MONTEREY COLLEGE OF LAW Mid-Term Examination 2010 CRIMINAL LAW Professor Brannon Instructions 1. Bluebook Users-- Please write your examination number (not your name) on the cover of each of your bluebooks. Number your bluebooks. Return every page of this examination along with your bluebooks. Write on only one side of each bluebook page. Your answer must be double-spaced. Make sure your answer is legible. You will get no credit for sentences that I cannot read. 2. Computer Users- Please type your examination number (not your name) at the beginning and end of your essay. Return every page of this examination along with your answer. 3. Make sure that you read the question carefully before answering. State clearly any assumptions that you make. 4. This is an open book exam. You may ONLY use your casebook, your Dressler Outline, any written materials that I distributed in class, and any notes and/or outlines that you prepared yourseif. You may not consult other materials or other students. 5. This examination consists of three questions. The answers to questions (1) and (2) are each worth 30% of your grade; the answer to question (3) is worth 40% of your grade. It is suggested that you allot proportionately more time to complete question (3). There is a three (3) hour time limit to complete the examination. You are being tested primarily on your ability to apply law to fact. The best answer is one that includes a succinct statement of the relevant legal principles, followed by a detailed analysis of how these legal principles apply to the facts. 6. There are multiple issues to address in this exam. You will not have time to address all of the issues in detail. Some issues are fairly straightforward and do not require detailed analysis. Other issues are more complicated; those issues merit more extended discussion. If you are feeling pressed for time, you will get more points for addressing all the issues briefly than you will for addressing half the issues in detail. 7. Answer the questions with a focus on Common Law principles; Model Penal Code and California law should be cited if helpful to your analysis. If you reference MPC or California law, identify that source of law. Similarly, if you reference a minority Common Law rule, state that you are doing so.
33
Embed
MONTEREY COLLEGE OF LAW Mid-Term Examination · PDF fileMONTEREY COLLEGE OF LAW Mid-Term Examination 2010 ... The answers to questions (1) and (2) ... It is suggested that you allot
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MONTEREY COLLEGE OF LAW Mid-Term Examination
2010
CRIMINAL LAW
Professor Brannon
Instructions
1. Bluebook Users-- Please write your examination number (not your name) on the cover of each of your bluebooks. Number your bluebooks. Return every page of this examination along with your bluebooks. Write on only one side of each bluebook page. Your answer must be double-spaced. Make sure your answer is legible. You will get no credit for sentences that I cannot read.
2. Computer Users- Please type your examination number (not your name) at the beginning and end of your essay. Return every page of this examination along with your answer.
3. Make sure that you read the question carefully before answering. State clearly any assumptions that you make.
4. This is an open book exam. You may ONLY use your casebook, your Dressler Outline, any written materials that I distributed in class, and any notes and/or outlines that you prepared yourseif. You may not consult other materials or other students.
5. This examination consists of three questions. The answers to questions (1) and (2) are each worth 30% of your grade; the answer to question (3) is worth 40% of your grade. It is suggested that you allot proportionately more time to complete question (3). There is a three (3) hour time limit to complete the examination. You are being tested primarily on your ability to apply law to fact. The best answer is one that includes a succinct statement of the relevant legal principles, followed by a detailed analysis of how these legal principles apply to the facts.
6. There are multiple issues to address in this exam. You will not have time to address all of the issues in detail. Some issues are fairly straightforward and do not require detailed analysis. Other issues are more complicated; those issues merit more extended discussion. If you are feeling pressed for time, you will get more points for addressing all the issues briefly than you will for addressing half the issues in detail.
7. Answer the questions with a focus on Common Law principles; Model Penal Code and California law should be cited if helpful to your analysis. If you reference MPC or California law, identify that source of law. Similarly, if you reference a minority Common Law rule, state that you are doing so.
Buzz and George celebrated the Giant's World Series win by drinking whiskey late into the night at George's house. At 1:00am, an intoxicated Buzz decided to walk to a nearby liquor store to buy more whiskey. In his stupor, Buzz stumbled into the back door of Harry's residence. Buzz pushed open the door, entered and finding a comfortable couch, Buzz laid down and quickly fell asleep.
Harry, hearing the sound ofloud snoring coming from the darkened back room, grabbed his rifle, rushed to the room, threw on the light switch, and discovered Buzz asleep on the couch. Harry fired the rifle at Buzz as he struggled to rise off the couch. As the bullet whizzed by Buzz's head, Buzz rushed at Harry, knocked him down, and beat him repeatedly in the head with the barrel of the rifle until Harry was unconscious.
As Buzz was fleeing the room he noticed Harry's wallet on a table near the door. Buzz, upset at being shot at, decided to take the wallet. He then ran back to George's house, stopping only to pick up a bottle of whiskey at the liquor store. Buzz told George the story of his encounter with Harry as they drank the whiskey. Buzz checked the contents of Harry's wallet and discovered $300 and numerous credit cards. Buzz told George he would split the $3 00 and the credit cards with George if he could spend the night and lie low to avoid any police search for Harry's assailant. They proceeded to split the money and the credit cards.
George was arrested the next day as he attempted to use one of Harry's credit cards. George led the police to Buzz who was immediately arrested. During the course of his arrest by two uniformed officers, Buzz, extremely intoxicated, struck one of the arresting officers with the empty half-gallon bottle of whiskey, breaking the officer's jaw.
The burglary statute in this jurisdiction reads as follows: "Every person who enters any house with the intent to commit larceny or any felony therein is guilty of a felony."
The felony assault statute reads as follows: "Every person who willfully uses a deadly weapon, or force likely to produce great bodily injury, against the person of another that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of physical force to a person, is guilty of a felony."
What charges could be filed against Buzz? Discuss?
What charges could be filed against George? Discuss
What charges, if any, could be filed against Harry? Discuss
What potential defenses are available to Buzz? George? Harry?
2
Question 1 Answer Evaluation
Exam#
BUZZ-15 Discussion Points:
1) Burglary YL tC.-'1 ~ U\)9
2) Larceny V~<t-'1 'Jc)JO
I· 3) Attempted murder/attempted voluntary manslaughter on Harry t/.IS ( v·SS'.(;c? ~~OA(S,tf"[_-_ ·( <::~<1]1rJ:::> '"·lj'·l-' C-1 1 .... (')" -J·--;~-11,/l 4) Felony assault/battery on Harry 1Jifi/V6' I v .;;L J }~'] Jv L.- v·u·· I c,· l /V lt \}(/\Jj v·l ~·
5) Felony assault/battery on a police officer ). :}vt'L_ /:l~ J(.,;',...c- 1 :Sc;? I c T/-J/'·l, H L j <.) W f) J t::J11,0• r/~:i LJ p '/ '' I.-.., •. ,
Thelma and Louise were roommates and used illegal drugs together. They needed more money to buy illegal drugs. They agreed to break into the house of a neighbor, Bob, who illegally grew marijuana for sale and who kept large amounts of cash in his house. Further, they knew Bob was out of town and his house was unoccupied. After drinking copious amounts of alcohol and smoking some pot, Thelma and Louise then drove together to Bob's house.
Thelma and Louise parked in front of Bob's house, exited the car, opened Bob's front gate, and walked around the side of Bob's dark and unoccupied house. After reaching the rear of the house, Thelma and Louise approached Bob's locked back door, which they had planned to force open.
Unknown to Thelma and Louise, Bob had loaded a spring gun to fire if and when anyone stepped on the doormat outside his back door. As Louise reached for the back door knob, she stepped on the doormat which was wired to the spring gun; the spring gun then fired a bullet though her chest.
Thelma carried the bleeding, fatally wounded, and non-responsive Louise to the car. Panic stricken, confused, and not wanting to involve the police, Thelma drove Louise to her boyfriend Sal's house. Distraught and grieving over the apparent loss of her beloved Louise, Thelma told Sal of the attempted entry at Bob's house and the shooting of Louise. She begged Sal to help her.
Sal offered to clean the blood filled car and bury the comatose, but still alive Louise (who they both believed to be dead) in his back yard for a fee of $100. Thelma paid Sal the $100 and he buried Louise behind his backyard. A neighbor saw the back yard burial and called the police. Thelma and Sal were arrested.
At the autopsy of Louise the coroner determined: (1) that Louise died from being buried alive, not from the bullet wound, and (2) the bullet wound would have eventually killed her if she had not been buried first.
The burglary statute in this jurisdiction reads as follows: "Every person who enters any house with the intent to commit larceny or any felony therein is guilty of a felony."
For what felony crimes could Thelma, Bob, and Sal be prosecuted? Discuss.
What are their potential defenses? Discuss.
Do not discuss driving under the influence or potential charges for drug possession or sales.
3
QUESTION 2 SCORING OUTLINE
I. Thelma,Felony Crimes and Defenses-14 Points / & ,,
V 1. Conspiracy to commit residential burglary 0 Attempted burglary
a. Punishment: Attempted burglary provides only% burglary punishment while
conspiracy provides the same punishment as a completed burglary.
b. Accomplice/aiding and abetting culpability: If Thelma's acts do not constitute
attempt, did Louise's act of reaching for the door constitute an attempt?
3. Homicide culpability for Louise's death
a. Actus reus culminating with spring gun
a) Murder: Depraved heart/extreme recklessness (conscious disregard
for human life)?
i b) Involuntary manslaughter: Criminal (gross) negligence or during
commission of an unlawful act.
- ) 2) Causation: Was Thelma's intentional act of going to Sal's house to enter and /
steal the proximate/legal cause of Louise's death or was her death by spring gun
an intervening event?
1/]ll'':/ 3) Felony murder (burglary):
~' lj
a) Did co-felon cause death? Majority Rule: Co-felon must cause death
so does felony murder apply to these facts?
b) Res Gestae/One continuous transaction if cause of death burial?
c) EXTRA CREDIT Minority rule: Proximate cause test.
4) EXTRA CREDIT Burglary conspiracy or aiding & abetting derivative culpability:
Does not apply to these facts because co-felon must commit homicide.
b. Burial of Louise alive
_,pt;!-~·
~~""'"'~ 1) Solicitation/conspiracy to commit accessory after the fact.
"""""""'' ........ , .. ~-/'JQ'}' EXTRA CREDIT: If Sal has depraved heart mens rea concerning Louise's burial
V alive but Thelma does not, could Thelma still be derivatively culpable for Sal's
1
depraved heart murder arising from her conspiracy with Sal to commit the
felony crime of accessory after the fact {or aiding and abetting that crime)?
Depends on foreseeability of Sal's commission of depraved heart murder.
3) Mens rea concerning burial:
a) Murder: Depraved heart/extreme recklessness {conscious disregard
for human life)?
b) Involuntary manslaughter: Criminal {gross) negligence or during
commission of an unlawful act.
4) Causation: Was Thelma's involvement in Louise's burial the proximate/legal
cause of Louise's death or is Bob and his spring gun the legal cause since the
On August 1, 2010, Ted and Sid entered a 7-11 convenience store in Salinas. They selected two 40 oz. bottles of beer and placed them on the counter. Ted told Sid, "This one's on me." Sid replied, "Right on, because I'm broke!" Clark Clerk rang up the purchase. Ted, suddenly realizing he was SO cents short, politely asked Clerk to give him a SO cent "discount" on the purchase. Clerk refused to reduce the price.
Ted became angry and stated cursing and yelling. As Ted backed ~ut of the store, he threatened to "finish this later when you get off work" while pointing at Clerk with his right index finger and thumb cocked backward to simulate the shape of a gun. Sid, who had silently remained at the counter, suddenly decided to pick up both bottles of beer and hurried out of the store to catch up with Ted. Clerk was too afraid to say or do anything to stop Sid. After composing himself, Clerk called 911 and called for police assistance. While talking with the 911 operator, Clerk went to the front door and observed Ted slap Sid on the back as the two laughed and walked across the store parking lot, each drinking from an open beer bottle.
Officer Sly Stryker, in uniform and driving in his marked patrol car, received a call concerning a "shoplifting" in progress atthe 7-11 and responded quickly to the scene. He immediately saw Ted and Sid, who matched the descriptions of the subjects provided by County Communications, walking with beverage containers toward a car parked in front of a laundromat which was half a block from the 7-11 store.
Officer Stryker pulled into the lot, screeched to a halt, and jumped from his car. He identified himself as a police officer and ordered the suspects to set down their bottles and approach his location. Both Ted and Sid ignored his commands and continued walking toward the parked car. Officer Stryker removed his semi-automatic pistol from its holster, and pointing the weapon down toward the ground, ordered the two suspects to lie prone on the pavement. Almost simultaneously, Ted and Sid hurled their beer bottles at Officer Stryker. Officer Stryker had to quickly move and duck to avoid being hit by one bottle while the other bottle broke at his feet. As Officer Stryker dodged the bottles, Ted and Sid ran towards the parked car. Officer Stryker then discharged his pistol at Sid, fatally wounding him with two bullet strikes to the center of his back.
Meanwhile, Ted jumped into the driver's side of the car, ducked down across the front seat, and sped away in the vehicle. Officer Stryker proceeded to fire the remaining 13 rounds from his weapon at the fleeing vehicle, missing Ted.
Ted drove across the parking lot and into the adjoining street at a high rate of speed. While entering the street and while looking back towards Officer Stryker, Ted collided with a passing vehicle driven by Vicky, killing her.
Ted was arrested at the scene.
4
In this jurisdiction, robbery is a felony defined "as the taking of personal property from another's possession and immediate presence, and against his will, by means of force or fear. A robbery is not complete until the perpetrator has reached a place of temporary safety."
The felony assault statute reads as follows: "Every person who willfully uses a deadly weapon, or force likely to produce great bodily injury, against the person of another that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of physical force to a person, is guilty of a felony."
Discuss what homicide charges, if any, should be filed against Ted.
Discuss what homicide charges, if any, should be filed against Officer Stryker.
What are the potential defenses? Discuss.
5
l
/.t
QU~?'N3S~~:~JLINE ( Ll J )· . . --') I. Ted's Homicide Culpability for Vicky~oints ( 2 ) ) \__ 1
. , Y {) ..... ,/ "---...--~- ~---~---~~---~----·""''
The facts do not present conspiracy as a reasonable interpretation. There appears to be no agreement
between Ted and Sid to steal beer. Ted and Sid agreed Ted would pay for the beer. When Ted realized
he didn't have enough money, Ted politely asked for a discount. Only when Clerk refused did Ted
become angry and then began leaving the store. Sid then "suddenly decided to take the beer." The
question initially presents whether Ted aided and abetted a robbery by Sid.
/'~A: Felony murder: An accidental killing during the commission of a felony. Robbery is an
V enumerated and inherently dangerous felony.
1) Did Ted himself perpetrate a robbery?
2) Did Sid commit a robbery?
3) Did Ted aid and abet Sid's robbery? If during Sid's commission of the robbery, Ted
aided, facilitated, or encouraged the robbery, Ted is an accomplice. Ted would be an
accomplice if he so acted with the knowledge of the robbery anytime before completion
of the robbery (otherwise Ted would only be an accessory after the fact and not
culpable for the robbery). A robbery is not complete until the perpetrator has reached a
place of temporary safety.
a) Had Sid reached a place of temporary safety?
v·""·"""b) Did Ted demonstrate an accomplice actus reus?- ( (
c) Did Ted have the mens rea for robbery?
4) Felony murder causation (did the death occur during the commission of Ted's robbery
as an accomplice)?
a) Ted had not reached a place of temporary safety as Officer Stryker's
intervention emphatically demonstrated.
b) Was officer Stryker's use of force not foreseeable/an independent
intervening cause that breaks the causal chain between Ted's robbery
and Vicky's death? Under the common law, if Officer Stryker-committed a
crime, it is arguably an independent intervening cause and an example of free,
deliberate, informed human intervention.
5) Did Ted commit a qualifying felony by assaulting Officer Stryker with force likely to
produce GBI or a deadly weapon with a beer bottle?
__./ a) Majority rule: An assault is not a qualifying felony under the common law I/" v because of the merger doctrine.
l)
B. Other Homicide Culpability:
/ V 1) Depraved heart/conscious disregard for human life murder?
2) Voluntary manslaughter: Imperfect self-defense or heat of passion upon adequate
provocation?
A Involuntary manslaughter: Criminal (gross) negligence or during the commission of
V an unlawful act? ,
~t...t) ~tJ VllV''4 II s C,lh,/!ll1 .~17 (,) ("'"') C. Defenses (no justifications or excuses apply to felony murder on these facts):
1) Duress: Under the majority common law rule, duress does not apply to murder. Also
does not apply if Ted was at fault for exposing himself to the threat.
)
I l
2) Necessity: Conventional wisdom is that necessity does not apply to murder, but
perhaps otherwise on these facts. Also, doesn't apply if Ted at fault for "creating
necessity," but did Ted create Officer Stryker's commission of a crime?
3) Self Defense: If Officer Stryker used unlawful force, did Ted act in a reasonable belief
in the need to defend himself, justifying the accidental killing of Vicky under the
doctrine of transferred intent?
D. Extra Credit:
II. Ted's Homicide Culpability f?i" Sid-5 Points EXTRA CREDIT
A. Felony Murder:
Common law majority rule: The felony murder rule only applies to killings by co
felons. Because officer Stryker killed Sid, Ted is not culpable .
.. -:t_ __..C.'~ .. '
/ """"'''2) Common law minority rule: Under a proximate cause analysis, ted is culpable if the
V killing was foreseeable.
B. Aiding and abetting derivative culpability: An accomplice is only guilty of reasonably
rJ C) . foreseeable offenses committed by another accomplice. Because officer Stryker killed Sid, Ted
is not culpable. ;S -;:::::=:~
Ill. Officer Stryker's Homicide Culpability for Sid-~oints (j j) A. Homicide Mens Rea:
\I 1) Intent to kill"~ 1,\.cr·~ ~J· c! li / f ff' I kc'f '' •
v' 2) Depraved heart/conscious disregard for human life?
3) Voluntary manslaughter:
a) Imperfect self-defense: an honest but unreasonable belief in the need to
defend himself? ~~r-r!f'l'
#1'-?'Y"
) ~) Heat of passion caused by adequate provocation that would cause a
V reasonable person to act rashly?
...t"· I N\1 o L-B. Justifications:
!/'1) Self Defense? ~- i!tk~"f"' . .;" 2) Common Law Arrest Defense?
·(~:J?'lft , 4
3) U.S. Constiutional Arrest,_Req~irements? ..
- _ V '-1 ) I /l it11 <- f tt. .. <.. ~ l <Srf_- 4.5 Vf 5'1 /L "1 t. t/\..· vJf'1 s /t· i, 1b .1'1 :s r·i~f'L t f" r·· a:\Ot1'7 IV. Officer Stryker s 'Fiom1cide Culpability for Vicky~ Points
l11'' f ~
A. Homicide Mens Rea: If Officer Stryker's use of force against Ted was not justified, and
assuming causation for Vicky's death, his mens rea toward Ted would determine his culpability
for the killing of Vicky.
B. Causation: If Officer Stryker is culpable for homicide, then was it foreseeable that Stryker's
use of force would cause Ted to f~in-h~icle recklessly and at a high rate of speed resulting
in a fatal collision? ,.,-·//··~ ·.,, · -~
·.··! t)" 3 f o .. , /'( cf(. l 1 .,v c..,~ 1 \ - l
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.
Actus Reus
In order to be criminally liable the defendant must have voluntarily acted or failed to act when
he had a duty. Here the facts state that T got into his car and hit Vicky (V). The act of getting
into the car and driving satisfies the actus reus.
Mens Rea
There are four separate mens rea under common law murder: intent to kill, intent to inflict great
bodily injury (GBI), reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, and under
the felony murder rule.
Intent to Kill
The facts state that T got into his car and caused a car accident with V which killed her. This
does not show an express intent to kill. The facts state that T was looking back at the police
officer when he hit V and therefore he didn't even know he was about to hit her let alone intend
the killing. It is therefore most likely that T did not have the intent to kill V.
Intent to inflict great bodily injury
The facts state that T got into his car and caused a car accident with V which killed her. This
does not show an intent to inflict great bodily injury. As stated above the killing was
unintentional and T did not even know he was going to hit V as he wasn't even looking at the
Page 1 of 9
(Question 3 continued)
road. Therefore, it is most likely that T did not have an intent to inflict GBI.
Reckless indifference (Depraved Heart) 1/ ... The facts state that when T hit V he was trying to escape from the police. The facts also state
that he had just drank a beer and also he was driving at a high rate of speed while not looking
at the road in front of him. A person who gets into a car while speeding away and not even
looking at the road in front of him is posing a huge risk to other motorists and the general
public. It is most likely that T's acts are done with a reckless indifference and that the risk to
human life was very great. Therefore, it is most likely that Twas acting with a reckless
indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life.
Felony Murder Rule (FMR)
The felony murder rule states that a killing committed in the attempt, commission, or flight of an
enumerated felony will be murder. In this case there are two possible felonies that are being
committed by T, robbery and felony ~sssault. However, under the felony murder rule the
,.,.uAderlying felony must be separate from the killing. In this case the underlying felony of assualt
}/would not be allowed as the underlying felony for FMR because it is not separate from the
killing as it is itself a type of dangerous assault. Therefore, the prosecution will try to charge T
for FMR using the underlying felony of robbery. In order to use the felony of robbery the
9-ft\, prosecution will have to prove that the robbery ~~mp!~.!~.:~!~,tis shown that the robbery was
7.Jf .~· not complete there will be no underlying felony for which to charge Twill felony murder. In this ,;. <[
i\ '·i J 1 case the facts state that a robbery in this jurisdiction is, "the taking of personal property from
, another's possession and immediate presence, and against his will, by means of force or fear . . \ ,..{vf 7{:;:.),,""" _,.A robbery i,~ not complete until the perpetrator has reached a place of temporary safety." lfl \) .'-/tf i\ ~
<:; ;~,/''4, I •''{ '£ f ci '-' I '
;;;.··~~~:;·· ~~·V;~rce or Fear and agaisnt his will
Here the facts state that T and Sid went to the store to buy some beer. T was 50 cents short
and asked the clerk for a 50 cent discount. When the clerk refused T became angry and cursed
at the clerk and threatened to finish it later. The facts also state that the clerk was too afraid to
do anything or stop them. This shows that the element of fear was used because the facts state .,, '.• .... ·- ·-·
that the clerk was in fact in fear.
Page 2 of 9
(Question 3 continued)
Taking Element
Twill argue that the element of taking does n()j.J~~is!t..a\he did not take the beer but Sid did.
The prosecution will argue that Sid was a~omplice 9fT. An accomplice is someone who
assists in the commission of a crime intent~·u~rand;lso has the intent that the crime be
committed. Here the act of just being with T wouls not be sufficient to show that Sid was an ~"""'·'ll'.nm>''~"F<"' -'<'lt.:r.••>rJ-'""''7:"~'~,--~'"'"""'·'' •.'''":•• ;·:;~:. · ~' :0:'.r>.>:~.:;;,·;.P.'!·\"<F-t<t!!o;'<J.~-:<.;,~.~il..~~:7'~1"1~.\"\1';:"i'r:f•:J'I'l<t.:"f;.'·"".0:<·•!Ci"•· ~.;:.:,,..~,.;· .,,;,_·,,'\;:J,';(f;JJ;,"i:,",~•"'•{'i"""~'li<:-T>f'$[,:'~~~,.,.,".;o·,;~;·•·• ,,_,,_;,_-;. .• '""'-"•"''
accomplice because mere presence is not sufficient. However, Sid assisted T by taking the • .. . ··.• -·- ~.,_.~··. .., . . • • --~ ·'· ... • ... ' . • ; . '. -, ~-· :.- ':"~·1;;' ... ,._ .... ,, . . :.
beetbottf~soutto _T. T then dran.!<Jhe beer with Sid which shows they were acting together. An f;• ,·,,•, ' • •, •' 'o 'o •'H •,;.•.•'" ','),' ",,,,:_,,,',,• -
>~ ._. ---
accomplice will be liable for all the natural and probabaly crimes committed by other j accori1Pnce~. Therefore, e~~~ !hough T did not actuallytake the beer he will bO liable for the
~a king under accomplice liability) /)/0 . (1\/A L I ~ J ..1 ()f\{ ("1 crvs. rt {~.,~
,•
From possession of another ,z ) ( )-.v~ I l u;) l'lJ''Z_ (' f7i /~: Jl r ~ { .r \ t;" "'·~-· ; t:,~·
( uV~it i'T~ The facts state that Sid took the beer from the presence of the clerk and the beer did not
belong to Sid as he hadn't fully paid for it. This shows it was taken from the possession of
another.
Not complete until perpetrator reaches temporary safety
c.)r~ c c,-->t··rd/,;:::wttr'~ T (.,-J:.c:~"'n···s. 1~.~t ~\."'~'! c J;\((_ ~....0.7~::? ~ C.?L.ri ; } Twill argue that because he had yet to reach temporary safety he will not be guilty of robbery
and therefore will not be guilty under the FMR. The facts state that the two were on their way to
the car when the officer tri~d to apprehend them. The car may have been the temporary safety
but most likley the temporary safety would be a home where they finished their drive. The
prosecution will argue that the two had reached safety when they exited the store and were ,...------·"·--···-············ ,., ............... , " ' .. ' ,, '. -'
__ walking to their car and thus the robbery was complete. It is most likely that the twohad yet to ··-·-~"". "'·~ ··--.- ..•. ,, ···~'"·'"-"''.
reach ii)i~~e of temporary safety and therefore would not be guilty of robbery. ,(-~1
... ,.'- t-tt" ~~ J f r { f~lV( .. ~~~ ,. ._ { • • .....,~ \,.. ' J
·FMR for death of Sid
\,{(Y"t.} .,!
; (. \ · .
./ ( ( .• // ~ ..• ' ( ,!'
The prosecution may also charge T will the death of Sid under the FMR. However, the majority
.,--'"·
view is that the killing of a co-felon will not be sufficient under the FMR. If this jurisdiction has a L!:"J;·;;( ~ '.' ·. ' \
minority proximate cause view he may be charged as it is foreseeable to encounter police and
Page 3 of 9
(Question 3 continued)
for the po'lice to use force against the felons.
Defenses to murder
{
T will raise the defense of voluntary intoxication. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific
intent crimes only. However, it is most likely that T acted with the mens rea of reckless
indifference and didn't have the specific intent to do anything. Also the prosecutor will argue
that he only took a few sips of the beer before the police arrived and he was not intoxicated.
Therefore, his defense of intoxication ·will most likely fail.
Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing distinguishable from murder by the presence of
~deq,a~J~,.J2LQ,:t£,S~!Lsu:L2L.~D.St~r..L~.~--!!Jli?.~IT~¥J..~~If~,~f~D.~"'~.J:.~!~· In this case it is most likely that
there was not an intentional killing and therefore this mitigated form of homicide will not be
/ d'!T-
.("~_.,/<(- '
available to T. Under California law however, because T's acts would constitue a conscious v (j --··------~~·- -~""·~·-··-·----···-·~-.-~·---~·-""''''· ·······•+' ........... ········--··-·-'"··-··-·····-- • • • ·-" ... ........... ... • \
disregard to an unjustifiably high risk to human life he would receive this mitigated charge. J /
Involuntary Manslaughter ;· .. (
Involuntary manslaughter is found in two ways: by criminal negligence andk.tll"' ,. .... P'\ " ·' "
misdemeanor manslaughter rule. In this case Twill argue that he wa~o>merely negligent'when ·,f
he casued the death to V and therefore should get this charge. As s~qwn abgve he(had the ~ .. ~_, _____ , __
mens rea for murder and therefore will be charged for murder. Under the misdemeanor
manslaughter rule he will also argue that he was engaged in a misdemeanor and the killing
occcurred during its commission. However it is likely that Twas engaged in an attempted
robbery and not a misdemeanor.
Causation
To be liable for the murder of V it must be shown that T's acts were the actual and proximate
cause of the death. Actual cause is found when but for the defendant's act the victim would be
alive. The facts state that but forT driving his car erratically he would have not hit V and she
would not have died. Therefore, Tis the actual cause of the death. Proximate cause is when
Page 4 of 9
) ,··
t ''i '\ . !
(.
I' ('{
1
(Question 3 continued)
the death' is a foreseeable result of the act. Here the act of speeding away at a high rate of
speed through a parking lot while looking behind you is a foreseeable way to get into an
accident. T will argue that the police officer shooting at him was the reason he was looking back
and therefore the officer was an independant intervening cause. However, the officer was ~-----...... ·~-+-1'1~~-,.,...,~
shooting because T was fleeing and it was therefore ~l11t.ervening cause and will not
break T's causal chain. T is the proximate cause of the death.
Conclusion for Ted
It is most likely that T acted with the mens rea of reckless indifference and therefore he will be
charged with murder. FMR will not apply because asssault is not separate from the killing and
~ ...... ~~~e will attempt to mitigate this charge but will most likely fail. His --..... _ defense of intoxication will also fail. ~--"-"""'~~"-~ . .,....- .·• . ··.· . '" . · ... · ,
,...,.,_ 1'/f.'"' /'!,,·<; '(· '~ /J ~· '\,.)\ f('); } I . . . I r ~· f' ~- \. .. ~ ,. c. ~;>.· '.1 \/! , c f;, . .,.;.
People v. Officer Stryker (S)
Murder
"~.·~ :.'!' M·~1 --
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. T/·)
Actus Reus
In order to be criminally liable the defendat must have voluntarily acted or failed to act when he
had a duty. HereS shot multiple times at Sid. His act was voluntary and therefore satisfies the
actus reus requirement.
Mens Rea
There are four separate mens rea under common law murder: intent to kill, intent to inflict great
bodily injury (GBI), reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, and under
the felony murder rule.
Intent to Kill
Page 5 of9
I J
(Question 3 continued)
Th'e facts ·state that S discharged his pistol in the direction of Sid. Under the common law
deadly weapon rule a person who uses a deadly weapon in a killing has an implied intent to kill.
Because S used a gun, a deadly weapon, his intent to kill was implied.
Intent to inflict GBI
The facts state that S discharged his pistol in the direction of Sid. It is likely that when you shoot
at someone you are attempting to hit them which will cause GBI. Because S intended to shoot
Sid he most likely intended to inflict GBI.
Reckless Indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life
Here the facts of S shooting at Sid show a reckless indifference to human life. S shot Sid with
two bullets to the center of his back. This shows that he didn't care if Sid died as he didn't try to
hit him in the legs but was indifferent as to where he hit him.
See supra for rule.
S was not committing a felony and therefore this mens rea doesn't apply.
Defenses to Murder
It is most likely that Swill raise the defenses of self-defense, crime prevention, and arrest.
Self-Defense
A person may use proportional force against someone else in order to prevent an imminent
attack against there body. HereS used deadly force when he shot at Sid. A person may use
deadly force when he is not the agressor (which S wasn't because Sid threw a beer bottle at
him), has a reasonable belief he is in imminent danger of GBI or deadly force (Swill argue the
glass thrown at him could have caused GBI force if it cut him, prosecution will argue Sid only
used moderate force), has a reasonable beleif that deadly force was neccessary (it is most
Page 6 of 9
(Question 3 continued)
likely S's beleif was unreasonable as he fired a gun at someone who threw his one and only
~~eapon at him), and the deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful attack.
(~X'~~( . \ li'"ls'most likely that S will not have the defense of self because even though he was not the
agressor he combated non-deadly force with deadly force and therefore his defense is not valid.
Crime Prevention "' .... ., '} ~"" .I ~ s----~ 0 l ., ,c ... ~ I/ ;'i ~ .!f\rf "'"" ),/'t~ M ~ i .... ...,,. /1 v jc-:>_ 1( ~ r;, [\/~r,
committed. An atrocious felony is one likley to cause GBI force to another person and typically •·
\
A person can use deadly force if he reasonably believes that an atrocious felony is about to be
( I }-
consists of: murder, manslaughter, arson, rape, robbery, and burglary. Here the facts state that ··---~- 1 ,r~
~ the two menwer=e-in"th;-~~~i~sion of th~.f~-~~-ny=orr:~·t;t;~'ry~"8ecauset1hey had not yet (~"(! t..~--c€!
reached a place of temporary safety the crime was not yet completed. Because it was not -fff·· ., 1 --------~.. ~"'
completed S will argue that he had the right to prevent it. However, there was no threat to ~.lr<T·•''"''"~""""'""'''=""""~ ......... ~.,._,..._,-=>'WI~
anyoneaiiCrifCOuld be argued that even though They hadn't reached safety they were no longer
a threat to anyone. It is unlikley that S will prevail using this defense because he wasn't really
preventing anyone from committing an atrocious felony.
A police officer can use deadly force to effectuate an arrest if the officer reasonably believes ---... the_!USJ:~:.!J.~ . .<?.~!!!E!ill!.in!1 .. saJ~lQ!1lH§!IL<ideadly force is necessary to immediatly effectuate the
arrestS will argue that he told the two men that he was an officer and he told them to stop. The
two men then assaulted him and tried to run away. Swill argue that the two were committing a
felony and he had to use deadly force to effectuate an arrest or they would have gotten away.
The prosecution may argue that the officer could have shot the tires of the car instead or even
just chased the two in the car and called for back up. It is most likely that it was unreasonable
for S to use deadly force in this situation but if a jury finds the force reasonable he will prevail
on this defense.
Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing distinguishable from murder by the presence of
adeqaute provocation or under the imperfect self defense rule. Swill claim that he was the
Page 7 of9
(Question 3 continued)
victim of an attempted battery when the two threw the beer bottles at him. He will argue that this
provoked him to fire his gun. In order to find adequate provocation the defendant must show
that the provocation was of a type that would cause a sudden and intense passion in the mind
of an ordianry man as to cause him to lose his self control, the defendat in fact was provoked,
there was not a reasonable time between the provocation and the killing to cool off, and the
defendant didnt cool off. Here S will argue that a normal person would lose his self control when
someone else threw a bottle at him, he will argue that he was provoked, and he will argue that
he didn't cool off and there wasn't a reasonable time to cool off. Under the common law being
threatend with a battery was adeqaute provocation. It is likely that S may be succcessful in
proving provocation.
He may also claim imperfect self defense by showing that he had an honest but unreasonable
belief in his need to use deadly force.
-~"''-.. , /~nder California law however, !b:caus;l S's acts would constitue a conscious disregard to an
'\unjustifiably high risk to human\fe'''I~;;·would receive thi~ mitigated charge. \. j'l, /i ___ .,\ ... " ;I' -""'1.-~ •.... \. ;? ' F, I '
-' - '- '--·->' ,. Y·'·· i (,_, \: / :' ~ ( /·~-
Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is found in two \Nays: by criminal negligence and under the
misdemeanor manslaughter rule. Because this killing was most likely intentional S would not
have this mitigation.
Causation
/::::=~~\ y . .....- \!
To be liable for the murder of V it must be shown·1fiat T's 1cts were the actual and proximate
cause of the death. Actual cause i~A.ound when but'ier-·t11e defendant's act the victim would be
alive. Here but for S shooting Sid (be} would be alive. There are no intervening causes and since ~-
sis the direct cause of the death he is the proximate cause.
S forV
The prosecution may also try to charge S with the death of V. But as discussed above it is likely
that S was a dependant cause ofT's acts and will not be guilty in the killing of V. ,,
• . t
r :~. "~~-* -: :;.,.· Page 8 of 9
:;:.
·.-·-.:
(Question 3 continued)
Conclusion for S
It is most likely that S will be guilty of the murder of Sid. His defense of arrest is the strongest
defense and his provocation argument may also mitigate the murder to a manslaughter.