In which of the following instances is the defendant guilty of a crime?
A. The defendant intensely dislikes the victim. One day, he is walking on a dock and observes the victim in the water, drowning because he cannot swim. A life ring is next to the defendant on the dock. The defendant does nothing and the victim drowns.
B. The defendant has decided to kill the victim by shooting him with a high-powered rifle from a great distance. To sharpen his ability, the defendant goes to a rifle range and is practicing in the area legally designated for rifle target practice. The victim, contrary to regulations, has trespassed into the target area and is accidentally hit and killed by a bullet from the defendant’s gun.
C. The defendant, while intoxicated one evening, was driving slowly down a dark road when the victim, who was also intoxicated, walked into the rear side of the defendant’s car and was injured. The defendant did not perceive, and would not have perceived had he been sober, that the victim had run into the car. The defendant therefore did not stop and report the accident.
D. He returned to the restaurant on Tuesday, determined to take a coat as good as the one he lost the day before. Spying a coat much like the one he left in the restaurant, he took it from the coat rack and left the restaurant. In fact, the coat, having been returned to the rack by the person who had taken it by mistake, belonged to the defendant.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
b,c,d
Answer C is correct. The defendant is guilty of driving while intoxicated. The possible crime of leaving the scene of an accident is a red herring because the defendant is clearly guilty of driving while intoxicated. If the defendant’s liability for leaving the scene of an accident were at issue, then there would be a good question as to his liability for that crime. That crime would likely be interpreted to be a specific intent crime, of which the defendant could not be guilty because he did not know he was leaving the scene of an accident. His intoxication is not an issue because he would not have known there was an accident even if he were not intoxicated.
Answer A is incorrect. For criminal liability to be based on failure to act, it must be found that there is a duty to act. It must be a legal duty and not simply a moral duty. The law does not impose a general duty to rescue another person in danger. A duty may be imposed by the relationship between the parties, or by statute or contract. In this situation, there does not appear to be any such relationship. Therefore, even if the defendant harbored malice (the mens rea of murder), there was no coincident actus reus and thus the defendant has not committed a crime.
Answer B is incorrect. A crime is committed only when an act is accomplished by one who has the required mental state. However, there must be a causal connection between the mens rea and the actus reus. Where a defendant has the state of mind necessary for a crime, the later accidental occurrence of the acts or results he intended is not enough to make him criminally liable. It must be found that the intent brings about the criminal action. Coincidence in time of the mens rea and the actus reus is not enough. At the time of the shooting of the victim, the defendant was not acting to effectuate his intent to kill the victim. (This is true even though his target practice may have been in preparation for a later shooting.) Also, the homicide was not even negligent, because the defendant was practicing with the due care apparently prescribed by governmental regulation. The defendant cannot be convicted of a crime here because there is no connection between the act (homicide) and the mental state (malice).
Answer D is incorrect. The defendant is not guilty of any crime here because the actus reus of larceny is not present in this case. The elements of that crime are the trespassory taking and carrying away of the tangible personal property of value from the superior possessory interest of another with the intent to steal that property. The defendant did not believe he was taking his property; rather, he meant to make up his own loss at someone else’s expense. When he took and carried away the coat from the coat rack he did so with the intent to steal. Therefore, he had the required mens rea. However, the actus reus of larceny is the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another. Because the defendant in fact owned the coat, he had a right to take possession of it. It was not in fact the personal property of another (even though he thought it was). Thus, there was no criminal act here. Whether he thought so or not, the taking was not larceny. The presence of the mens rea alone is never sufficient to constitute a crime.
I’m taking advantage of my insomnia. :0) My humble advise: Don’t practice MBEs while sleep deprived. Following is the reason why – I can’t think straight.
By process of elimination – because this question is driving me crazy, this may be my least favorite form of question:
A is incorrect – no duty to rescue regardless of defendant’s intense dislike for the victim.
D is incorrect – defendant has the mental intent to commit larceny; however, actus reus is required – carrying away of ANOTHER’S personal property – he carried away his own personal property.
C could be correct – I stumble with this one because in my state traffic violations are a part of the criminal code and DUI/DWI is a criminal violation but here it is coupled with a personal injury tort. It would have been easier if it death had occurred (morbid, but true). It could have been vehicular homicide and I’d definitely pick C. Here, there’s intoxication (an excuse of for general intent crimes). But, this fact pattern looks too much like negligence.
B seems most likely – I keep thinking of transferred intent (not really applicable here) and involuntary manslaughter or some other criminal negligence despite the fact that defendant’s in a legal facility designed to “safely” discharge a firearm, discharging a gun is a dangerous activity where someone (including trespassers) could get killed.
I’m going with B.
Auugh. I’m going to bed.
It’s not A or B.
I will not choose C because there is no actus reus and no mens rea. He could be liable in tort though.
I will go with D because he had the intent to steal and the criminal act to steal as well. The remaining issue is that the coat actually belonged to him and he cannot be guilty of larceny of his own coat. Well, I will go with the “Factual Impossibility” which means facts were not what the defendant thought them to be. He though he is stealing someone else coat, but it was his own. Factual impossibility although a defense for a specific intent crime (i.e. larceny), in a minority of states it is NOT a defense if it is not done in “good faith.” He INTENDED to steal the coat ==> no good faith here.
C is the correct answer
A is incorrect because the defendent has no duty to rescue
B is incorrect because he is in a legal rifle range and trespasser involved?
D is incorrect because one cannot be guilty of stealing ones own property
B is the correct answer!
C: DWI.
D is not larceny since even though he has the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the coat, it is not the property of another and you cannot steal your own property
C.
Answer C (intoxicated while driving)
D is the answer because the perpetrator had an committed larceny because he had an intent to steal. Intent is the key here.
The fact that he stole a jacket that was his is irrelevant because (1) he didn’t know what it was, (2) wasn’t attempting to get back something that he in good faith thought was his and (3) he had the intent to steal regardless if ultimately did turn out to be his jacket.
All other options appear not to be a crime. A is not a crime because a person has no affirmative duty to rescue another but if he caused situatino for rescue to be required, then he’s liable. The fact that he dislikes the person is irrelevant.
B isn’t a crime either since although A had the intent to kill, the defendant trespassed onto an area that was legally set aside for target practice and was unintentionally hit by a stray bullet. Nor can the person be charged with intent to do serious bodily harm, or wanton/depraved heart. Moreover, no felony murder occurred here since the person didn’t commit a felony that resulted in death.
C isn’t the answer because the defendant was intoxicated and as a result of his intoxicated state, he could not form the requisite intent to commit a crime. Regardless, C isn’t the answer.
C (I think). The defendant was driving drunk, and was therefore negligent (or strictly liable? for driving drunk). It doesn’t matter that he was slowly driving down the road.
A is incorrect, because one has no affirmative duty to rescue another unless he caused the circumstances that made the rescue necessary. It matters not how the defendant felt about the victim, he still had no duty to rescue him (no matter how easy the rescue would have been).
D is incorrect because it is not a crime to take your own property from a restaurant. Although the defendant intended to commit a crime of theft, the act he actually committed was not a crime, so he would not be guilty of either larceny or attempted larceny.
I think B is incorrect, because although the defendant intended to kill the victim, at the time that his bullet struck the victim, he did not have the intent to kill him.
However, if B is correct, then I suppose the prior intent to kill coupled with this action would form the basis for a murder conviction.
B.