Thank you to all who have participated in the question of the day posting, and good luck to all who are sitting for a February exam. Question of the day will be back in June to prepare for the July exam. So, we’ll end here with an ever-popular evidence question:
The defendant was charged with the crime of assaulting the victim. While the defendant admitted striking the victim, he claimed to have acted in self-defense when he was attacked by the victim, who was drunk and belligerent after a football game.
As a part of the prosecution’s case in chief, the state’s attorney sought to introduce testimony that, 30 minutes prior to the altercation with the victim, the defendant had ordered a hot dog at a concession stand and had run into the crowd without paying for it.
The trial judge should rule this testimony:
A. Admissible, because it tends to show the defendant’s propensity to commit unlawful acts.
B. Admissible, because the prior incident was so close in time and place to the act for which the defendant was charged as to be relevant to the defendant’s motive and intent in striking the victim.
C. Inadmissible, because it is irrelevant unless there was a showing that the defendant had been charged with a crime arising out of the prior incident.
D. Inadmissible, because proof of such unlawful acts is not allowed on the issue of the defendant’s guilt of the assault charged.
A state statute provides “It shall be unlawful to sell alcoholic beverages to any person under twenty-one (21) years of age,” and imposes a fine of $1,000 for violation of the statute. The state courts have interpreted the statute as creating strict liability.
The regional manager of a retail package store chose a manager for the store. She delegated all decision making concerning operations to him.
The store manager hired a clerk to sell liquor during the afternoon shift. He told her to check the identification of all prospective purchasers and to refuse to sell to anyone under age 21. One afternoon a customer, who was 18-years old but looked older, purchased a bottle of scotch without showing any identification. An inspector from the state liquor commission was watching the store and, by checking the customer’s age, established a violation of the statute. The regional manager was convicted by the trial court of violating the statute and has appealed on the ground that her conviction would violate the U.S. Constitution.
The appellate court should:
A. Uphold the conviction, because regulatory offenses are not subject to due process limitations.
B. Uphold the conviction, because she was in a position to exercise control over the sale of liquor by store.
C. Reverse the conviction, because it is a violation of due process to punish without a voluntary act.
D. Reverse the conviction, because criminal liability is personal and the store is the seller, not the regional manager.
A husband and his wife had been married for 30 years and had one adult son. The husband and the wife agreed that each would make a will leaving his or her entire estate to the other, and in the event that one predeceased the other, the entire estate, including any inheritance received from the other spouse, would be left to the son. The husband, the wife, and the son visited a lawyer, who prepared wills for the husband and the wife which carried out their testamentary intentions. The lawyer also prepared an agreement which was signed by the husband and the wife in which each promised not to change the alternative testamentary disposition benefiting the son. The son, who was present during the execution of the documents, was asked by the husband and the wife if he agreed to the estate plan. He replied “yes.”
Shortly thereafter, the wife died. After collecting his distribution of the estate, the husband moved in to live with his high school sweetheart. The husband then made a new will leaving his entire estate to his high school sweetheart.
If a bank, as the executor of the wife’s estate, learns of the husband’s new will and sues the husband, the bank will:
A. Recover nothing, because the estate has suffered no damage.
B. Recover damages in the amount of the wife’s estate which was paid over to the husband.
C. Obtain no relief at that time, but a constructive trust may be imposed on the husband’s estate if he dies and fails to perform his agreement with the wife.
D. Recover nothing, because the estate is not a proper plaintiff.
