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
Because of a severe drought, Valjean, local farmer, has not been able to produce any crops for three straight seasons. Valjean and his family have depleted their own stores of food and have no money with which to buy more. When Valjean's family begins to starve, he arms himself with a knife and goes out to the main road. Valjean hides behind some bushes and waits for a pedestrian to walk by. Soon, Javert, a wealthy businessman, comes by. Valjean jumps from behind the bushes, holds the knife to Javert's throat and demands the money and valuables that Javert is carrying. Valjean takes what Javert has, apologizes for having to do this and then disappears. If Valjean is tried for robbing Javert, he will probably be:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct It is very important to remember the difference between intent and motive. Intent is a state of mind that indicates what the defendant wanted to do. Motive is the state of mind that indicates why the defendant wanted to do what he did. Motive is not an element to the crime. That being the case, if the prosecution can prove that the defendant committed the necessary act with the necessary intent, the defendant will be convicted no matter how good or noble his motive might have been. Here, Valjean intended to rob Javert. Therefore, even though his motives were certainly understandable, he will be convicted of a crime anyway. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! It is very important to remember the difference between intent and motive. Intent is a state of mind that indicates what the defendant wanted to do. Motive is the state of mind that indicates why the defendant wanted to do what he did. Motive is not an element to the crime. That being the case, if the prosecution can prove that the defendant committed the necessary act with the necessary intent, the defendant will be convicted no matter how good or noble his motive might have been. Here, Valjean intended to rob Javert. Therefore, even though his motives were certainly understandable, he will be convicted of a crime anyway. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Moe, Larry and Curley go up to Moe's lodge for a weekend of hunting. After an afternoon spent chasing deer, they get bored and decide to test their marksmanship. Moe, Larry and Curley each agree to take turns putting an apple on their heads and letting the other two try to shoot it off with a pistol. Moe puts the apple on his head first and Curley takes the pistol, walks about fifteen feet, turns and fires. Curley is not a very good shot and, instead of hitting the apple, he accidentally shoots Moe between the eyes killing him instantly. Since murder is a general intent crime, if the prosecution wants to convict Curley for Moe's murder, he will have to prove:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct General intent crimes basically only require proof that the defendant had intended to volitionally commit an illegal act. As such, the only state of mind required for a conviction is the intent to commit the act that constitutes the crime. In such a situation, the defendant will be convicted even if he never intended to violate the law, and even if he did not know that his act was criminal. Since murder is a general intent crime, the prosecution only has to prove that Curley intended to commit the act that resulted in Moe's death. This being the case, all the prosecution needs to prove in order to convict Curley of Moe's murder is that Curley intended to fire the gun at Moe. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! General intent crimes basically only require proof that the defendant had intended to volitionally commit an illegal act. As such, the only state of mind required for a conviction is the intent to commit the act that constitutes the crime. In such a situation, the defendant will be convicted even if he never intended to violate the law, and even if he did not know that his act was criminal. Since murder is a general intent crime, the prosecution only has to prove that Curley intended to commit the act that resulted in Moe's death. This being the case, all the prosecution needs to prove in order to convict Curley of Moe's murder is that Curley intended to fire the gun at Moe. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Moe, Larry and Curley go up to Moe's lodge for a weekend of hunting. After an afternoon spent chasing deer, they get bored and decide to test their marksmanship. Moe, Larry and Curley each agree to take turns putting an apple on their heads and letting the other two try to shoot it off with a pistol. Moe puts the apple on his head first and Curley takes the pistol, walks about fifteen feet, turns and fires. Curley is not a very good shot and, instead of hitting the apple, he accidentally shoots Moe between the eyes killing him instantly. Hypothetically, if murder is a specific intent crime and the prosecution wants to convict Curley for Moe's murder, he will have to prove:
Correct Specific intent crimes require proof of the general intent to commit the illegal acts and proof of intent above and beyond the general intent to commit the illegal acts. In other words, beyond proving that the defendant had the intent to commit the illegal act, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had intent for something in addition to the intent to commit the illegal acts. In this case, assuming (hypothetically) that murder is a specific intent crime, it would not be enough to prove that Curley intended to fire the gun at Moe. In order to win a conviction, the prosecution must also prove that Curley specifically intended to kill Moe when he shot the gun. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Specific intent crimes require proof of the general intent to commit the illegal acts and proof of intent above and beyond the general intent to commit the illegal acts. In other words, beyond proving that the defendant had the intent to commit the illegal act, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had intent for something in addition to the intent to commit the illegal acts. In this case, assuming (hypothetically) that murder is a specific intent crime, it would not be enough to prove that Curley intended to fire the gun at Moe. In order to win a conviction, the prosecution must also prove that Curley specifically intended to kill Moe when he shot the gun. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
Moe, Larry and Curley go up to Moe's lodge for a weekend of hunting. After an afternoon spent chasing deer, they get bored and decide to test their marksmanship. Moe, Larry and Curley each agree to take turns putting an apple on their heads and letting the other two try to shoot it off with a pistol. Moe puts the apple on his head first and Curley takes the pistol, walks about fifteen feet, turns and fires. Curley is not a very good shot and, instead of hitting the apple, he accidentally shoots Moe between the eyes killing him instantly. If the prosecution cannot prove that Curley intended to fire the gun at Moe, Curley cannot be convicted of Moe's murder:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct For some crimes, a conviction can be based on a showing of criminal negligence. In these cases, the defendant can be convicted for an act done without the intent required for specific and general intent crimes but, rather, with a showing that the defendant acted with a gross lack of care. In order to prove criminal negligence, the prosecution must show that the defendant acted in a manner that involved a higher probability of harm and a greater degree of unreasonableness than is necessary for a finding of civil liability for negligence. In this case, since Curley wan engaged in the very dangerous activity of shooting an apple off of Moe's head with a pistol, he could be convicted under a theory of criminal negligence, even if the prosecution cannot prove general intent. Therefore FALSE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! For some crimes, a conviction can be based on a showing of criminal negligence. In these cases, the defendant can be convicted for an act done without the intent required for specific and general intent crimes but, rather, with a showing that the defendant acted with a gross lack of care. In order to prove criminal negligence, the prosecution must show that the defendant acted in a manner that involved a higher probability of harm and a greater degree of unreasonableness than is necessary for a finding of civil liability for negligence. In this case, since Curley wan engaged in the very dangerous activity of shooting an apple off of Moe's head with a pistol, he could be convicted under a theory of criminal negligence, even if the prosecution cannot prove general intent. Therefore FALSE is the correct answer.
Question 5
The state legislature has just passed a law making it a criminal offense for an adult male to engage in sexual intercourse with a female under the age of eighteen. The law clearly states that this is to be considered a strict liability crime. One night, Brittany, a sixteen year old high school sophomore, uses a fake identification to get into a bar where she meets Justin, a 25-year-old bartender. Brittany and Justin spend the night flirting and at the end of Justin's shift, they go back to his apartment and have sex. Justin is charged with violating the state stature. If Justin can prove that he had no idea Brittany was underage he can still be convicted for violating the statute:
Correct Strict liability crimes are the crimes for which a defendant can be convicted even if he did not have any mens rea at all when he was committing the crime. Since no intent is required to commit these crimes, Justin will be convicted even though he can prove that he did not know that Brittany was underage. Therefore, TRUE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Strict liability crimes are the crimes for which a defendant can be convicted even if he did not have any mens rea at all when he was committing the crime. Since no intent is required to commit these crimes, Justin will be convicted even though he can prove that he did not know that Brittany was underage. Therefore, TRUE is the correct answer.