Zookeepers Intent Leads Tragedy

**** Group of answer choices

The evidence is likely sufficient to convict Jane of premeditated murder. Neither Jane nor the assistant was a but-for cause of the child’s death. All of these options are true. Jane cannot be convicted of knowingly killing a person. The evidence is clearly insufficient to convict the assistant of murder on the ground that she had conscious disregard for the value of human life.

During an armed robbery, Dan shoots at a police officer but misses. The officer returns fire and accidentally kills an innocent bystander. Under the modern majority approach to felony murder, is Dan guilty of murdering the bystander? Group of answer choices No, because the police officer fired the fatal shot, No, because the death was unintentional. Yes, because any death during a felony creates liability. Yes, because Dan's actions proximately caused the death.

what is the differnce between modean majoirty approach and proximate cause theory

During an armed robbery, Dan shoots at a police officer but misses. The officer returns fire and accidentally kills an innocent bystander. Under the modern majority approach to felony murder, is Dan guilty of murdering the bystander? Group of answer choices No, because the police officer fired the fatal shot, No, because the death was unintentional. Yes, because any death during a felony creates liability. Yes, because Dan's actions proximately caused the death.

At a bar, D approaches W and says: "I'll give you $* to slash my ex-boyfriend's tires tonight. Here's his address and a knife." W takes the money and knife but immediately goes to the police. The jurisdiction recognizes a defense of voluntary renunciation for solicitation if the defendant prevents the crime's commission. Which of the following is correct regarding D's criminal liability for solicitation? Group of answer choices D is not guilty because W never intended to commit the crime. D is not guilty because the crime was never committed. D is only guilty if W actually damaged the tires. D is guilty because the crime was complete when the request was made.

At a bar, D approaches W and says: "I'll give you $* to slash my ex-boyfriend's tires tonight. Here's his address and a knife." W takes the money and knife but immediately goes to the police. The jurisdiction recognizes a defense of voluntary renunciation for solicitation if the defendant prevents the crime's commission. Which of the following is correct regarding D's criminal liability for solicitation? Group of answer choices D is not guilty because W never intended to commit the crime. D is not guilty because the crime was never committed. D is only guilty if W actually damaged the tires. D is guilty because the crime was complete when the request was made.

what

At a bar, D approaches W and says: "I'll give you $* to slash my ex-boyfriend's tires tonight. Here's his address and a knife." W takes the money and knife but immediately goes to the police. The jurisdiction recognizes a defense of voluntary renunciation for solicitation if the defendant prevents the crime's commission. Which of the following is correct regarding D's criminal liability for solicitation?

At a bar, D approaches W and says: "I'll give you $* to slash my ex-boyfriend's tires tonight. Here's his address and a knife." W takes the money and knife but immediately goes to the police. The jurisdiction recognizes a defense of voluntary renunciation for solicitation if the defendant prevents the crime's commission. Which of the following is correct regarding D's criminal liability for solicitation?

At a bar, D approaches W and says: "I'll give you $* to slash my ex-boyfriend's tires tonight. Here's his address and a knife." W takes the money and knife but immediately goes to the police. The jurisdiction recognizes a defense of voluntary renunciation for solicitation if the defendant prevents the crime's commission.

Whether a defendant in a self-defense case actually believed that force was necessary in a situation is a _________ question about what he or she was thinking. Whether it was reasonable to believe that force was necessary in a situation is a ___________ question. Group of answer choices Descriptive; normative Normative; normative Descriptive; descriptive Normative; descriptive

Which of the following must the state establish beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict a person of a crime? (assume the crime is a result crime and it is not a strict liability offense) Group of answer choices Mens Rea All of these options Proximate Causation Actus Reus Factual Causation

Consider the following excerpt of jury instructions from a homicide trial. Which word is the best answer to fill in the blanks? “The defendant is charged with ___. To prove that the defendant is guilty of ___, the People must prove that: *. The defendant committed or attempted to commit robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or carjacking; and *. While committing or attempting to commit robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or carjacking, the defendant caused the death of another person. A person may be guilty of ___ even if the killing was unintentional, accidental, or negligent.”

Suppose Mrs. Robinson is addicted to alcohol, is drunk, and falls asleep on the street. She lives in a city where it is a misdemeanor to “sleep in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley, lane, public right-of-way, park or any other publicly-owned property or under any bridge or viaduct…” This is the third time that she has been convicted of this offense in the last year, and she is punished with three days in jail. Which of the following arguments would be strongest to raise in her defense? Group of answer choices She cannot be convicted because she did not act purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly. If there was no place in the city where she could sleep without violating the statute, then the statute is unconstitutional because it punishes without any voluntary action. It is unconstitutional to punish crimes that are related to addiction. Punishment is prohibited under Lambert.

answer

When two people actively participate in beating a victim - one holds while the other strikes fatal blows - but only the person striking was acting with premeditated intent to kill, while the holder was acting in the heat of passion, under the mental state principles of accomplice liability: Group of answer choices The holder is guilty of first-degree murder through accomplice liability since they aided in a killing. The striker is guilty of first-degree murder and the holder of manslaughter, since each party's guilt is determined by their individual mental state. Both are guilty of manslaughter since they were acting together, Both are guilty of first-degree murder as principals in the first degree.

****