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
Bart is a seventeen-year-old kid who lives in rural Springfield. Springfield has a statute that makes it a crime to "knowingly or recklessly engage in any unlawful activity that could result in the burning of any structure in a rural area". The statute defines "rural areas" as areas that are used primarily for farming. Bart lives next door to Moe's hops and barley farm. Having nothing to do one day, Bart goes to Crusty's fireworks store and buys a bunch of illegal bottle rockets. Bart brings the rockets home and begins setting them off in his backyard. One of the rockets flies out of control and lands in Moe's barn. The Barn, which is full of freshly harvested hops, ignites and burns to the ground. If Bart is charged with violating the statute, he will probably be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Where a crime requires proof of a result (as opposed to an act) in order for the defendant to be convicted, the prosecution must prove that the defendant's act was the legal cause of the result. In order to prove factual causation, the prosecutor must show that "but for" the defendant's act the result would not have happened as it did or when it did. That being the case, if the prosecution can prove legal causation by showing that Moe's barn would not have burned down when it did had it not been for Bart's actions, Bart will be convicted and B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where a crime requires proof of a result (as opposed to an act) in order for the defendant to be convicted, the prosecution must prove that the defendant's act was the legal cause of the result. In order to prove factual causation, the prosecutor must show that "but for" the defendant's act the result would not have happened as it did or when it did. That being the case, if the prosecution can prove legal causation by showing that Moe's barn would not have burned down when it did had it not been for Bart's actions, Bart will be convicted and B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Bart is a seventeen-year-old kid who lives in rural Springfield. Springfield has a statute that makes it a crime to "knowingly or recklessly engage in any unlawful activity that could result in the burning of any structure in a rural area". The statute defines "rural areas" as areas that are used primarily for farming. Bart lives next door to Moe's hops and barley farm. Having nothing to do one day, Bart goes to Crusty's fireworks store and buys a bunch of illegal bottle rockets. Bart brings the rockets home and begins setting them off in his backyard. One of the rockets flies out of control and lands in front of Moe's barn. The Barn, which is full of freshly harvested hops, ignites and, soon, the entire first floor of the three story building is on fire. While the lower half of the barn is burning, a bolt of lightning strikes the barn igniting the roof as well. The barn soon burns to the ground. If Bart is charged with violating the statute, he will probably be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Where a crime requires proof of a result (as opposed to an act) in order for the defendant to be convicted, the prosecution must prove that the defendant's act was the legal cause of the result. In order to prove causation, the prosecutor must show that "but for" the defendant's act the result would not have happened as it did or when it did. However, the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant's action was the only thing that brought about the result. The defendant's action may be one of several different actions and circumstances that contributed to the result. But, as long as the prosecutor can show that, but for the defendant's action, the result would not have come about as it did or when it did, the prosecutor has successfully proven factual causation regardless of how many other actions and circumstances were involved in proving the result. In this case, although the barn would have burned anyway because of the lightning, Bart's actions are the factual cause of the barn's destruction because, but for his actions, the barn would not have burned when it did. Therefore, even though Bart only sped up the inevitable, he will be convicted anyway and B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where a crime requires proof of a result (as opposed to an act) in order for the defendant to be convicted, the prosecution must prove that the defendant's act was the legal cause of the result. In order to prove causation, the prosecutor must show that "but for" the defendant's act the result would not have happened as it did or when it did. However, the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant's action was the only thing that brought about the result. The defendant's action may be one of several different actions and circumstances that contributed to the result. But, as long as the prosecutor can show that, but for the defendant's action, the result would not have come about as it did or when it did, the prosecutor has successfully proven factual causation regardless of how many other actions and circumstances were involved in proving the result. In this case, although the barn would have burned anyway because of the lightning, Bart's actions are the factual cause of the barn's destruction because, but for his actions, the barn would not have burned when it did. Therefore, even though Bart only sped up the inevitable, he will be convicted anyway and B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
South Park has a statute that makes it a crime to knowingly or recklessly engage in any unlawful activity that could result in the burning of any structure in a rural area. The statute defines rural areas as areas that are used primarily for farming. After hiking to the edge of some corn fields, Kyle builds an illegal bonfire in a clearing so that he can barbecue. Five hundred feet away from Kyle, Stan builds a fire as well. Neither Kyle nor Stan take the necessary precautions to make sure their fires do not spread out of control. The fires, which are burning toward Cartman's farmhouse also burn toward each other and eventually join. The new big fire proceeds to burn Cartman's farmhouse to the ground. Each fire individually was big enough to destroy Cartman's property. If Kyle and Stan are charged with violating the statute, they will be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Where a crime requires proof of a result (as opposed to an act) in order for the defendant to be convicted, the prosecution must prove that the defendant's act was the legal cause of the result. In order to prove causation, the prosecutor must show that "but for" the defendant's act the result would not have happened as it did or when it did. However, one exception to this rule is where the result is brought about by two different factors operating concurrently, and either factor operating alone would have been enough to cause the result. In such a situation, each defendant's action will be considered the factual cause of the result despite the fact that, if either defendant had not done what he did, the result would have been the same anyway. Here, Kyle and Stan's actions can be considered concurrent sufficient causes of the resulting destruction of Cartman's property. That being the case, their actions will both be considered the factual cause of the destruction of Cartman's property and they can both be convicted. Thus, D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where a crime requires proof of a result (as opposed to an act) in order for the defendant to be convicted, the prosecution must prove that the defendant's act was the legal cause of the result. In order to prove causation, the prosecutor must show that "but for" the defendant's act the result would not have happened as it did or when it did. However, one exception to this rule is where the result is brought about by two different factors operating concurrently, and either factor operating alone would have been enough to cause the result. In such a situation, each defendant's action will be considered the factual cause of the result despite the fact that, if either defendant had not done what he did, the result would have been the same anyway. Here, Kyle and Stan's actions can be considered concurrent sufficient causes of the resulting destruction of Cartman's property. That being the case, their actions will both be considered the factual cause of the destruction of Cartman's property and they can both be convicted. Thus, D is the correct answer.
Question 4
Kyle and Stan hatch a plan to rob Cartman's house. A few nights later, they break into Cartman's house and start stuffing any valuables they see into a big leather bag. Unfortunately, Cartman's mother comes home while Stan and Kyle are there. Stan and Kyle tie Cartman's mother up and shove her into a closet. They then finish going through the house and leave. What Kyle and Stan do not know is that Mrs. Cartman has a serious heart condition and, due to the fright they have caused her, Mrs. Cartman has suffered a fatal heart attack. If Kyle and Stan are charged with Mrs. Cartman's death, they will probably be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Even if the prosecutor can prove factual causation between the defendant's act and the result it caused, he will not win a conviction unless he can prove proximate causation as well. Typically proximate cause issues arise where an expected result comes about in an unexpected manner. The defendant's action will be regarded as the proximate cause of the result if the result occurred as a "natural and probable consequence" of his act, and there was no intervening factor sufficient enough to break the chain of causation. Since a superceding factor must be set in motion after the defendant has committed his act, a pre-existing condition, including physical conditions, cannot be a superceding factor and will not break the chain of causation. That being the case, Mrs. Cartman's heart condition will not break the chain of causation between Kyle and Stan's actions and Mrs. Cartman's death and, therefore, they can be convicted. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Even if the prosecutor can prove factual causation between the defendant's act and the result it caused, he will not win a conviction unless he can prove proximate causation as well. Typically proximate cause issues arise where an expected result comes about in an unexpected manner. The defendant's action will be regarded as the proximate cause of the result if the result occurred as a "natural and probable consequence" of his act, and there was no intervening factor sufficient enough to break the chain of causation. Since a superceding factor must be set in motion after the defendant has committed his act, a pre-existing condition, including physical conditions, cannot be a superceding factor and will not break the chain of causation. That being the case, Mrs. Cartman's heart condition will not break the chain of causation between Kyle and Stan's actions and Mrs. Cartman's death and, therefore, they can be convicted. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
Kyle and Stan hatch a plan to rob Cartman's house. A few nights later, they break into Cartman's house and start stuffing any valuables they see into a big leather bag. Unfortunately, Cartman's mother comes home while Stan and Kyle are there. Stan and Kyle tie Cartman's mother up and shove her into a closet. They then finish going through the house and leave. What Kyle and Stan do not know is that Mrs. Cartman has a serious heart condition and, do to the fright they have caused her, Mrs. Cartman has suffered a heart attack. She is rushed to the hospital and then into surgery. Unfortunately, during the operation, one of the doctors accidentally cuts an artery with his scalpel and Mrs. Cartman dies on the operating table. If Kyle and Stan are charged with Mrs. Cartman's death, they will probably be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Even if the prosecutor can prove factual causation between the defendant's act and the result it caused, he will not win a conviction unless he can prove proximate causation as well. The defendant's action will be regarded as the proximate cause of the result if the result occurred as a "natural and probable consequence" of his act, and there was no intervening factor sufficient enough to break the chain of causation. Negligent medical treatment is considered a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's actions. That being the case, the doctor's negligence here will not break the chain of causation between Kyle and Stan's actions and Mrs. Cartman's death and they will be convicted. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Even if the prosecutor can prove factual causation between the defendant's act and the result it caused, he will not win a conviction unless he can prove proximate causation as well. The defendant's action will be regarded as the proximate cause of the result if the result occurred as a "natural and probable consequence" of his act, and there was no intervening factor sufficient enough to break the chain of causation. Negligent medical treatment is considered a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's actions. That being the case, the doctor's negligence here will not break the chain of causation between Kyle and Stan's actions and Mrs. Cartman's death and they will be convicted. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 6
Kyle and Stan hatch a plan to rob Cartman's house. A few nights later, they break into Cartman's house and start stuffing any valuables they see into a big leather bag. Unfortunately, Cartman's mother comes home while Stan and Kyle are there. Stan and Kyle tie Cartman's mother up and shove her into a closet. They then finish going through the house and leave. What Kyle and Stan do not know is that Mrs. Cartman has a serious heart condition and, do to the fright they have caused her, Mrs. Cartman has suffered a heart attack. She is rushed to the hospital and then into surgery. Unfortunately, one of the doctors who is performing the surgery has just returned from a bachelor party and is very drunk. The doctor accidentally cuts an artery with his scalpel and Mrs. Cartman dies on the operating table. If Kyle and Stan are charged with Mrs. Cartman's death, they will probably be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Even if the prosecutor can prove factual causation between the defendant's act and the result it caused, he will not win a conviction unless he can prove proximate causation as well. The defendant's action will be regarded as the proximate cause of the result if the result occurred as a "natural and probable consequence" of his act, and there was no intervening factor sufficient enough to break the chain of causation. Grossly negligent medical treatment is not considered a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's actions. That being the case, the doctor's gross negligence here breaks the chain of causation between Kyle and Stan's actions and Mrs. Cartman's death and they will not be convicted. Thus, B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Even if the prosecutor can prove factual causation between the defendant's act and the result it caused, he will not win a conviction unless he can prove proximate causation as well. The defendant's action will be regarded as the proximate cause of the result if the result occurred as a "natural and probable consequence" of his act, and there was no intervening factor sufficient enough to break the chain of causation. Grossly negligent medical treatment is not considered a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's actions. That being the case, the doctor's gross negligence here breaks the chain of causation between Kyle and Stan's actions and Mrs. Cartman's death and they will not be convicted. Thus, B is the correct answer.