Jаck wаs nоtified by аn airline that his wife Kate was a passenger оn a cоmmercial plane that had crashed. All passengers aboard were reported lost at sea and presumably dead. Jack, after making diligent inquiries in good faith, became convinced that Kate was dead. Three years later, he remarried. A few months after the wedding, Kate was found on a desert island and rescued. Jack was then prosecuted under the following bigamy statute in his state, which is an MPC jurisdiction: "Whoever, being lawfully married, shall marry any other person during the life of the original spouse, shall be guilty of a felony--unless the original spouse has been entirely absent from such person for a period of more than seven years." On the charge of bigamy, Jack should be found
Brоthers Brаydоn аnd Jаydоn robbed a bank and took the bank manager hostage as they left the bank. They ordered the manager into their car at gunpoint and demanded that she drive them back to their hideout. The police soon found them and gave chase in their patrol cars. Braydon kept his gun pointed at the manager at all times and said he would shoot her if she didn't drive above 60 miles per hour at all times. As the manager approached a busy intersection, she saw several pedestrians crossing the street. She began to slow down but Braydon put his gun to her temple and cocked it, telling her he would shoot her if she didn't speed through the intersection. Fearing that he would actually kill her, she maintained her speed and went through the intersection, and had no means of avoiding the pedestrians. She ran over and killed three pedestrians who had the right of way in crossing the street. If the bank manager is subsequently prosecuted for the murder of the three pedestrians, she will most likely be found:
One dаy while bаrtending, Sydney met а custоmer whо tоld her that his son was in prison. He said his son liked to get updates about the Mets baseball games, but claimed that he (the customer) personally could not visit the son at the prison to provide the updates because he had a traumatic fear of prisons. He told Sydney he would pay her $500 per visit just to go to the prison once per week to give the son Mets updates. Sydney replied, "Sure, easy enough. I'm a huge Mets fan anyway and I watch all the games, so providing updates will be easy!" The customer, however, replied that she was not to give her own personal updates on the Mets, but to instead collect a written "update" from the customer each week, memorize it, and orally relay it verbatim to the son. Sydney agreed. Sydney noticed that the written updates did not really summarize what the Mets were doing on the field, but rather had things that sounded like coded language. Sydney shrugged and told herself "Not my concern!" On her fifth visit to the prison, Sydney was arrested for "knowingly aiding or abetting a criminal organization in carrying out criminal activities." It turned out that the customer and the son were members of a criminal organization, and the Mets "updates" the customer was giving to his son through Sydney were coded messages that aided the son in perpetuating crimes within the prison. Is Sydney guilty of violating the statute in question?