Blog

We discussed the following hypothetical in the Key Concepts Lecture. You injured your friend and your friend needed stitches as a result. You brought your friend to get medical attention at a doctor’s office. While in the doctor’s office, a homicidal maniac opens fire and your friend is killed.  The causal chain in this hypothetical was broken by which factor?

Taylor is the treasurer of a student environmental organization at a public university. As part of her duties, she is issued a university-owned iPad to manage event budgets and track expenses. After her term ends, Taylor is asked to return the iPad, but she refuses, claiming she needs it to “finish up a few things.” Months later, she still hasn’t returned it and begins using it for personal purposes, including freelance work. The university contacts campus police, and Taylor is charged under a Florida theft statute similar to the one in State v. Siegel. The applicable statute reads, in part: “A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.” Under Florida law, “theft” includes conduct formerly known as larceny, false pretenses, embezzlement, conversion, or misappropriation. Using the facts above, and drawing on the court’s reasoning in State v. Siegel, discuss whether Taylor committed theft by embezzlement. In your response, you should define embezzlement under Florida law, evaluate whether Taylor lawfully possessed the property at the outset, and assess whether her later refusal to return the iPad and her personal use of it constitute fraudulent conversion. Finally, consider whether Taylor’s intent to deprive the university of the iPad—either temporarily or permanently—can be inferred from her actions, and conclude whether the elements of theft by embezzlement are met.

According to the reasoning in Lee v. State, what allows for a shoplifting conviction before the defendant exits a store?

In People v. Acosta (1991), the experts agreed that the helicopter that caused the crash engaged in reckless behavior. Explain why those negligent actions did not break the causal chain?

Maya is a 7 year old girl on summer break. She and her mom go swimming at a community pool. While at the pool, Maya struggles to swim in the deep end and is showing signs of distress and starting to drown. There is no lifeguard on duty. Maya’s mother watches and does nothing.  After the incident, the police arrest Maya’s mother for failure to act. Why did Maya’s mother have a duty to help Maya?

In Massachussetts v. Carlson (2006), the court found that the Defendant was liable for the deceased’s death even though she did not die on the scene and she later made the decision to refuse life saving measures. Which concept best explains why the Defendant was still held criminally responsible for her death?

For many years, Lacey has lived in the District of Concordia, where it is a felony “to harbor any prohibited wild animal” in a residential home. The list of prohibited wild animals includes ocelots. Notwithstanding the law, Lacey raises ocelots in her home and sells them to other ocelot-lovers. Lacey’s husband gets a transfer and they move to Kertucky, a state that also prohibits the harboring of wild animals in residential homes. Lacey knows of the Kertucky law; what she doesn’t know is that ocelots have recently been removed from Kertucky’s list of prohibited animals. “I know it’s risky,” she tells her husband, “but the ocelot business is good, and I’m going to keep it up.” Lacey builds ocelot cages in her new Kertucky home and makes arrangements for a friend to deliver newborn ocelots to her. Kertucky follows common law principles of attempt and recognizes “legal impossibility” as a limitation on attempt liability. Which statement best describes Lacey’s criminal liability in Kertucky?

In Kansas v. Morton (2004), two juries could not agree as to which theory of first degree murder the defendant was guilty. They both, however, agreed that the defendant was guilty of first degree murder. Although the court reversed the conviction for a different reason, why did the court rule a conviction could still stand even if the jury could not agree on one theory?

Which of the following is an example of an actus reus for which a person would not be criminally responsible?

In United States v. Mandujano, what specific actions or circumstances counted as the “substantial step” that allowed the defendant to be found liable for attempted heroin distribution, according to the Fifth Circuit?