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
Tex is a multimillionaire who made his money in the oil business. Tex is in his financial advisor's office one day discussing his business dealings. The financial advisor had made some bad investments with Tex's money but without Tex's permission and has lost Tex several million dollars. When the financial advisor admits this to Tex, Tex is so enraged that he immediately pulls out the gold plated pistol that he always carries around and shoots the advisor in the head. Tex is charged with murder. However, In this case, Tex can get his charges reduced to voluntary manslaughter:
Correct A killing can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if four requirements are met. First, there must have been a provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose control of himself and act spontaneously. Second, the provocation must have actually provoked the defendant. Third, the period of time between the provocation and the actual killing cannot be long enough for a reasonable person to have calmed down and fourth, the defendant himself must not have calmed down when he actually committed the killing. In this case, Tex was actually provoked by a provocation that would make a reasonable person lose control of himself, the time between the provocation and the killing was not long enough for a reasonable person to have calmed down and Tex had not calmed down before he killed the advisor. That being the case, Tex can get the charges against him reduced to voluntary manslaughter and TRUE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! A killing can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if four requirements are met. First, there must have been a provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose control of himself and act spontaneously. Second, the provocation must have actually provoked the defendant. Third, the period of time between the provocation and the actual killing cannot be long enough for a reasonable person to have calmed down and fourth, the defendant himself must not have calmed down when he actually committed the killing. In this case, Tex was actually provoked by a provocation that would make a reasonable person lose control of himself, the time between the provocation and the killing was not long enough for a reasonable person to have calmed down and Tex had not calmed down before he killed the advisor. That being the case, Tex can get the charges against him reduced to voluntary manslaughter and TRUE is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Tex is a multimillionaire who made his money in the oil business. Tex is in his financial advisor's office one day discussing his business dealings. The financial advisor had made some bad investments with Tex's money but without Tex's permission and has lost Tex about one hundred dollars. When the financial advisor admits this to Tex, Tex is so enraged that he immediately pulls out the gold plated pistol that he always carries around and shoots the advisor in the head. Tex is charged with murder. However, In this case, Tex can get his charges reduced to voluntary manslaughter:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct In order to reduce charges to voluntary manslaughter, the provocation must be one that would have provoked a reasonable person to lose control of himself. This is an objective test. As such, we don't care what would or would not provoke the defendant himself. If the provocation is one that would not cause a reasonable person to lose control of himself, the defendant will be charged with murder even if he was blind with rage when he committed the killing. Here, the provocation was not one that would have made a reasonable person lose control of himself. Therefore, even thought Tex might have been enraged, the charges against him will not be reduced to voluntary manslaughter and FALSE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! In order to reduce charges to voluntary manslaughter, the provocation must be one that would have provoked a reasonable person to lose control of himself. This is an objective test. As such, we don't care what would or would not provoke the defendant himself. If the provocation is one that would not cause a reasonable person to lose control of himself, the defendant will be charged with murder even if he was blind with rage when he committed the killing. Here, the provocation was not one that would have made a reasonable person lose control of himself. Therefore, even thought Tex might have been enraged, the charges against him will not be reduced to voluntary manslaughter and FALSE is the correct answer.
Question 3
Tex is a multimillionaire who made his money in the oil business. Tex is in his financial advisor's office one day discussing his business dealings. The financial advisor had made some bad investments with Tex's money but without Tex's permission and has lost Tex several million dollars. When the financial advisor admits this to Tex, Tex is so enraged that he storms out of the advisor's office. A few days later, Tex, who is still furious, returns to the office with a gold plated pistol and shoots the advisor in the head. Tex is charged with murder. However, In this case, Tex can get his charges reduced to voluntary manslaughter:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct In order for murder charges to be reduced to voluntary manslaughter, the period of time between the provocation and the killing must not be long enough that a reasonable person would have calmed down. This is also an objective standard and it is therefore irrelevant whether or not the period of time between the provocation and the killing was enough time for the defendant himself to have calmed down. In this case, enough time has gone by that a reasonable person would have calmed down. That being the case, even though Tex himself has not yet calmed down, the charges against him will not be reduced to voluntary manslaughter and FALSE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! In order for murder charges to be reduced to voluntary manslaughter, the period of time between the provocation and the killing must not be long enough that a reasonable person would have calmed down. This is also an objective standard and it is therefore irrelevant whether or not the period of time between the provocation and the killing was enough time for the defendant himself to have calmed down. In this case, enough time has gone by that a reasonable person would have calmed down. That being the case, even though Tex himself has not yet calmed down, the charges against him will not be reduced to voluntary manslaughter and FALSE is the correct answer.