Category: Uncategorized

Dostoevsky urges Raskolnikov to murder his landlady by waiting until she is asleep, and then sticking her nose and mouth shut with Crazy Glue so that she will suffocate. Raskolnikov resists at first, but Dostoevsky’s unrelenting coaxing finally convinces him to do so. When Raskolnikov goes out to buy the glue, Dostoevsky reconsiders, and upon Raskolnikov’s return, Dostoevsky tells him he does not think it is such a good idea after all. Raskolnikov goes ahead and kills the landlady anyway.  The most complete and correct statement regarding the criminal liability of the two actors in a common law jurisdiction is:

Allison was a mentally incompetent patient who was a ward of the state at the State Psychiatric Facility.  While there, Allison fell and sustained injuries that required her be transferred from the state facility to the Carter Convalescent Center (“CCC”), a private rehabilitation center.  Allison received extensive therapy for the back and leg injuries suffered during the fall at the state mental hospital.  When Allison’s rehabilitation was nearly complete, she became entitled to compensation for the injuries she had sustained while in state custody.  The state had been applying these payments to Allison’s bill at CCC.  Around the same time, Dana—a distant relative of Allison’s—was appointed to be Allison’s guardian and conservator.  Dana sought to remove Allison from CCC, even though Allison had never voiced any desire to leave.  Carter, the director of CCC, was aware that if Allison was removed from the facility, the state payments would no longer be able to be directly applied to Allison’s rehabilitation bill at CCC.  Carter consulted CCC’s attorney who erroneously advised Carter that case law had established his right to keep Allison at CCC until the bill was paid.  Therefore, when Dana tried to remove Allison from CCC, Carter refused.  If Carter is arrested and tried for the false imprisonment of Allison, should he be convicted?

NEW FACT PATTERN (Next 2 questions)Kris married Rochelle.  Shortly after they awoke one morning, Rochelle berated Kris about spending too much of his paycheck on alcohol and gambling.  Kris lost his temper and slapped Rochelle several times.  He then went off to work.  After work, Kris visited a local tavern, had a few drinks, and then took a bus to the local dog racing track.  He owed Frank “the Tank” Dello, a local loan shark, $800 which was overdue.  Kris had hoped to win enough money at the track to pay off the debt to Frank.  After the first four races, however, Kris had lost all the money he had taken with him, except for enough to pay for the bus ride home.  When Kris got off the bus, Anthony, Frank the Tank’s enforcer, was waiting for him.  Kris told Anthony:  “I just lost all my cash at the dog track, but I’ve got $500 in the sugar bowl at my house.  It’s only a block away.”  Anthony replied, “Okay, but this better not be a trick, or else you’ll be a dead man.” Kris walked quickly to his house while Anthony followed in his car.  Kris climbed the porch steps as Anthony waited in the car.  Kris pounded on the door.  Rochelle, however, still angry about having been slapped by Kris that morning, refused to let Kris in the house.  Kris became more and more desperate and told her, “Look, there’s someone in that car who is going to shoot me if I don’t give him the money in the sugar bowl.  If you don’t want to open the door, fine; just slip the money through the mail slot so I can pay this guy.  Or else call the police before I get killed!”  Through the window, Rochelle saw Anthony in the car and, knowing about her husband’s debts, assumed that he was telling the truth.  Nevertheless, she told Kris, “You can go to hell for all I care.”  She then pulled the shade down and closed the curtains.  Kris kept yelling, “Please, please . . . let me in or I’ll be killed!” Rochelle continued to ignore his pleas.  Kris, in desperation, took off and ran down the street.  Anthony, however, pursued Kris in his car and eventually drove the car onto the sidewalk.  He ran over Kris, killing him instantly. If Anthony were caught and tried for killing Kris in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction, the most appropriate outcome of his trial would be:

Able was in the habit of carrying a lot of cash with him as he walked home from work.  His good friend Baker was worried that someday Able might be robbed.  To teach Able to be more careful, and intending only to frighten him, Baker purchased a realistic looking toy gun and a face mask and he hid in the bushes one night waiting for Able to come home from work.  As Able passed by, Baker jumped out of the bushes, pointed the toy gun at Able, and took all of his money.  Able was badly frightened by the incident.  Shortly thereafter, Baker returned the money to Able and explained why he had staged the hold-up.  Of what crimes could Baker be convicted?

FACT PATTERN (Next 4 questions)Louis was pulled over by Officer Smith for failing to signal when changing lanes.  Because this is such a minor offense, Louis assumed he was pulled over because he had a bumper sticker on his car that read “KAP:– Kill All Police.” KAPwas a radical organization dedicated to the eradication of police forces everywhere.  When an additional police squad car pulled up, Louis was convinced it was a setup.  Although unarmed, he swung his fist at Officer Smith, striking the officer in the jaw.  Another officer, Officer Jones, saw this, and immediately drew his pistol and shot Louis in the stomach.  Louis then seized Officer Smith’s gun and shot at Officer Jones.  Louis missed, however, and killed an innocent bystander. Because Louis was the initial aggressor, he will be convicted of murdering the bystander.

With exceptions made for the “Discovery Rule” and a small number of crimes (e.g., homicides, some types of tax fraud, etc.), criminal prosecutions must be instituted within a certain time period in the overwhelming majority of U.S. jurisdictions.

At common law, the act of killing a woman who was eight months pregnant would normally result in the filing of two counts of a criminal homicide against the person causing the two deaths.

Transactional immunity provides a witness with substantially less protection from use immunity.

It was a dark and rainy night.  Out of the gloomy darkness, Deirdre Defendant approached Vladimir Victim from behind.  She stuck the gun in Vladimir’s back and shouted, “Your money or your life!”  Vladimir was scared out of his wits and collapsed on the spot.  Deirdre lifted Vladimir’s wallet and stuck it in the back pocket of her overalls.  Deirdre took off at fast pace.  After she traveled about 15 feet from Vladimir, the wallet slipped out of Deirdre’s pocket and felt the ground.  Deirdre did not realize this until she arrived home and found the wallet missing.  In the meantime, Vladimir revived.  He found the wallet with all of its contents intact.  Vladimir called the police to report the crime and later identified Deirdre in a lineup at the police station.  Deirdre should be convicted of:

Defendant, intending to harm (but not kill) Victim by shooting Victim in the arm with a small caliber gun, shoots and accidentally strikes Victim between the eyes with a bullet, killing Victim.  Defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree.