Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
It is well settled that in order to convict, a defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitutional basis for this rule of law is:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, although containing no language to that effect, has been held to contain the requirement that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Incorrect! The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, although containing no language to that effect, has been held to contain the requirement that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Question 2
Robbery in the state of Akanassee is defined as "taking the personal property of another, from their person or presence, by force or intimidation, with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof." David is caught on tape knocking over the fragile Ms. Ross and yanking her necklace from her neck. When he is caught several months later, the necklace is found in his apartment in an express mail envelope which is stamped and addressed to Ms. Ross. Can he be convicted of robbery?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct If the prosecution can make out every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, David can be found guilty by the jury. Although the envelope is a good barrier against proving the last element, it is not the final word as suggested by (C). For example, if David's apartment also reveals other stolen goods in similarly marked envelopes, and a stash of older envelopes which had been similarly addressed but which have since been opened and emptied, it might appear that this is all a ruse to sidestep the prosecution's ability to prove 'intent to permanently deprive' should David be caught.
Incorrect! If the prosecution can make out every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, David can be found guilty by the jury. Although the envelope is a good barrier against proving the last element, it is not the final word as suggested by (C). For example, if David's apartment also reveals other stolen goods in similarly marked envelopes, and a stash of older envelopes which had been similarly addressed but which have since been opened and emptied, it might appear that this is all a ruse to sidestep the prosecution's ability to prove 'intent to permanently deprive' should David be caught.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Robbery in the state of Akanassee is defined as "taking the personal property of another, from their person or presence, by force or intimidation, with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof." Jodie is caught on tape taking $10 from Andrea at knifepoint. When arrested Jodie swears it was just a prank. While Jodie is in jail, Andrea receives a letter mailed from Jodie home which contains the $10 bill. Can Jodie be convicted of robbery?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Answer: (C)Clearly Jodie did not have the intent to permanently deprive Andrea of the money because she returned it to her. Although the other answers are tempting because Jodie seems somehow culpable here, while she could be charged with some other crime she cannot be convicted of robbery. NOTE: The concept of intent has been somewhat oversimplified in questions (2) and (3) to suit our purpose of addressing the need to demonstrate every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, whether the intent element is met or not is not determined at a later point but rather is measured at the time of the crime. So, if at the time she took the money Jodie meant to keep it, but between then and the time she was arrested she had a change of heart and mailed it to Andrea, she still would have satisfied the intent element of the crime and could be convicted. This is because when she took the money she had the necessary specific intent to permanently deprive Andrea of it.
Incorrect! Answer: (C)Clearly Jodie did not have the intent to permanently deprive Andrea of the money because she returned it to her. Although the other answers are tempting because Jodie seems somehow culpable here, while she could be charged with some other crime she cannot be convicted of robbery. NOTE: The concept of intent has been somewhat oversimplified in questions (2) and (3) to suit our purpose of addressing the need to demonstrate every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, whether the intent element is met or not is not determined at a later point but rather is measured at the time of the crime. So, if at the time she took the money Jodie meant to keep it, but between then and the time she was arrested she had a change of heart and mailed it to Andrea, she still would have satisfied the intent element of the crime and could be convicted. This is because when she took the money she had the necessary specific intent to permanently deprive Andrea of it.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
In the state of Calizona the legislature approved the following Rule of Procedure: "All judges shall inform their juries of the Defendant's presumption of innocence in criminal cases and that the prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendant has satisfied every element of the crime in question beyond a reasonable doubt." If a judge reads this verbatim to a jury and says nothing more, has the jury been properly instructed regarding these matters?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Although the jury instruction contains the 'magic words,' unless the instruction provides further content the words are ineffectual. While no specific language is required, the instruction must be sufficient to 'safeguard against dilution of the principles,' and merely paying lip-service to the buzz phrases does not meet this goal.
Incorrect! Although the jury instruction contains the 'magic words,' unless the instruction provides further content the words are ineffectual. While no specific language is required, the instruction must be sufficient to 'safeguard against dilution of the principles,' and merely paying lip-service to the buzz phrases does not meet this goal.