.D. Guilty, because Isaac asported the computer more than one step.


61. CORRECT ANSWER: A.

In this instance, Isaac gave his consent to Cassia touse his computer, but only until Sundayafternoon. After that time period, Isaac had aright to re-take his property / computer.Therefore, when Isaac broke into Cassia’shome to re-take his computer, he did not have aspecific intent to commit a crime, and thereforeIsaac would likely be found not guilty ofburglary, which requires an intent to commit acrime within a structure.


62. Mark used an unwieldy blowtorch to gain entrance into Cindy’s house, in his effort to commit a larceny. Assume that Cindy’s back door caught fire, and was damaged, and that Cindy’s kitchen suffered smoke damage.

If Mark is charged with arson in a common law jurisdiction, what is the likely result?

A. Not guilty, because arson is a specific intent crime. B. Not guilty, because no part of the house was burnt.C. Guilty, because there was smoke damage to the kitchen, and the door was burnt.D. Guilty, because Mark acted with willful and wanton recklessness.


62. CORRECT ANSWER: B.

Common law arson requires that defendant cause firedamage to the structural elements of the dwellinghouse of another, with intent to cause fire damage, orthrough willful and wanton recklessness that creates asubstantial likelihood of burning. In this instance, thedoor caught fire, and was damaged, and there wassmoke damage to the kitchen. However, there was nocharring of the structural elements of Cindy’s house,and therefore it is unlikely that Mark would beconvicted of arson.


63. Amy used a gun that did not have bullets to “hold-up” Ben. When Amy held the gun up, and requested Ben’s wallet, Ben gave Amy his wallet.

Assume that Amy is charged with robbery. What is the likely result?

A. Not guilty, because the lack of bullets indicates lack of force or threat of force. B. Guilty, because of the deadly weapon doctrine.C. Not guilty, because a reasonable person would not be scared by a gun without bullets.D. Guilty, if Ben was scared when he gave Amy his wallet.


63. CORRECT ANSWER: D.

Robbery is a viable charge where a larceny is enactedthrough force or threat of force in the presence of avictim, and where the victim parts with theirproperty because of fear. In this instance, if Benparted with his wallet because he was afraid of thepotential danger from Amy, then robbery would be aviable charge.


64. Rob pretended as though he was a carpet salesman, but he really wanted to take Sue’s silverware. He knocked on Sue’s door to her house, and asked Sue if he could come in and show her some carpet samples. Sue agreed. After Rob was in Sue’s home, he took some of Sue’s silverware when Sue was not looking.

Assume that Rob is charged with burglary in a jurisdiction that does not follow the common law. What is the likely result?

A. Guilty, because he took the personal property of Sue. B. Not guilty, because he did not break and enter.C. Not guilty, because Sue voluntarily let Rob into her home.D. Guilty, because of the constructive breaking and entering doctrine.



Constructive breaking and entering occurs where adefendant gains entry to another’s home through fraud.Where constructive breaking and entering is shown,traditional breaking and entering is not required asevidence of a burglary. In this situation, Rob pretended asthough he were a carpet salesman, in order to gain entryinto Sue’s house, in order to commit a larceny. Therefore,Rob will likely be found guilty of burglary due toconstructive breaking and entering.


65. Oscar did not know Sam. Sam threatened Oscar with a severe physical beating unless Oscar stole a watch from the jewelry store in less than ten minutes. Oscar stole a watch from the jewelry store in less than ten minutes, without using force, or threat of force.

Assume that the prosecution charges Oscar with larceny, is the prosecution likely to prevail?

A. No, because Oscar may use the defense of necessity. B. Yes, because duress in not available as a defense unless the defendant was threatened with deadly harm.C. No, because Oscar may use the defense of duress.D. No, because it is against public policy to bring a prosecution against a person that has been physically threatened.


65. CORRECT ANSWER: C.

Duress is a justification defense. Duress is a fulljustification to any offense except murder, if committedunder a threat by another person to kill or grievouslyinjure the defendant or a third person, where thedefendant believes the threat as genuine, impending, andwithout reasonable escape except through compliancewith the threat. Finally, the defendant must not be atfault in initially exposing themselves to the threat. In thissituation, Oscar was threatened with imminent physicalinjury from Sam, unless Oscar enacted a larceny. Thereare no facts indicating that Oscar was responsible forputting himself into a dangerous relationship with Sam,and therefore Oscar would likely assert a viable defenseof duress.


66. Paul went out drinking and became drunk. Then, Paul went up to Sam, and slugged Sam.Assume that Paul was charged with battery and defends on the premise that he was intoxicated.

What is the likely result?

A. Guilty, because Paul committed a battery. B. Not guilty, because Paul was intoxicated.C. Not guilty, because battery is a tort.D. Guilty, because Paul had the intent to commit a battery.


66. CORRECT ANSWER: A.

Intoxication may be a viable defense to a specificintent crime, such as a larceny, if the defendantcan show that they lacked the ability toformulate a specific intent to commit a crime,due to their intoxication. However, battery is ageneral intent crime, and intoxication is not aviable defense.


67. Marcia threatened Cindy with severe physical harm, unless Cindy took Greg’s wallet from his jacket that was hanging in a company closet. Cindy took Greg’s wallet.

Assume that Cindy and Marcia were both tried for larceny in separate trials, and Cindy was acquitted. May Marcia be convicted of larceny in a separate trial?

A. No, because Marcia did not take Greg’s wallet. B. Yes, because it is possible for a defendant to commit a crime through an innocent agent.C. No, because no intent to commit a crime was transferred from Cindy to Marcia D. Yes, because title passed when Cindy took Greg’s wallet.



A defendant may be guilty of an offense if shecommits the criminal act through the vehicle ofanother person, by causing that other personwho is an innocent instrumentality to engage inthe relevant criminal conduct. In this situation,Marcia caused Cindy to engage in criminalactivity, that Cindy would not have engaged inon her own. Therefore, even though Cindy wasnot convicted, Marcia may be convicted oflarceny.


68. David and Clark were friends. One day David asked Clark to help David with “chores,” to which Clark agreed. Unbeknownst to Clark, “chores” meant to load illicit contraband into a truck. Clark helped to load the illicit contraband into a truck. Assume that the above took place in a jurisdiction that does not follow the MPC definition of conspiracy. What is the likely result if Clark is charged with conspiracy?

A. Guilty, because two or more people enacted a criminal objective. B. Guilty, unless Clark effectively withdrew before committing the criminal act. C. Guilty, because Clark took an act in furtherance of a criminal objective.D. Not guilty, because there was no criminal agreement.



Most non-MPC jurisdictions require a criminal agreementto commit a criminal act between two or more people,and an act in furtherance of the criminal objective, inorder to find that a conspiracy existed. In this situation,Clark helped with a criminal objective, after Clark agreedto help David. However, Clark was not aware that hisactions to help David were in furtherance of a criminalobjective, and therefore no criminal agreement waspresent between two or more people. Without a suitablecriminal agreement, a conspiracy charge will fail.


69. City had a public ordinance against public littering, but no ordinance against public trespassing. Nevertheless, Tommie wanted to commit the crime of public trespass, and went downtown to the public park with the intent to trespass, and stayed in the park until 2:00 A.M.

What crime did Tommie commit?

A. Attempted public trespass. B. No crime, due to true legal impossibility.C. Public trespass. D. No crime, due to factual impossibility.



True legal impossibility applies when a person has thedesire to commit a crime, but the actions that aperson takes are not legally a crime. In thissituation, even though Tommie wanted to commit acrime, and took actions which possibly could havebeen a crime, City did not have an ordinanceagainst public trespass, and therefore it was legallyimpossible for Tommie to commit a crime.


70. Suzanna, while in the jewelry store, had the intent to take jewelry from the store without paying for the jewelry. Just before she was about to take some jewelry without paying for the jewelry, she heard that security was called over the loudspeaker. Suzanna immediately left the jewelry store without taking any jewelry.

If Suzanna is charged with attempted larceny, what is the likely result?

A. Not guilty, because Suzanna voluntarily left the jewelry store. B. Not guilty, because Suzanna did not take any jewelry without paying for the jewelry.C. Guilty, because Suzanna was within the zone of perpetration of a crime before she left the jewelry store. D. Guilty, if Suzanna reacted to the security guard announcement in leaving the jewelry store.



A defendant may withdraw from their criminal attempt, aslong as their withdrawal is voluntary, and is not donebecause they fear getting caught, or because they weretalked out of their criminal attempt by a victim. Inthis situation, if Suzanna withdrew from her criminalattempt in response to a belief that the jewelry storeknew of her criminal intent, and had called security inresponse to her criminal intent, then she would likelybe convicted of attempted larceny, because she did notvoluntarily withdraw from her criminal attempt.


ATTEMPT

SPECIFIC INTENT,

Mens Rea

SUFFICIENT ACT, Actus

Reus

DEFENSES, Renunciation


CONTACT INFORMATIONe.Mail

[email protected]

Office Telephone1-312-607-4143

Websitehttp://www.GouldsLegalEducation.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.gouldslegaleducation.com/

GOULD’S “MCQ’s in the MORNING” Multiple Choice · PDF...

Documents

Transcript of GOULD’S “MCQ’s in the MORNING” Multiple Choice · PDF...