Review Quiz #1_ Attempt review _ Taft University System
.pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Taft Law School *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
613
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
10
Uploaded by MagistrateJackal3809
2/7/24, 2:08 PM
Review Quiz #1: Attempt review | Taft University System
https://online.taft.edu/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=76971&cmid=83891
1/10
Started on
Wednesday, 7 February 2024, 11:04 AM
State
Finished
Completed on
Wednesday, 7 February 2024, 11:08 AM
Time taken
4 mins 10 secs
Grade
16.00
out of 17.00 (
94.12
%)
Question 1
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Sam arranged with Charlie to have Charlie kill Nellie by shooting her. Sam, in turn, paid Seth $100,000 to do the killing. Seth went to Nellie's
home later that evening. Nellie had gone to bed and had left her bedroom window open. Seth found a long stick and set fire to the end of it.
He inserted the stick through the open bedroom window and started a smoldering fire in the bedspread on Nellie's bed. Nellie died of smoke
inhalation, but the fire was discovered and extinguished by Nellie's husband. The only damage to the home was smoke discoloration to the
walls next to the bed. The court will find Sam guilty of murder:
Select one:
A.
Yes, because Sam and Charlie were co conspirators.
B.
Yes, because he arranged for the killing of Nellie.
C.
No, because his arrangement was with Charlie and not Seth.
D.
No, because Nellie was killed in a different manner than Sam had contemplated.
B is correct. When a conspiracy exists the co-conspirator will be liable for the acts committed by the other co-conspirator upon a showing of
in furtherance thereof, and foreseeability. Since Sam paid Seth to kill Nellie, and in fact Seth did kill Nellie, Sam is a co-conspirator. It is in
furtherance thereof to kill if that was the agreement, and death is a foreseeable result since you paid another to do a killing. Therefore, Sam
will be charged with murder under the Pinkerton's rule based on the agreement between himself and Seth. A is not correct since Sam had an
implied agreement with Seth. C and D are incorrect since there was an implied agreement based on conduct with Sam and Seth. The correct answer is: Yes, because he arranged for the killing of Nellie.
2/7/24, 2:08 PM
Review Quiz #1: Attempt review | Taft University System
https://online.taft.edu/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=76971&cmid=83891
2/10
Question 2
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
While driving home one night in a snow storm Ron lost control of his car and ran over Victor. Lester and Dave, Victor's brothers, decided that
the accident had been Ron's fault and, together, carefully planned to avenge Victor's death. They pooled their money and bought a shotgun,
planning to use it to shoot Ron. When the time came to go looking for Ron, however, Lester told Dave, "I'm not going. If you want to do it,
you're on your own." Dave carried out the plan, shooting and killing Ron.
Could Lester be found guilty of any crime relating to the death of Victor?
Select one:
A.
Yes, as he was a co-conspirator.
B.
Yes, since his withdrawal from the conspiracy was not effective.
C.
No, since he did not do the killing.
D.
No, since he told Dave that he was not going.
B is correct. Once a conspiracy is formed, the only way to withdraw will be to effectively communicate to all co-conspirators. It may be argued
that when it was time to go look for Ron in order to carry out their agreement to avenge their brother's death, Lester told Dave, "I'm not
going. If you want to do it, you're on your own." was not equivalent to an effective withdrawal. He did not communicate in a timely manner,
since it must take place in time for the other co-conspirator to follow the example of his co-felon. Remember if there is an effective
withdrawal from the criminal conspiracy, the co-conspirator will not be held liable for crimes thereafter the agreement. However, he will
always be liable for the crime of conspiracy. A is too narrow of an answer since the facts suggest a withdrawal. C is not correct, since a co-
felon can be convicted under the theory of Pinkerton's for another co-felon's crimes. D is not correct as stated above since the withdrawal was
not effective. The correct answer is: Yes, since his withdrawal from the conspiracy was not effective.
2/7/24, 2:08 PM
Review Quiz #1: Attempt review | Taft University System
https://online.taft.edu/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=76971&cmid=83891
3/10
Question 3
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Michael's wife, Carry, is suffering from end stage cancer and is in terrible pain. Michael, Carry's sister Brenda, and the doctor discuss Carry's
situation in the waiting room. Michael asks the doctor to turn up the intravenous drip of morphine to a lethal level. The doctor initially agrees;
Brenda says nothing but nods. However, a few moments later the doctor changes his mind and tells Michael. Michael returns to Carry's room
followed by Brenda and the doctor. Michael turns up the drip himself, as Brenda looks on. The doctor tries to restrain Michael and calls
security. Carry dies as a result of the morphine overdose. What is the most serious crime of which Michael can be convicted?
Select one:
A.
Involuntary manslaughter
B.
Voluntary manslaughter
C.
Murder
D.
None of the above
C is correct. Murder is the killing of a human being with malice. Malice can be established with the intent to kill. Based on the facts, Michael's
wife was suffering from cancer, and he wanted to take her out of her pain. His actions of turning up the morphine drip resulted in his wife's
overdose. Thus, he acted with the intent to kill. A is incorrect since his act was intentional. B is incorrect since he did not act under adequate
provocation. D is incorrect since he had the intent to kill his wife in order to take her out of her pain. The correct answer is: Murder
2/7/24, 2:08 PM
Review Quiz #1: Attempt review | Taft University System
https://online.taft.edu/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=76971&cmid=83891
4/10
Question 4
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Question 5
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Laurel and Hardy came over to visit Monte one cold dreary night. When Monte was out of the room getting cold beers to drink, Laurel and
Hardy agreed to burglarize Mr. Wynn's house, a well known art collector. Once Monte came back in the room Laurel and Hardy tried their
utmost to get him to agree to join them in the burglary. Monte would not agree. However, Laurel and Hardy pretended that they needed his
car in order to go to the liquor store and get more beer. Monte allowed them to borrow his car. Instead of going to the liquor store, they went
to Mr. Wynn's home and broke in and stole a small painting. They drove the car back to Monte's house and put the car keys under his door
mat and proceeded to walk home. While walking home a police officer stopped and inquired about the painting Laurel was carrying. Hardy
panicked and pulled out a gun and shot the officer and fatally wounded him. Has Laurel committed any crime, or crimes, and if yes, what crime
or crimes, if any did he commit?
Select one:
A.
Conspiracy only
B.
Conspiracy, burglary
C.
Solicitation, conspiracy, burglary and murder
D.
Murder only
C is correct. Persons are guilty of conspiracy to commit a particular crime when they agree to commit it. Laurel and Hardy tried to convince
Monte to get him to agree to join them in the burglary, thus enticing him, which is solicitation. At common law, burglary is defined as breaking
and entering into a dwelling at night for the purpose of committing a larceny or any felony therein. Since the agreement was to break into Mr.
Wynn's house and burglarize him, there was a conspiracy to commit burglary. Further, under the Pinkerton's rule a co-felon will be guilty of
any crime that is foreseeable and a natural probable result of the conspiracy. Since they agreed to burglarize, and a police officer approached
them, it is foreseeable that steps would be taken to prevent capture, including killing the officer. Therefore, Laurel and Hardy are guilty of
burglary, solicitation, conspiracy and murder. A, B and D are incorrect for the reasons stated why C is correct.
The correct answer is: Solicitation, conspiracy, burglary and murder
Max enters a liquor store, pulls out a gun, and demands that the cashier empty the register. As he nervously looks around for police, the
cashier reaches out and attempts to grab the gun. Max nervously drops it, it accidentally discharges, killing a nearby customer. Max is charged
with first degree murder. On these facts, he will likely be:
Select one:
A.
Acquitted, because he lacked the necessary intent required for first degree murder.
B.
Acquitted, because the cashier's actions were the proximate cause of the death.
C.
Convicted, because any death that is a natural and probable consequence of a felony is first degree murder.
D.
Convicted, because intent to commit serious bodily harm is assumed when a deadly weapon is used.
C is correct. Under the felony murder rule the intent to commit a felony is malice afore-thought, and that a death which results from the
perpetration of a felony is, therefore, murder in the first degree. For this purpose, the perpetration of a felony, i.e. the robbery, and the act by
another party trying to prevent the robbery, but results in a killing is foreseeable. Since Max was in the commission of a robbery, when the
killing occurred the felony murder rule will apply. Based on the felony murder rule A, B, and D are, therefore, incorrect.
The correct answer is: Convicted, because any death that is a natural and probable consequence of a felony is first degree murder.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help