Robbery And Felony Murder

Summary

In California, if a death occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony like robbery, the felony murder rule applies, potentially leading to a murder charge. This rule holds even if the death was not foreseeable or if no weapon was used. Understanding the implications of this rule is crucial in criminal law cases.

Full Conversation

Delia was driving her car on Main Street when its steering mechanism failed, causing her to lose control of the vehicle. The vehicle spun approximately * degrees before skidding across Paul's lawn and colliding with the side of Paul's house, causing serious structural damage to the building. If Paul asserts a claim against Delia for damage to his realty, the court should find for: Group of answer choices Delia, because she was privileged by necessity to enter Paul's realty. Paul, if Delia had the last clear chance to avoid damaging his realty. Paul, because Delia entered his realty without his permission. Paul, but only if Delia negligently operated or maintained her car.
Hi Baker! It sounds like a complex situation. Generally, in California, the outcome may depend on whether Delia was negligent in maintaining her car. If the steering failure was due to her negligence, she could be held liable for the damages. If not, she might have a defense.
Do you know if there was any indication that Delia failed to maintain her car properly?
Deakin was looking out through the open window of his house when he saw Thead knock down Elder, who was an old and feeble woman, and snatch her handbag. As Thead ran off with Elder's purse, Deakin grabbed a wooden board and jumped through his window. After chasing Thead for two blocks, Deakin caught up with him and struck him on the head with the wooden board. Deakin retrieved the purse and returned it to Elder. Thead subsequently died as the result of being struck by Deakin. If Deakin is prosecuted for criminal homicide, his most effective argument in defense would be that he used force which Group of answer choices the reasonable person in Deakin's position would have used to defend Elder. Elder would have been privileged to use to defend herself. the reasonable person in Deakin's position would have used to prevent Thead's escape from a crime. the reasonable person in Elder's position would have used to defend her property.
Deakin's most effective defense in a criminal homicide prosecution would likely be that he used force which Elder would have been privileged to use to defend herself. In California, the law allows for the use of reasonable force in defense of another person under certain circumstances.
Do you have any more details about the incident that might help clarify the situation further?
answer the nelsen question
In Nelsen's case, the court should find for Nelsen because Dock's statement in the questionnaire was made with actual malice. Despite Dock's knowledge that the accusation was false, he still made the statement, which directly resulted in Nelsen not being hired. This satisfies the elements of defamation in California:
- False statement: Dock knew the accusation was false.
- Unprivileged communication: The statement was not protected.
- Harm: Nelsen suffered harm by not being hired.
- Actual malice: Dock's statement was made with intent to harm Nelsen.
Do you have any further questions or need additional details on this case?
answer the dudley question
In Platt's case against Dudley for battery, the court should find for Platt if it was foreseeable that moving the chair would cause Platt to fall. In California, battery doesn't require physical injury but involves intentional harmful or offensive contact. The embarrassment caused by the fall can be considered offensive contact.
Do you have any more questions or need further clarification?
answeer
In the case of Platt and Dudley, the court should find for Platt. In California, battery does not require physical injury; it only requires intentional harmful or offensive contact. By pulling the chair and causing Platt to fall, Dudley committed an intentional act that resulted in offensive contact.
- Intentional Act: Dudley moved the chair intentionally.
- Harmful/Offensive Contact: Platt fell and was embarrassed.
Do you have any additional questions or need further clarification?
answer the qustion about fordhan
For Fordham's trial for murder due to driving while intoxicated and causing fatalities, the most applicable precedent is People v. Allison. Similar to Allison, Fordham's actions, while not intentional in causing death, resulted in fatalities due to reckless behavior. Allison's conviction for involuntary manslaughter was affirmed, which aligns with Fordham's situation.
Do you need more details or have additional questions regarding this precedent?
answer the question of agripod
Agripod's most effective argument in defense against Tena's public nuisance claim would be that:
- Tena came to the nuisance. Since Tena began farming near the factory recently and the factory has been operating for 50 years, this defense argues that the nuisance was pre-existing when Tena chose to lease the field.
Do you have any additional questions or need further details?
Assume for the purpose of this question only that Tena asserts a claim against Agripod based on private nuisance, seeking damages for discomfort which he experiences as a result of the bad smell produced by Agripod's factory. Which one of the following additional facts or inferences, if it was the only one true, would be most likely to result in a judgment for Agripod? Group of answer choices It is impossible to manufacture a product similar to Larvaway without producing a bad smell. Tena does not own realty in or reside in Gold County. There is no other factory within *,* miles which manufactures a product similar to Larvaway. Tena's discomfort does not differ substantially from the discomfort experienced by other residents of Gold County.
In Tena's private nuisance claim against Agripod, the additional fact most likely to result in a judgment for Agripod would be:
- Tena does not own realty in or reside in Gold County.
This is because private nuisance claims typically require the plaintiff to have a property interest in the affected area.
Do you have any more questions or need further information on this topic?
answer
For Tena's private nuisance claim seeking damages for discomfort due to the bad smell from Agripod's factory, the fact most likely to result in a judgment for Agripod is:
- Tena does not own realty in or reside in Gold County.
This fact undermines Tena's standing to claim private nuisance.
Do you have any more questions or need additional details?
answer please
For Tena's private nuisance claim, the most likely fact to result in a judgment for Agripod would be:
- Tena does not own realty in or reside in Gold County.
This would undermine Tena's standing to claim private nuisance damages.
Do you have any further questions or need more details?
At the trial of Preston v. Wonder and Tudor, the jury found that Preston was damaged to the extent of $*,*. The jury further found that Preston's damage was caused * percent by Preston's negligence, * percent by Wonder's negligence, and * percent by Tudor's negligence. The jurisdiction had a statute which read as follows: In a negligence action, no plaintiff shall be barred from recovery because of that plaintiff's contributory negligence, but such plaintiff's recovery shall be diminished in proportion to plaintiff's own fault. The court held that Wonder and Tudor were jointly and severally liable for Preston's damage, and entered a judgment for Preston consistent with the verdict. Assume that Wonder became insolvent following the entry of judgment. How much money is Preston entitled to collect from Tudor? Group of answer choices $*,*. $*,*. $*,*. None.
Preston is entitled to collect $*,* from Tudor. Under joint and several liability, each defendant can be responsible for the entire amount of the judgment, minus the plaintiff's contributory negligence.
- Preston's total damages: $*,*
- Reduced by *% due to Preston's negligence: $*,*
Since Wonder is insolvent, Tudor is responsible for the remaining $*,*.
Do you have any further questions?
answwer the question of palma
The motion to reduce Palma's damage award should be:
- Denied, because the Mutual Insurance Company was not acting for any person liable to Palma for negligence.
This is based on the collateral source rule, which states that compensation received by a plaintiff from an independent source does not reduce the amount owed by the defendant. Do you need any further clarifications or have additional questions?
answer the question of frost
Frost should recover $*,* (the cost of making the building conform to the specifications). In California, the measure of damages for breach of a construction contract is generally the cost to bring the work into conformity with the contract specifications, provided that this does not involve unreasonable economic waste.
Do you have any additional questions or need further clarification?
answer please
Frost should recover $*,*, the cost of making the building conform to the specifications. This is based on the principle of awarding damages that would place the injured party in the position they would have been if the contract had been performed as agreed.
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification on this case?
Assume the following facts for the purpose of this question only. When the structure was partially completed, Frost decided to retire from the manufacturing business and told Berry to stop work. Berry had already spent $*,* on material and labor, and would have needed to spend another $*,* to complete the building in conformity with the specifications. Because of an increase in construction costs, the value of the partially completed structure was $*,*. If Berry asserts a claim against Frost for breach of contract, Berry should recover Group of answer choices $*,* (the amount which Berry has expended). $*,* (The value of the partially completed structure less the cost of completing the construction). $*,* (the contract price). $*,* (the contract price less the cost of completing construction).
Berry should recover $*,*. This amount represents the value of the partially completed structure ($*,*) minus the cost required to complete the building ($*,*). This ensures Berry is compensated for the work and materials already invested.
Do you have any further questions or need additional details on this case?
Bale and Schmid entered into a valid written contract for the sale of Schmid's home. Prior to March *, the dates set for closing, Bale's employer transferred her company office to another state. On March *, Bale informed Schmid that she would not go through with the purchase of realty for that reason. Schmid made no further attempt to sell the realty, but asserted a claim against Bale one year later for breach of contract. In adjudicating Schmid's claim, the court should find for Group of answer choices Bale, under the doctrine of impossibility of performance. Schmid, in a sum equivalent o any money which had already been paid by Bale in contemplation of the purchase. Schmid, in a sum equivalent to the difference between the price which Bale had agreed to pay and the fair market value of the realty on the date set for closing. Bale, because Schmid made no further attempt to sell the realty.
Schmid should recover in a sum equivalent to the difference between the price which Bale had agreed to pay and the fair market value of the realty on the date set for closing. This is because Bale breached the contract, and Schmid is entitled to damages reflecting the loss incurred.
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification on this case?
answer the question of bale
The court should find for Schmid in a sum equivalent to the difference between the price which Bale had agreed to pay and the fair market value of the realty on the date set for closing. This is because Bale's decision to back out does not fall under the doctrine of impossibility of performance.
Do you have any further questions or need additional details on this case?
Charles didn't like keeping his money in banks and carried a lot of cash on him usually. His girlfriend Amber was worried that he would lose his money or get robbed and wanted him to stop carrying such large amounts on him. As he was walking in the house one day, Amber, who was hiding in the bushes, jumped in front of him. She was wearing a mask and holding a realistic toy gun. She grabbed his money out of the pocket where she knew she kept it and ran off. Charles was terribly frightened by the whole ordeal. Amber ran back shortly after, gave the money to Charles, and explained why she did what she did. Of what crime is Amber guilty? Group of answer choices Robbery Assault Battery Armed robbery
Amber could be guilty of robbery. In California, robbery involves taking property from another person against their will using force or fear. Amber's actions of using a realistic toy gun and scaring Charles meet these criteria.
Do you have more details or any additional questions about this situation?
answer the quetsion for davin
Davin should be found guilty of larceny because a person who signs a contract is presumed to know its contents. The contract clause stated that anything added to the vehicle would become Auto Rental's property if the purchase option was not exercised. Removing the radio and damaging the dashboard constitutes taking property that legally belonged to Auto Rental.
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification on this case?
answer the question of carlson
In the case of Carlson, the court should find for Carlson because Samsel was not aware of the advertisement when he contacted Carlson. For a reward offer to be valid, the person seeking the reward must be aware of it and act in reliance on it.
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification on this case?
answer please
The court should find for Carlson because Samsel was not aware of the advertisement when he contacted Carlson. A reward offer can only be accepted by someone who acts in reliance on the offer, and Samsel did not know about it at the time of contact.
Do you have any other questions or need further clarification?
If Wright asserts a claim against Carlson for $*, the court should find for Group of answer choices Wright, because he mailed the letter to Carlson before Carlson purchased a * Ford. Carlson, because Wright's letter did not lead to the purchase of a * Ford. Carlson, because he mailed the second advertisement before receiving Wright's letter. Wright, because Carlson received Wright's letter before the second advertisement was published.
The court should find for Carlson because Wright's letter did not lead to the purchase of a * Ford. For a reward to be claimed, the information provided must lead to the desired outcome, and in this case, Carlson purchased the car based on Samsel's contact, not Wright's information.
Do you have any other legal questions or need more details on this case?
answer the resa question
Pahl's most likely successful claim against Resa would be based on private nuisance. This theory addresses substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of someone's property.
- Private nuisance: The noise and activity from Resa's restaurant likely interfere with Pahl's enjoyment of his home.
Do you have any additional questions or need further clarification on this case?
While waiting for a bus, Barrera decided to go into Joe's Bar to use the public phone. Capewell, one of Barrera's neighbors, was seated at the bar when Barrera entered. Although Barrera realized that Capewell was drunk, Barrera asked Capewell for a ride home. Capewell agreed and left with Barrera at once. Because he was drunk, Capewell lost control of his car and collided with a car driven by Austin, injuring Austin and Barrera, and damaging Austin's car. Assume for the purpose of this question only that Austin asserts a negligence claim against Barrera for damages resulting from the accident. The court should find for Group of answer choices Austin, unless Barrera's conduct was a superceding case of Austin's injuries. Barrera, only if Barrera's conduct was a concurring cause of Austin's injuries. Barrera, because a passenger in an automobile is under no obligation to control the conduct its driver. Austin, if Barrera's negligence was a proximate cause of Austin's injuries
The court should find for Austin if Barrera's negligence was a proximate cause of Austin's injuries. In California, if Barrera's decision to ride with a drunk Capewell contributed to the accident, Barrera could be held partially liable for the resulting damages.
Do you have any more details about the situation or further questions?
Assume for the purpose of this question only that Barrera asserts a negligence claim for his injuries against Capewell in a jurisdiction which applies the all-or-nothing rule of contributory negligence. Which of the following arguments would be likely to provide Capewell with an effective defense to that claim? I. Barrera was contributorily negligent in accepting a ride from Capewell when he knew Capewell to be drunk. II. Barrera assumed the risk by accepting a ride from Capewell when he knew Capewell to be drunk. Group of answer choices I only. I and II. Neither I nor II. II only.
Capewell's most effective defense would be:
- I and II.
In a jurisdiction with contributory negligence, if Barrera was negligent in accepting a ride from a known drunk driver, or if he assumed the risk, either defense could bar him from recovery. Do you need any further clarification or have additional questions?
answer please
Capewell's most effective defense would be:
- I and II.
In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, if Barrera was contributorily negligent or assumed the risk by knowingly accepting a ride from a drunk driver, it could completely bar his recovery for damages.
Do you have any other questions or need more information on this case?
Assume for the purpose of this question only that Austin asserts a trespass to chattel claim against Capewell for damage to his car. The court should find for Austin Group of answer choices because Capewell intended to drive his car and an unauthorized interference with Austin's chattel resulted. only if the possibility that Capewell would collide with another vehicle was apparent to Capewell. only if Capewell wanted to collide with another car or knew that he would do so. if the possibility that Capewell would collide with another vehicle would have been apparent to the reasonable sober person.
The court should find for Austin because:
- Capewell intended to drive his car, and an unauthorized interference with Austin's chattel (his car) resulted. This satisfies the elements of trespass to chattel in California.
Do you need any more details or have additional questions about this case?
answer the victoria question
Dennis should be found guilty because robbery is considered a dangerous felony. Under the felony murder rule, any death caused during the commission of a dangerous felony, such as robbery, can result in a murder charge, regardless of foreseeability or the weapon used.
Do you have any further questions or need additional details on this case?