CH-4 Elements of Crimes and Parties to Crimes – Criminal Law and Procedure : Exam Guide

Chapter 4: Elements Of Crimes And Parties To Crimes 1. Under our system of law, a person cannot be punished merely for an evil intention. Answer: True 2. A person’s failure to act can never be the actus reus of a crime. Answer: False 3. In certain instances, mere possession of an item can be classified as a crime. Answer: True 4. In Robinson v. California (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a California statute that made it an offense for a person “to be addicted to the use of narcotics.” Answer: True 5. In prosecuting a specific-intent crime, it is necessary that a prosecutor establish a defendant’s intent, but it is not necessary that the prosecutor establish the defendant’s motive. Answer: True 6. In a specific-intent crime, a criminal intends to accomplish a particular result. Answer: True 7. The intent requirement has no bearing on the defenses available to the defendant in a criminal trial. Answer: False 8. The term mala prohibita refers to crimes involving universal moral wrongs. Answer: False 9. The common law did not distinguish among the various actors in felonies based on their degree of participation in the crime. Answer: False 10. At common law, a wife could not be an accessory after the fact to a felony committed by her husband. Answer: True 11. To be found guilty of a crime a person must commit a voluntary act, and in most instances, that act must be committed with criminal intent. Answer: True 12. In special cases, a person can be found guilty of an offense based solely on their criminal intent. Answer: False 13. The actus reus requirement can be fulfilled by a person’s failure to act where there is a family relationship or statutory or contractual duty to act. Answer: True 14. The law cannot criminalize the status of being addicted to narcotics, but it can punish an alcoholic for the act of public intoxication. Answer: True 15. The term mens rea refers to a person’s motive for doing an illegal act. Answer: False 16. Unlike the civil law, the criminal law generally does not punish people for unintentional wrongs. Answer: True 17. In most instances a prosecutor must establish the defendant’s criminal intent as well as the commission of a prohibited act. Answer: True 18. General intent refers to an actor’s mental purpose to accomplish a particular result beyond the act itself. Answer: False 19. In certain crimes the intent that must be proven determines whether particular defenses are available to the defendant. Answer: True 20. In 2011 Congress adopted the Model Penal Code Answer: False 21. The one indispensable element of a crime is the _________. a. actus reus b. mens rea c. fusion of act and intent d. strict liability Answer: A 22. When a person has a given object under his or her direct physical control, that person is said to be in ___________ of that object. a. constructive possession b. actual possession c. effective control d. effective ownership Answer: B 23. In Powell v. Texas (1968), Powell was a chronic alcoholic who was convicted of _______. a. disorderly conduct b. resisting arrest c. public intoxication d. lewd and lascivious conduct Answer: C 24. Where a crime requires only proof of a ____ intent, the fact finder (i.e., the judge or jury) may infer the defendant’s intent from circumstances surrounding the commission of the criminal act. a. specific b. general c. criminal d. tortious Answer: B 25. General intent exists when from the surrounding circumstances, the prohibited result may reasonably be expected to follow from the offender’s ___________, irrespective of a subjective desire to have accomplished such result. a. voluntary act b. design c. motive d. conspiracy Answer: A 26. The Model Penal Code rejects the common-law terms for intent. Instead, it proposes four states of mind: purposeful; knowing; reckless; and ___________. a. insane b. comatose c. wanton d. negligent Answer: D 27. Having consensual sexual relations with a minor is generally considered a _______ offense. a. strict liability b. mala in se c. civil d. secondary Answer: A 28. Under English common law, one directly involved in the commission of a felony was classified as ___________. a. a tortfeasor b. a misdemeanant c. an accessory d. a principal Answer: D 29. At common law, a person whose intentional conduct involved only indirect participation in a crime was classified as an _________. a. accessory b. innocent party c. ombudsman d. agent Answer: A 30. Even though the common-law distinction between principals and accessories before the fact has been largely abolished, the concept of ________ as a separate offense has been retained by many jurisdictions. a. compurgation b. accessory after the fact c. voir dire d. vicarious liability Answer: B 31. A person cannot be held criminally liable for a (an) __________. a. prohibited act b. intention c. misdemeanor d. felony Answer: B 32. “The distinction between _________ and __________ crimes is that the former involve a particular criminal intent beyond the act done, while the latter involve merely the intent to do the physical act.” a. specific intent; general intent b. general intent; specific intent c. transferred intent; general intent d. general intent; transferred intent Answer: A 33. “[U]nder the doctrine of ______, it is immaterial whether the defendant intended injury to the person actually harmed; if he in fact acted with the required or elemental intent toward someone, that intent suffices as the intent element of the crime charged as a matter of substantive law.” a. specific intent b. culpable negligence c. reckless indifference d. transferred intent Answer: D 34. __________ is defined as “a cause that in a natural, continuous sequence, unbroken by any intervening causes, produces the consequences that occur.” a. Ultimate cause b. Proximate cause c. Natural cause d. Probable cause Answer: B 35. When an offense is defined in a manner that a specific result must occur, the concept of causation becomes important. This is most commonly associated with _________ offenses. a. mala in se b. strict liability c. white collar d. homicide Answer: D 36. The Model Penal Code was produced by __________. a. Congress b. the National Center for State Courts c. the American Law Institute d. the Federal Judicial Center Answer: C 37. In _________, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime for which the defendant was prosecuted was a variant of the common-law offense of larceny and that failure to include the intent requirement in the statute did not eliminate the element of intent. a. United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1978) b. United States v. Knight (2007) c. Holloway v. United States (1999) d. Morrissette v. United States (1952) Answer: D 38. Many mala prohibita crimes are ________ offenses. a. common-law b. mala in se c. ancient d. strict liability Answer: D 39. Actual possession exists when a person has something under his or her direct physical control; ______ possession is a more difficult thing to prove. a. constructive b. symbolic c. transitive d. retentive Answer: A 40. Normally, to convict a person of a crime, the prosecution must prove that an actus reus occurred with a concurrent ___________. a. motive b. malice c. assumption of risk d. criminal intent Answer: D 41. The rationale for the _____ requirement is to prevent a person from being guilty of an offense based on evil thoughts or intent alone. a. mens rea b. fusion c. actus reus d. substantial step Answer: C 42. Which of the following is not an actus reus? a. the failure to file a federal income tax return when one has a legal obligation to do so b. swinging one’s fist at someone’s head without justification, but missing c. deciding to kill the man who swindled your father out of his land d. possessing cocaine without a prescription or any legal authority to do so Answer: C 43. In Holloway v. United States (1999), the Supreme Court interpreted the federal carjacking statute as including a (an) __________ element. a. specific-intent b. general-intent c. criminal negligence d. reckless disregard Answer: A 44. Which of the following laws does NOT define a specific-intent crime? a. A statute that defines burglary as “the unauthorized entry of a dwelling by a person with the intent to commit theft therein.” b. A statute defining murder that includes the language “premeditated killing of a human being.” c. A law making it an offense for any person “to willfully and with the intent to injure or defraud an insurance company set fire to any building.” d. A law making it a crime to possess controlled substances without a doctor’s prescription. Answer: D REF: 102-103 45. Laws use a variety of terms to describe the mens rea requirements of crimes, including “willfully,” “maliciously,” “wrongfully” and “__________.” a. deliberately b. recklessly c. negligently d. All of these Answer: D 46. The Latin term _________ means “the act of a criminal.” Answer: actus reus 47. To establish that a defendant is guilty of a crime, the prosecution must prove the defendant committed some legally proscribed act or ___________ when the law required certain action. Answer: failed to act 48. A person who has the power and intention to control something either directly or through another person is said to be in ____________ possession of that thing. Answer: constructive 49. ___________ is the intent to engage in a prohibited act but not necessarily to cause the harmful results that occur from that act. Answer: General intent 50. The Model Penal Code classifies culpable mental states in descending order as purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and _________. Answer: negligence 51. Strict liability crimes are exceptions to the common-law concept of requiring proof of a defendant’s _______. Answer: criminal intent; mens rea 52. Many modern mala prohibita crimes are ________ offenses. Answer: strict liability 53. At common law parties to crimes were classified as principals, accessories before the fact and ___________. Answer: accessories after the fact 54. Modern criminal law has largely abolished the distinction between principals and ___________. Answer: accessories before the fact 55. Modern statutes tend to view an ____________ as being less culpable than someone who plans, assists, or commits a crime. Answer: accessory after the fact 56. The traditional elements of a crime are a person’s wrongful act (actus reus) and _________. Answer: criminal intent; mens rea 57. The law recognizes two classes of possession: actual possession, where a person has something under direct physical control; and ___________. where a person has the power and intention to control something either directly or through another person. Answer: constructive possession 58. At common law, crimes were classified as requiring either general intent or ________. Answer: specific intent 59. Laws allowing criminal liability irrespective of intent are known as ___________ laws. Answer: strict liability 60. At common law, parties to felonies were denominated as __________ in the first and second degree, and accessories before and after the fact. Answer: principals 61. At common law, an accessory ____________ was one who procured or counseled another to commit a felony but who was not actually or constructively present at the commission of the offense. Answer: before the fact 62. Certain offenses, known as strict liability crimes, are exceptions to the common-law concept of requiring proof of a defendant’s ___________. Answer: criminal intent 63. The fact that a statute is silent on the matter of criminal intent does not necessarily mean that it defines a ____________ offense. Answer: strict liability 64. The __________ uses the terms purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently to describe four culpable mental states allowing for criminal responsibility. Answer: Model Penal Code 65. Many mala prohibita crimes are strict liability offenses and therefore do not require proof of __________. Answer: criminal intent Wanda Wannabe is a fourth grade teacher at New Hope Elementary School. A student in her class, Spike Trike, tells her that he saw another student in the class, Monty Majors, showing what appeared to be a real handgun to other students on the playground during recess. Wannabe dismisses the story, as Spike Trike is known to be a teller of tall tales. Later that afternoon Monty Majors shoots and kills another student in the bathroom. 66. Most likely, Ms. Wannabe is: a. in jeopardy of criminal prosecution for manslaughter b. in jeopardy of criminal prosecution for reckless endangerment c. in jeopardy of civil liability d. neither civilly nor criminally liable in this case Answer: C 67. An attorney representing Wannabe in a criminal prosecution would most likely stress: a. that her failure to act was not the proximate cause of the student’s death b. that she had no duty to protect her students from weapons possessed by other students c. that as a teacher she is immune from criminal liability d. that she was not aware of a serious and imminent threat Answer: A Dina Dryer drives her boyfriend to a nearby liquor store in order to perpetrate an armed robbery. Dryer parks the car outside and waits while the boyfriend enters the store, brandishes a handgun and demands cash from the clerk. The boyfriend returns to the car with a bag of money and tells Dryer to “hit it.” However, the car won’t start and within minutes both Dryer and her boyfriend are in police custody. 68. In this scenario the boyfriend is: a. an accessory before the fact b. an accessory after the fact c. a principal d. none of these Answer: C 69. In this scenario Dryer would most likely be considered: a. an accessory before the fact b. an accessory after the fact c. a principal d. none of these Answer: C 70. If we change the scenario so that Dryer has no knowledge of the crime until after it has been perpetrated and comes to the scene to rescue her boyfriend only after getting a call on her cell phone, then in most states Dryer would likely be considered: a. an accessory before the fact b. an accessory after the fact c. a principal d. none of these Answer: B John was stopped by police for driving his car 50 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. John explained to the officer that his speedometer had stopped working and that he was unaware that he was exceeding the speed limit. Saying “tell it to the judge,” the officer cited John for speeding. 71. If John chooses to contest the charge in court, he will likely: a. be found not guilty because he really had no intent to exceed the speed limit b. be found not guilty because the speeding was due to a mechanical problem over which John had no control c. be found guilty because speeding is a strict liability offense d. be found guilty because any reasonable person whose car was moving at 50 MPH would know that he was driving well beyond 30 MPH. Answer: C Michael is addicted to oxycodone and has committed a series of residential burglaries in which he has stolen various prescription drugs, money and other valuables from people’s homes. Michael has been assisted in these burglaries by his roommate Steve, who is not a drug user. Steve’s role has been that of lookout and getaway car driver. Both Michael and Steve are now in police custody and facing multiple counts of burglary and theft. The new assistant public defender assigned to represent Michael and Steve plans to mount a defense based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Robinson v. California (1962). 72. The trial judge will most likely hold that: a. Michael’s addiction absolves him of criminal responsibility in this case. b. Michael’s addition is irrelevant because burglary and theft are strict liability offenses. c. Michael can be held criminally responsible for burglary and theft of money and other property, but be cannot be convicted of theft of prescription drugs due to his addiction. d. The Robinson case is inapplicable because Michael is not being prosecuted for his status of being a drug addict. Answer: D 73. Steve would most likely be viewed as: a. an accessory before the fact to these offenses. b. an accessory after the fact to these offenses. c. a principal in these offenses. d. neither an accessory nor a principal in these offenses. Answer: C Seeing his mortal enemy, Peter Pompoy, standing on a street corner with three other men, Raoul Goy opens fire with his Glock 9. Two of the men, including Pompoy, are struck by bullets. Goy flees the scene and hides out in a cabin belonging to his good friend, Marcus Morse. Goy tells Morse what has happened and gets him to agree to shelter him until “things cool down.” However, Morse’s girlfriend alerts police to Goy’s whereabouts. Pompoy subsequently recovers, but the other victim, Jackson Jive, dies of his wounds. Prosecutors are contemplating which charges to bring against Goy. 74. Which of the following statements is NOT true? a. Goy can be charged with the attempted murder of Peter Pompoy. b. Goy can be charged with the premeditated murder of Jackson Jive. c. Morse can be charged as an accessory after the fact. d. Goy cannot be guilty of any unlawful killing of Jackson Jive because he intended to kill only Pompoy. Answer: D 75. Which of the following legal concepts comes into play in this case? a. transferred intent b. act of omission c. proximate cause d. constructive possession Answer: A Test Bank for Criminal Law and Procedure John M. Scheb 9781285070117, 9781285690292, 9781285546131