Criminal Law Essay Practice Questions - Law Exam 5 of 30 - Quimbee PDF

Preview

Summary

this is an essay practice question from criminal law for quimbee...

Description

5/9/2021

Criminal Law Essay Practice Questions - Law Exam 5 of 30 - Quimbee

Criminal Law Exam 5 30 minutes

Question 1 Of what type of homicide, if any, is A guilty? Explain, considering all forms of possible homicide liability under the Model Penal Code. The issue is whether A is liable for homicide. The answer is yes. Although A probably did not act with the required mens rea for murder or manslaughter, she is liable for negligent homicide, because she satises both the actus reus and mens rea required for that crime. I. Actus Reus The rst question is whether the prosecution can prove the actus reus required for homicide. Under the Model Penal Code, the actus reus for homicide is causing the death of another human being. The actus reus is satised here. A caused the death of B, a bank customer, with a bullet from her handgun. Moreover, A’s actions were voluntary for the purposes of actus reus. For an action to be voluntary, it must involve willed movement. Here, A willingly put her hand on the trigger and pulled, releasing a bullet that killed B. As a result, the prosecution can prove the actus reus for homicide here. II. Mens Rea The next question is whether the prosecution can prove the mens rea for homicide. The Model Penal Code divides homicide into three categories—murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide—in accordance with the defendant’s mens rea, or culpability, in killing another human being. Each category will be examined separately. A.Murder The issue is whether A acted with the mens rea for murder. Under the Model Penal Code, a criminal homicide constitutes murder when the defendant kills another person (1) purposely or knowingly, or (2) recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

https://www.quimbee.com/essay-practice-exams/criminal-law-exam-5

1/4

5/9/2021

Criminal Law Essay Practice Questions - Law Exam 5 of 30 - Quimbee

The rst question is whether A acted purposely or knowingly in killing B. The answer is no. With respect to result elements, such as causing the death of another human, a person acts purposely if the person’s “conscious object [is] to cause such a result.” A result is knowingly caused if the actor is “aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.” Here, A’s conscious objective was to break a padlock with a bullet, not to cause B’s death, so she didn’t act purposely with respect to B’s death. A also wasn’t aware that it was practically certain that her conduct would cause B’s death. She believed, having seen several examples in movies, that one could safely shoot out a lock, particularly since no one was standing behind the locker who could be struck with a bullet should she miss. As a result, A did not act purposely or knowingly. The second question is whether A acted recklessly, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. The Model Penal Code presumes that the defendant is acting with the required recklessness and indifference to human life if the defendant “is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or ight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape.” This is known as the felony-murder rule. This presumption will apply here, because A was committing robbery when the killing occurred. Under the Model Penal Code, a person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, the person “threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury.” Theft, in turn, is dened as unlawfully taking or exercising control over the property of another, with the purpose to deprive that person of the property. Here, A was committing a theft when the killing happened, because she was unlawfully taking the bank’s money with the purpose—under the Model Penal Code, the conscious objective—to deprive the bank of the money. A’s actions also amounted to robbery because, in the course of committing the theft, she threatened to kill the bank’s customers and employees if they did not do as she ordered. As a result, under the Model Penal Code, it will be presumed that A manifested the required recklessness and extreme indifference to the value of human life. But the Model Penal Code allows a defendant to rebut this presumption with evidence that the defendant was not reckless, or did not manifest extreme indifference to the value of human life. Here, A can probably rebut this presumption. A’s plan was to perform what she called the “perfect robbery,” executing it without causing any casualties. Although she brought a handgun with her, she was determined not to use it, except as a scare tactic. She eventually used the handgun only to break a padlock, and under circumstances in which she believed (incorrectly, as it turned out) she would not harm the customers or employees. The killing happened only when the bullet from A’s

https://www.quimbee.com/essay-practice-exams/criminal-law-exam-5

2/4

5/9/2021

Criminal Law Essay Practice Questions - Law Exam 5 of 30 - Quimbee

gun missed the padlock and unexpectedly ricocheted off a concrete wall. As a result, A did not consciously disregard a substantial and unjustied risk of death, nor manifest extreme indifference to the value of human life. Accordingly, A is not guilty of murder. B. Manslaughter The next question is whether A acted with the required mens rea for manslaughter. A criminal homicide is manslaughter when: (1) it is committed recklessly, or (2) a homicide that would otherwise be murder is committed under the inuence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. The second category does not apply, because there are no facts suggesting that A was acting under the inuence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the robbery and shooting. The issue under the rst category is whether the homicide was committed recklessly. Although reckless killings can amount to murder when committed with extreme indifference to the value of human life, reckless killings without extreme indifference are considered manslaughter. A person acts recklessly by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustied risk that the death of another human being will result from her conduct. The prosecution will argue that A consciously disregarded the possibility that a person may have been killed because of her conduct. Although A aimed the gun at the padlock, common sense tells us that any time a gun is red, there is a possibility that the bullet may miss the target and strike an unintended target instead, including another human being. This scenario is particularly likely to occur where, as here, the shooter has never previously used a gun. The prosecution’s argument will probably fail. There are no facts indicating that A was subjectively aware of the risk that someone might die because of her gun shot. Rather, the facts suggest that A was genuinely convinced that the gun would simply break the padlock, based on what she had seen in movies. Although this belief may have been unreasonable, because it was genuine, A was not reckless with regard to the risk of death. C. Negligent Homicide The nal question is whether A acted with the required mens rea for negligent homicide. The answer is yes. Under the Model Penal Code, as the very term suggests, a defendant commits negligent homicide by negligently killing another. “Negligently” means that the actor “should be aware of a substantial and unjustiable risk” that death will result from the actor’s conduct. A risk is “substantial and unjustied” if “considering the nature and

https://www.quimbee.com/essay-practice-exams/criminal-law-exam-5

3/4

5/9/2021

Criminal Law Essay Practice Questions - Law Exam 5 of 30 - Quimbee

purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.” Here, A acted negligently in killing B. A reasonable person in A’s position would have foreseen the risk that a bullet could miss its intended target and strike an unintended target instead, causing serious bodily injury and death. This is particularly true because A had never used a handgun in the past. Her failure to realize this risk was a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have observed. As a result, A is liable for negligent homicide. In conclusion, A is probably not guilty of murder or manslaughter, but she is guilty of negligent homicide.

https://www.quimbee.com/essay-practice-exams/criminal-law-exam-5

4/4...