[Solved] CRIM 2043 Complete Exam – 100 Questions and Answers

Description

*Your purchase includes all the answers to the following exam questions. The answers are already graded so they are accurate.

*You’ll also get the ‘Test Correction’ document that contains the explanation of all the 100 answers; you’ll understand why they are the correct choices.

---

Question 1

A defendant is criminally responsible for the result if his or her conduct was:

Answers:

• the “except for” cause of the harm
• the intervening result
• the natural result of the conduct
• cause in fact and the proximate cause
• completely unforeseeable

Question 2

A legal duty to act can arise from:

Answers:

• Laws that require certain events to be reported.
• Statutes, contracts and omissions
• Statutes, contracts and special relationships
• Moral obligations that are generally recognized
• None of the above are correct

Question 3

George committed second-degree homicide in 1986, when Nebraska followed a “stand your ground” defense. The punishment in 1986 was 15 to 25 years. In 1993, Nebraska abolished the stand your ground defense and adopted a “retreat rule.” Nebraska increased the punishment in in 1993 to 25 to 40 years. George is arrested in 2017 and charged with second-degree homicide. Which is true:

Answers:

• The legislature is free to change the law if it wants: George cannot raise a stand your ground defense in 2017, but if convicted, he may be sentenced to no more than 25 years.
• Because it was on the books when the homicide occurred, George may raise “stand your ground” in his defense, and if he is unsuccessful at trial, he may receive a sentence of up to 25 years.
• The legislature is free to change the law if it wants: George cannot raise a stand your ground defense in 2017, and he may be sentenced up to 40 years
• Because it was on the books when the homicide occurred, George may raise “stand your ground” in his defense, and if he is unsuccessful at trial, he may receive a sentence of up to 40 years.

Question 4

General intent is the intent to:

Answers:

• do the minimum behavior necessary to constitute a criminal act
• cause harm generally
• to intentionally cause harm to the person of another
• to target the general public
• impersonate a general—why is this even on the test?

Question 5

From your readings, we determined that statutes that impose vicarious liability on parents for the criminal actions of their children, based on nothing but the parent/child relationship are:

Answers:

• Rarely upheld because there is no recognized public policy argument to support it
• Typically upheld because there is a strong public policy interest in making parents more responsible for children
• Rarely upheld because they violate due process
• Always upheld because the statutes rare written by the legislative branch, and the legislative branch determines what the law should be
• Rarely upheld because juveniles are incapable of forming the requisite actus reus.

Question 6

Failing to report something to authorities when reporting it is required by law is:

Answers:

• a moral but not legal transgression
• a lapse of good judgment but not criminal
• a criminal omission
• a violation of civil code regulations

Question 7

Equal protection of the law does NOT require that:

Answers:

• racial classifications be subjected to strict scrutiny
• everyone be treated exactly alike
• classifications regarding fundamental rights be subject to strict scrutiny
• classifications based on gender be subjected to heightened scrutiny

Question 8

During a home invasion, homeowner, Rob Dego, hacks a masked man to death with an axe kept in the garage. Because of the brutality of the attack, the prosecutor charges Rob 0 with 2nd degree homicide. Dego persuades the jury that he had to use deadly force because his daughter’s life was in imminent danger and the jury acquits him. This is called:

Answers:

• lex talionis
• a perfect defense
• a shadow of a doubt
• the defense of duress
• the defense of entrapment

Question 9

Danny is drinking at a local bar with his exterminator, Clifford. Danny asks Clifford, “Can a wife be exterminated? Do you think it’s possible to overdose on bug spray? Would she roll tj over on her back and curl up?” They both laugh and order another beer. The conversation drifts off to the Razorback football. With regard to Danny, this is:

Answers:

• Probably solicitation
• Probably conspiracy
• Probably criminal attempt
• Probably accessory after the fact
• Probably not criminal at all.

Question 10

Constructive possession means that the person has the item under his or her immediate physical control (in his or her hand).

Answers:

• True
• False

Question 11

Conspiracy mens rea:

Answers:

• Always includes specific intent
• Can mean intent to form the agreement to commit crimes
• Can mean intent achieve a criminal objective
• a, and b
• a, b, and c

Question 12

Common law divided age into three categories:

Answers:

• Under 4 no criminal capacity; 4 to 18, presumption of no capacity; over 18 same capacity as adults
• Under 7 no criminal capacity; 7 to 21, presumption of no capacity; over 21 same capacity as adults
• Under 4 no criminal capacity; 4 to 14, presumption of no capacity; over 14 same capacity as adults
• Under 7 no criminal capacity; 7 to 14, presumption of no capacity; over 14 same capacity as adults
• Under 7 no criminal capacity; 7 to 10, presumption of no capacity; over 10 same capacity as adults

Question 13

Causation is a requirement in which kind of criminal law?

Answers:

• Status crimes
• Inchoate Crimes
• Result Crimes
• All crimes

Question 14

Bobby Bonacelli, the “Horseman of Boca Raton,” is a veteran ultimate fighter. Two nights ago Bobby lost his temper with a fan who questioned his manhood after a close fight. Bobby threw two quick punches that missed their mark, but caused the fan to jump backwards. Bobby grabbed a bucket and threw it in the fan’s direction, but missed. Before Bobby could press his attack any further, the fan pulled a baseball bat from underneath his seat and began swinging. Bobby backed off as security guards tried to subdue the fan. Bobby turned and walked to his dressing room. Alone in his room, just seconds after he sat down, he heard the fan in the hall. Bobby looked around him in the room and grabbed a horsewhip he keeps as a prop. The Fan opened Bobby’s dressing room door, with the bat in hand, and began to wave it in Bobby’s direction—muttering, “they say you shouldn’t beat a dead horse.” Bobby snapped the whip, putting the fan’s right eye out. The fan screamed in pain and came forward waving the bat. Bobby snapped the whip a second time and scored a direct hit across the fan’s chest, raising a bloody whelp instantly. The fan clearly had enough, holding his bloody face, he stumbled out of the dressing room into the hall. As left, he threw his bat in Bobby’s direction. The bat struck Bobby in the mouth, knocking 8 teeth out of his mouth. The police arrived seconds later and arrested Bobby and the fan. Ima Ballbreaker, the prosecutor, hates gratuitous violence. She has decided to charge Bobby with aggravated assault for throwing a bucket at the fan, and with 2 counts of aggravated battery for hitting the fan with a horsewhip. She’s not done, the prosecutor has decided to charge the fan with aggravated assault for swinging the baseball bat at Bobby in the arena, and with aggravated battery for hitting Bobby with the bat in the dressing room. Assuming that this happened in a traditional “stand your ground” jurisdiction, which of the following statements concerning the outcome of the trial is most likely correct?

Answers:

• Bobby can successfully raise self-defense and avoid conviction on all charges. The fan will probably be convicted of all charges.
• The fan can successfully raise self-defense and avoid conviction on all charges. Bobby will likely be convicted of all charges.
• Bobby can raise self-defense only to the battery he committed with the horsewhip, he may still be guilty of aggravated assault for throwing the bucket. The fan can raise self-defense and will likely be acquitted of all charges
• Bobby can raise self-defense only to the battery he committed with the horsewhip, he may still be guilty of aggravated assault with the bucket. The fan can raise self-defense on the aggravated assault charge for swinging the bat in the arena, but will probably be convicted of battery for hitting bobby in the mouth with the bat.
• Neither Bobby nor the fan should be able to raise self-defense, and both will probably be convicted on all charges.

Question 15

At the conclusion of his trial, Scott is found not guilty by reason of insanity after his attorney convinced the jury that Scott lacked reason and will to appreciate or control his actions t3 because he suffered from a mental defect that substantially reduced his mental capacity. The jurisdiction follows the:

Answers:

• M’Naghten rule
• Volitional incapacity rule
• The Peterson rule
• The substantial capacity/MPC/ALI rule
• None of the above

Question 16

At common law, if Ted was convicted for being an accomplice in the robbery, he would likely:

Answers:

• be treated less severely than Ted and sentenced less harshly
• be treated more harshly than Ted and sentenced more harshly
• there was no accomplice liability at common law
• be treated just like Ted and sentenced just as harshly

Question 17

At Common Law, if Cartman attacked Kenny in a public park, how much force could Kenny use to defend himself:

Answers:

• only an amount equal to the force that Cartman is using
• only an amount reasonably necessary to stop the attack
• only an amount of force calculated, using the res ipsa test, to stop the attack without causing Cartman’s death.
• Because Kenny is in a public place, he can use deadly force to stop the attack.
• This is a trick question, Kenny always dies and in 19 years of syndication, he’s never defended himself.

Question 18

Arkansas follows the objective entrapment test?

Answers

• True
• False

Question 19

An omission to act can be a crime only if there is a  to act.

Answers:

• compulsion
• legal duty
• moral duty

Question 20

According to Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to privacy:

Answers:

• as part of the federalist papers in the “Constitutional Rights Compact”
• as part of the emanations or penumbras that flowed from the Bill of Rights
• as required by the equal protection clause of the Third Amendment
• as part of the preamble to the Constitution

Question 21

A superseding cause that occurs independently from the defendant’s actions is called a  i.e. the only relationship between the defendant’s conduct and this C2 superseding cause is that the defendant placed the victim in a vulnerable situation.

Answers:

• Responsive Intervening Act
• Coincidental Intervening Act

Question 22

A superseding cause that refers to a victim’s reaction to the defendant’s wrongful act is call a

Answers:

• Responsive Intervening Act
• Coincidental Intervening Act

Question 23

A superseding cause that is deemed unforeseeable may eliminate a defendant’s liability?

Answers:

• True
• False

Question 24

A subjective standard, this mens rea means the defendant knew what he was doing and was practically certain to cause the harm:

Answers:

• Purpose
• Knowing
• Willing
• Reckless
• Negligent

 

Question 25

A person is not guilty of a crime unless his or her actus reus was voluntary

Answers:

• True
• False

Question 26

If a defendant does not behave like an objectively reasonable person under the circumstances and that creates a substantial risk, the defendant is:

Answers:

• wanton
• negligent
• purpose
• callous
• subjective

Question 27

If the defendant wants the result to occur, or wants to engage in a particular behavior, his mens rea is:

Answers:

• purpose
• knowing
• negligence
• willful
• reckless

Question 28

If the mens rea did not lead to or cause the act, the element of is not present.

Answers:

• actus reus
• concurrence
• intent
• causation
• result

Question 29

In a homicide case, defense attorneys presented evidence in an effort to prove that the defendant lacked the capacity to form specific intent, arguing that he was guilty of second-a degree murder instead of capital murder. The defense attorneys are trying to make a case for which of the following:

Answers:

• M’Naghten rule
• Volitional incapacity rule
• The substantial capacity/MPC/ALI rule
• Diminished Capacity
• The defense of Duress

Question 30

In justification defenses, defendants

Answers:

• Admit responsibility for their actions, but claim that they behaved correctly under the circumstances
• Admit what they did was wrong, but claim that they were not responsible under the circumstances
• Admit that they know who is guilty, but offer no evidence to the police investigating the crime.
• A and B

Question 31

In the absence of a confession, intent must generally be proven by evidence.

Answers:

• preemptory
• exclusive
• referential
• circumstantial

Question 32

In the case of King v. Cogdon (1951), Mrs. Cogdon was acquitted of murder because:

Answers:

• her acts were done while asleep and thus not voluntary
• she was legally insane at the time of the crime
• someone else caused Patty’s death
• there was no concurrence between the acts and the result
• none of the above

Question 33

In this case, the New Mexico Court of Appeals held that a solicitation has to reach the object of the solicitation to be criminal.

Answers:

• People v Kimball
• State v Chism
• Le Barron v. State
• State v Damms
• State v. Cotton

Question 34

In this case, the court held that the defendant was guilty of being an accessory after the fact because there was evidence that the defendant intended to aid his one-legged uncle to avoid prosecution for murder.

Answers:

• People v Kimball
• State v. Chism
• State v Damms
• State v Cotton
• Le Barron v. State

Question 35

Inchoate means:

Answers:

• To aid
• To fail
• To begin
• With much help
• Do not mix with cocoa butter

 

Question 36

Individual criminal vicarious liability

Answers:

• Was a vital part of the common law and adopted by legislatures
• Was created by dirty, cheating, ambulance-chasing plaintiff’s lawyers
• Was created by statute Was held unconstitutional in Shields v Palin (2004)
• Was held unconstitutional in State v Chism (1983)

Question 37

Intervening causes can be the proximate (legal) causes of a bad result

Answers:

• True
• False

Question 38

It has been called the closest thing to a common denominator in U.S. criminal law, and it was drafted by the American Law Institute:

Answers:

• Uniform Penal Code UPC
• Model Criminal Statutes MCS
• Uniform Criminal Statutes UCS
• Model Penal Code MPC

Question 39

Last night, Bill Clinton was at a Town Hall meeting in Massachusetts—a retreat state (I know, you missed it studying for this exam). Clinton lost his temper when Sarah Palin heckled him from the audience: Palin questioned his masculinity and made disparaging remarks about Hillary. Bill pulled a heavy stainless steel flask of single-malt scotch from his jacket and threw it at Palin, barely missing her head, but causing her to duck fast enough to shake her bun of kilter. Bill grabbed something from his pocket, a monogrammed cigar box (don’t ask), and threw it at Sarah, missing her by millimeters. As Bill stormed toward Sarah in the audience, rather than leave (she could have easily left), she pulled a baseball bat from under the seat and swung, missing his head by a hair. Bill backed off as the secret service tried to subdue Sarah. Bill turned and walked to his dressing room. About 5 seconds after he sat down, he heard Sarah in the Hall. Bill looked around him in the room and grabbed his saxophone from its case—the door was the only way out. Sarah opened Bill’s door, with bat in hand, and began shaking it in Bill’s direction—muttering, “this is gonna be as easy as a momma grizzly taking out a baby seal!” Bill flung his saxophone, putting Sarah’s eye out. Sarah growled and pressed her attack. Bill threw a bottle of complimentary champagne next, dislocating Sarah’s left knee. Sarah had enough, holding her bloody face, she stumbled out of the dressing room into the hall. Before she left, she threw the bat in Bill’s direction. The bat hit Bill in the face, breaking his nose and jaw. The secret service arrived seconds later and separated the two. The county prosecutor, a member of the Green Party, has decided to charge Bill with two counts of assault for throwing the flask and for throwing the cigar box at Sarah, and with two counts of battery for hitting Sarah with the saxophone and champagne bottle. The prosecutor is charging Sarah with assault for swinging the bat at Bill in the audience, and with battery for hitting Bill with the bat in his dressing room. Remember, this happened in Massachusetts–a retreat state. Which of the following statements concerning the event is more likely correct?

Answers:

• Bill can successfully raise self-defense and avoid conviction on all charges. Sarah will probably be convicted of all charges.
• Sarah can successfully raise self-defense and avoid conviction on all charges. Bill will likely be convicted of all charges.
• Bill can raise self-defense only to the battery he committed with the saxophone and champagne bottle. He may still be guilty of assault for throwing the cigar box and the flask at Sarah. Sarah can raise self-defense to the charges in the audience, but will likely be convicted of the assault with the bat in the dressing room.
• Bill can raise self-defense only to the battery he committed with the saxophone and champagne bottle. He may still be guilty of assault for throwing the cigar box and flask at Sarah. Sarah can raise self-defense on all the charges.
• Bill can raise self-defense only to the battery he committed with the saxophone and champagne bottle. He may still be guilty of assault for throwing the cigar box and the flask. Sara could be convicted on all charges.

Question 40

Legal / proximate cause issues involve the:

Answers:

• empirical connection between the act and harm
• “except for” test
• Justice of making the defendant responsible for the harm
• “but for” test

Question 41

Legal wrongs that may not be subject to criminal charges but do involve behavior in which the injured party can sue and recover damages are known as:

Answers:

• Misdemeanors
• fisticuffs
• Torts
• Corpus delecti offenses
• mala prohibitum

Question 42

Legislative retroactive lawmaking

Answers:

• is a valid process under the Constitution, and refers to legislators correcting previous mistakes they have made
• is banned by the principle of legality
• is permitted by the Constitution but rarely occurs
• is Constitutional and under certain circumstances it allows legislators to punish people who engage in conduct that is later found to be wrong, though not a violation of the law a the time they engaged in the conduct.

Question 43

Lou entered the Sam’s Club on highway 112 last night around 6pm. As he showed the greeter his membership card, he proclaimed “I can’t wait to drop a load of cash in here.” —Lou _13 is a liar. He grabbed a cart and made his way around the store eating samples from each and every free product display. Along the way, he placed a number of items in his basket so that he would appear to be shopping. Lou walked over to the condiment aisle and pulled a winter cap over his hair. Changing his voice as he went, Lou made another circuit and ate more samples from each and every display. Lou walked over to the furniture aisle, and when no one was looking, he put a wig on his head. Yes, Lou made another trip eating samples. In all, Lou made 6 clothing changes, used three wigs and 2 pairs of false teeth to disguise his appearance (even going so far as to paint his face white and impersonate a Parisian mime), and ate no less that 8 pounds of samples, valued at $237.85. Lou left his cart next to the plasma televisions and nervously waddled out of the store without buying a single item. Lou admitted to his friends that he was a seasoned pro at stealing food. Which best describes Lou’s criminal liability and any defense he might raise.

Answers:

• Factual impossibility, he has no criminal liability—it is factually impossible to steal free samples. Factual Impossibility is nearly always a defense.
• Legal impossibility, he has no criminal liability– Lou cannot “legally” steal free samples.
• Factual impossibility, but Lou probably can be charged with larceny (stealing) because factual impossibility is rarely a viable defense.
• Attempted Larceny, Lou does not have a viable criminal defense.
• Accomplice Liability, Lou does not have a criminal defense.

Question 44

Mary and Tern agree to rob a Piggly Wiggly at an undisclosed location. The best description of that agreement is:

Answers:

• A crime in all states because they have agreed to commit a felony.
• Not a crime in any state, because there is no overt act.
• A crime in some states but not in others—not every state requires an overt act.
• Not a crime unless the agreement is in writing.
• Not a crime at all because the local Piggly Wiggly was bought out by Safeway, which was bought out by Harps. The closest Piggly Wiggly is in Mississippi.

Question 45

Mitzi is at a friend’s house and needs to get home before curfew, but before she leaves, her friend hands her a book back and asks Mitzi to deliver the bag to Mitzi’s brother, Seamus. While walking down the street, Mitzi is stopped by police and voluntarily allows them to look in the bag. They find cocaine. Which best describes the Mitzi’s possession.

Answers:

• Mere possession
• Knowing possession
• Temporary possession
• Custodial possession
• A bailment

Question 46

Most jurisdictions will allow a victim to consent to crime in 4 situations. Which of the following is not one of them?

Answers:

• the consent is to sexual conduct
• the consenting person benefits from the conduct
• no serious injury occurs
• players consent to physical contact during a sporting event
• consent is recognized in all of these situations.

Question 47

Most states (48) require that possession be __ before it can be criminalized

Answers:

• Knowing
• Mere
• proved beyond a preponderance of the evidence
• perfunctory
• total and complete

Question 48

Oklahoma wants to stop Internet bullying. It passes a statute that makes Cyber Stalking a felony punishable by 15 years in prison. The statutes makes it illegal to publish to the , ti Internet threats of violence or death, taunts suggesting a person commit suicide, or sexually explicit material without the victim’s express, written consent. To trigger the felony requirement, the statute requires the defendant to post at least three hate messages within a thirty-day (30) period. Trevor is arrested after he posts 4 such messages to four separate people in 29 days. He is convicted, but argues that statute only applies if three messages are sent to the same person in 30 days. The prosecutor argues that the statute means three or more messages in 30 days, but doesn’t specify how many victims. The Oklahoma Supreme Court hears the appeal and holds that the statute could fairly be read to mean either interpretation. Under the Principle of Lenity, what should the court do?

Answers:

• Dismiss the case because the most restrictive meaning is three threats against the same person, and hold the statute did not provide fair warning.
• Remand the case for a new trial and let the jury decide the correct meaning of the statute.
• Uphold the conviction because the most restrictive meaning is the one the state is using—three messages to anyone in 30 days.

Question 49

Prosecutors discover that Eugene had written to Rent-a-Murder, Inc., and placed a stamp on the envelope and mailed it. The pertinent portion of the letter read “how much would it cost to ‘skin a pig’ I’ve got an old sow who won’t leave my credit cards alone. I would like to hire your best butcher. I got $10,000” Eugene did not own a pig, or any animal for that matter. The prosecutor has learned that Eugene often refers to his wife, Lucinda, as a hog. Unbeknownst to Eugene, Rent-a-murder, Inc., was a mystery dinner theater that had gone out of business. The letter, never reached Rent-a-Murder, Inc. In an MPC jurisdiction that has adopted the entire MPC, which of the following BEST describes what might happen to Eugene:

Answers:

• Eugene could be charged with conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder.
• Eugene could be charged with soliciting 1st degree murder.
• Eugene could be charged with attempt to commit 1st degree murder.
• Eugene could be charged with being an accessory to 1st degree murder.
• Eugene cannot be charged with any crime, the solicitation didn’t get delivered to the object.

 

Question 50

Recalling the discussion in the video lecture, of the inchoate crimes listed, which is the most dangerous — or closer to completion (assume no additional facts)

Answers:

• Eugene and “Bad Lou,” a local thug, agree to murder Lucinda
• Eugene offers his political science class $1 million dollars to any person who murders his wife
• Eugene serves his wife, Lucinda, a steaming cup of rat poison tea.
• All of the above are equally dangerous.
• None of the above are “dangerous”

Question 51

Retributionists assume that:

Answers:

• The causes of criminality can be diagnosed and treated.
• Human behavior is shaped by forces not always within our control.
• Preventing future crime is the most important goal of the criminal law.
• It is righteous and just to inflict pain on the wrongdoer.

Question 52

Robert has a baggie of cocaine in his hand. According to the law:

Answers:

• he has constructive possession.
• he has actual possession.
• he has a bailment over it
• he owns the item, because possession is nine-tenths of the law

Question 53

States are free to criminalize all racist and/or anti-gay speech.

Answers:

• True
• False

Question 54

Ted robbed a Mini-Mart last night. Which of the following may be relevant to determine if Donald had sufficient accomplice actus reus. Consider each separately and assume no additional facts.

Answers:

• Donald has known Ted for 15 years
• Donald was at the crime scene
• Donald has known Ted for 15 years
• Donald did not call the police when Ted brandished a gun and told everyone to “get down”

Question 55

The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments that are barbaric and:

Answers:

• contumacious
• presumptuous
• disproportionate
• hedonistic
• preposterous

Question 56

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that 3-strikes laws are disproportional, and therefore, unconstitutional:

Answers:

• True

Question 57

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to sentence a minor to life without the possibility of parole for non-homicide crimes?

Answers:

• True
• False

Question 58

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute a juvenile who was 17 or younger at the time the crime was committed.

Answers:

• True
• False

Question 59

The best example of an act that can be categorized as a malum prohibitum crime is

Answers:

• Larceny (theft)
• Aggravated robbery
• Illegally downloading mp3s on the internet
• Homicide
• Possession of marijuana

Question 60

The defendant knew he was subject to seizures. He decided to drive his car downtown. He had a seizure, lost control of the vehicle, and killed a pedestrian on the sidewalk. The t3 defendant is guilty of a crime because:

Answers:

• his act of driving the car was voluntary, therefore, he intended to harm the victim.
• an innocent person was killed.
• it is foreseeable that pedestrians will be on the sidewalk.
• he deliberately took the risk by driving his car knowing that he could have a seizure while engaged in a potentially dangerous activity.

Question 61

The defendant provides evidence of an affirmative defense and that evidence is just persuasive enough to compel the jury to convict him of a lesser offense. We call that?

Answers:

• burden of persuasion
• imperfect alibi
• imperfect defense
• perfect defense
• perfect alibi

 

Question 62

The objective test for entrapment focuses on:

Answers:

• the defendant’s disposition to commit crime
• the defendant’s willingness to commit crime
• the defendant’s reluctance to commit crime
• whether the state’s enticement was beyond what a normal person could resist.
• none of the above

Question 63

The objectively reasonable person test is used in the definition of:

Answers:

• knowingly
• negligently
• purposely
• transferred
• intent
• willfully

Question 64

The principle of __ requires that there be a specific law defining the crime and setting out the punishment before a person can be punished for that crime

Answers:

• legality
• lenity
• proportionality
• reciprocity
• res ipsa loquitor

Question 65

The principle of legality, which is considered so important that we would let a guilty man walk free, is comprised of three concepts. They are:

1. No ex post facto laws
2. Substantive due process

• The Miranda Rule

1. Void for vagueness Doctrine
2. Rule of Lenity

Answers:

• i, ii, iii,
• ii, iii, iv
• ii, iv, v
• i, iii, v
• i, iv, v

Question 66

The rationales to justify criminalizing criminal attempt are:

Answers:

• Preventing harm from dangerous conduct
• Neutralizing dangerous people
• Nipping criminal conspiracy in the bud
• a and b
• none of the above.

Question 67

The requirement that a person’s thoughts have to turn into deeds in order for a crime to have been committed is called:

Answers:

• manifest criminality (a.k.a. concurrence)
• a voluntary act
• actus reus
• attendant circumstances
• respondeat superior

Question 68

The void-for-vagueness doctrine is one of the protections provided by the requirement of:

Answers:

• due process of law
• equal protection under the law
• proportionality of punishment
• Rule of lenity

Question 69

This actus reus test for criminal attempt says that a person can be found guilty of attempt if he or she has acquired everything necessary to complete the crime.

Answers:

• Probable Desistence Test
• Indispensable Elements Test.
• Dangerous Proximity to Success Test
• Substantial Steps Test
• Unequivocality Test (res ipsa loquitor)

Question 70

To promote racial and ethnic diversity, Arkansas codifies and enforces a law that makes it illegal

(1) for any person to use any racial or ethnic epithets in a public place where two or more people are gathered (assume a list of terms is provided in the statute);

(2) for any person to burn, destroy, or attempt to burn or destroy a cross or similar religious symbol:

(i) with the purpose of demonstrating against racial or ethnic tolerance, or

(ii) with the purpose of intimidating any racial or ethic group; or

(3) for any person demonstrate, picket, or interfere with any public initiative that has been directed to promote racial or ethnic tolerance. This law is:

Answers:

• Unconstitutional because it is vague and therefore void under the equal protection clause.
• Unconstitutional because it reaches protected speech, and is void because of overbreadth.
• Constitutional, because hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment, and it is within Arkansas’ right to criminalize any hate speech.
• Constitutional, because the United States Supreme Court in People v. Rokicki, held that the regulation of hate crimes is purely a State issue, and States are free to criminalize what they want to criminalize.

Question 71

True or false, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that “notice” of a newly enacted statute can be deemed adequate if cops and prosecutors know what the law says, even if the A:I general public does not?

Answers:

• True
• False

Question 72

Under a number of modern statutes, not all of the conspirators have to agree to commit a crime. These statutes provide criminal liability for the defendant as long as the defendant 0 believes that both parties agreed to commit the crime. This is called:

Answers:

• The unilateral approach.
• Vicarious liability.
• The traditional approach.
• The fundamental agreement approach.
• It’s not called conspiracy—this is solicitation.

Question 73

Under current statutory schemes, if Trump was convicted for being an accessory to the robbery, he would likely:

Answers:

• be treated just like Ted and sentenced just as harshly
• be treated more harshly than Ted and sentence more harshly
• none of the above, accomplice liability was a common law construct that was abolished when states abolished the common law.
• be treated less severely than Ted and sentenced less harshly

Question 74

Under the Good Samaritan rule, bystanders have a duty to aid strangers who are in peril if the bystander’s assistance does not endanger the bystander.

Answers:

• True
• False

Question 75

Using present day definitions, the person who is criminally liable for helping a principle actor with a crime after the crime has been committed is called

Answers:

• An insurance adjuster
• An accomplice
• An accessory
• A co-conspirator
• A respondeat posterior

Question 76

Vicarious liability transfers the of one party to another because of their relationship. E:3

Answers:

• Criminal Fine
• actus reus
• prison sentence
• mens rea

Question 77

We discussed six factors the court uses to determine whether to treat Juveniles as adults, which is not one of them?

Answers:

• Seriousness of the offense.
• Whether the act was directed towards a person or property.
• The Juvenile’s Prior Record
• The threat the Juvenile poses to himself or others.
• All the above are recognized factors.

Question 78

When a defendant plans to commit a crime and does nothing more:

Answers:

• Is not enough to qualify as actus reus for attempt
• Is always enough to qualify as actus reus for attempt
• Is a separate crime from criminal attempt
• Is enough to qualify as actus reus of attempt in the majority of jurisdiction
• Is enough to qualify as actus reus of attempt in New Hampshire only.

Question 79

When participants at the end of a conspiracy don’t know anything about the participant at the other end, but they all handle the same illicit commodity at different points, they are part of

Answers:

• The Wal-Mart supply chain
• A wheel conspiracy
• Fire-line conspiracy
• A CIPA conspiracy
• A chain conspiracy

Question 80

When the parties to a large conspiracy are engaged in the planning and carrying out each transaction, they are part of the of a conspiracy.

Answers:

• Hub, wheel
• Spoke, wheel
• Link, chain
• Axel, wheel
• Heart, big

Question 81

Which is not true concerning the defense of others?

Answers:

• until a few decades ago, one could only protect himself and members of his or her family
• most jurisdictions currently allow someone to come to the defense of anyone who needs immediate help
• others have the right to defend themselves before someone else can step in
• in a stand your ground state, one can only claim the “defense of others” if the person being attacked has attempted retreat

Question 82

Which is not true of solicitation:

Answers:

• The words of inducement must be directed at a particular individual, a particular target.
• It is a specific intent crime
• There has to be more than words that favor the commission of a crime
• Under the MPG, the inducement does not have to reach the target.
• Some states limit solicitation to only violent felonies

Question 83

Which of the following is not a type of culpability in the model penal code

Answers:

• knowing
• willful
• reckless
• purpose
• negligence

Question 84

Which of the following is true of the insanity defense

Answers:

• it is limited to murder/homicide cases
• Insanity is a recognized medical condition
• Defendants who successfully use the insanity defense spend less time incarcerated/institutionalized than do criminals who do not use it
• Most successful insanity defenses are the result of a plea bargain
• The insanity defense is used in about 45% of all criminal cases

Question 85

Which of the following are true statements concerning the defense of necessity (choice of evils)

Answers:

• The key is choosing the lesser crime over the greater crime.
• The greater evil must be on the verge of happening
• Life and safety should be chosen over property
• a, b and c
• a and c

Question 86

Which of the following acts might help prove Donald’s involvement with the Mini-Mart robbery? Consider each separately and assume no additional facts.

Answers:

• He refused to get on the floor with the rest of the customers
• He drove Ted to the store to buy hair gel and spray tan
• He gave Ted a black leather jacket from the backseat of his car just before he entered the store. Ted complained about being cold and put it on.
• He drove Ted away after Ted threatened Donald with the gun.
• He told Ted that an old woman by the beer cooler had a cell phone and was trying to make a call.

Question 87

Which of the following is not a common element of accessory statutes?

Answers:

• the accessory aided the person who committed the crime afterward
• the accessory knew the crime was committed.
• The accessory hindered the arrest or the prosecution of the person who committed the crime
• Someone other than the accessory committed a felony.
• The accessory was present, or in close proximity, when the felony was committed

Question 88

Which of the following is not one of the three classifications of inchoate crime:

Answers:

• conspiracy
• attempt
• vicarious liability
• Solicitation

Question 89

Which of the following is not an element of traditional self defense

Answers:

• the defendant was in serious, real, and immediate danger
• the defendant knew danger was coming so she defended herself before the aggressor could attack
• the defendant used only the force reasonably necessary to repel the attack
• the defendant was attacked, through no fault of her own, by an aggressor

Question 90

Which of the following is not protected speech under the First Amendment?

Answers:

• Obscenity
• Expressive Dancing
• Unfair criticism of the government
• Flag burning as part of political protest

Question 91

Which statement best describes abandonment/renunciation.

Answers:

• An imperfect defense to the crime of attempt in about half the states
• An affirmative defense to the crime of attempt in about half the states if the withdrawal is complete and voluntary
• An affirmative defense to vicarious liability in about half the states if the defendant completely withdraws
• Was abandoned as a defense at common law
• None of the above

Question 92

Which test for attempt actus reus states that the act speaks for itself; the person has done enough that an ordinary person who saw the defendant’s acts without knowledge of her intent would believe she was determined to commit the intended crime

Answers:

• Unequivocality test / res ipsa loquiter
• Probable desistance test
• Substantial steps test (MPC Test)
• Dangerous Proximity test
• Indispensable element test

Question 93

Which test for attempt actus reus focuses on what the suspect has already done, not what the suspect has left to do. The test looks for substantial steps that strongly corroborate 0 the defendant’s criminal purpose

Answers:

• Probable desistance test
• Dangerous Proximity test
• Indispensable element test
• Unequivocality test / res ipsa loquiter
• Substantial steps test (MPC Test)

Question 94

Which type of crime involves the least culpability?

Answers:

• crimes involving knowledge
• crimes involving negligence
• crimes involving recklessness
• conspiracy crimes (requires purpose)
• attempt crimes (requires purpose)

Question 95

While drunk, Ryan commits aggravated robbery. In Arkansas, intoxication would be a defense under which situation?

Answers:

• Ryan thought he was drinking really nasty beer; it was actually moonshine
• Ryan drank 10 shots in 10 minutes on a double-dog dare
• Ryan, a pledge, was told to drink a 32 oz, cup full of whiskey by the executive lieutenant commander of the fraternity.
• Ben gave Ryan a large bottle of Vodka with the label removed and told him it was Ozarka bottled water. It burned, but Ryan drank the whole thing.
• None of the above

Question 96

With affirmative defenses, defendants must provide a minimum level of evidence to support their claims before the trial judge will allow a jury to consider the defense. This is called

Answers:

• leveraging the defense
• burden of production
• burden of persuasion
• burden of proof
• leveraging proof

Question 97

With regard to age, most jurisdictions now follow one of three statutory schemes. Which of the following is not one of them

Answers:

• says that juvenility is to be determined on a case by case basis and depends on such factors as IQ, physical size, and seriousness of the offense identifies specific ages
• grants exclusive jurisdiction to juvenile courts if the defendants are under a certain age, but makes exceptions for some crimes
• one type says that the juvenile court does not have exclusive jurisdiction
• all of the above are true

Question 98

With regard to the insanity defense, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 shifted the burden of proof, in federal criminal cases:

Answers:

• from the defendant who had to prove insanity by a preponderance to the government which had to prove sanity by clear and convincing evidence.
• from the defendant who had to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence to the government which had to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
• from the government who had to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt to the defendant who had to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
• from the government who had to prove sanity by clear and convincing evidence to the defendant who had to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
• The comprehensive crime control act has nothing to do with the insanity defense

Question 99

With the evolving standards of decency test, the U.S. Supreme Court will look to what other states are doing with regard to the capital punishment to determine whether a punishment is cruel and unusual.

Answers:

• True
• False

Question 100

With this mens rea, the defendant is actually aware of the risk and nonetheless engages in behavior that a reasonable law-abiding person would avoid.