CAS Bar Criminal Law 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Which of the following is an element of common-law larceny that distinguishes it from embezzlement?
- The defendant must intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property
- The property must be taken by trespassory taking from another's possession (Correct answer)
- The property must be worth more than a specified dollar amount
- The defendant must have a prior criminal record
Correct answer: The property must be taken by trespassory taking from another's possession
Larceny requires a trespassory taking from another's possession, while embezzlement involves a lawful initial possession that is later fraudulently converted.
Question 2: Under the insanity defense based on the M'Naghten test, a defendant is excused if, as a result of mental disease, the defendant:
- Lacked the capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of law
- Did not know the nature of the act or did not know it was wrong (Correct answer)
- Had an irresistible impulse to commit the crime
- Lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the conduct
Correct answer: Did not know the nature of the act or did not know it was wrong
The M'Naghten test focuses solely on cognition: the defendant must not know the nature of the act or that it was wrong, not on volitional capacity.
Question 3: Defendant breaks into a store at 2 a.m. intending to steal jewelry. He is surprised by a security guard and punches the guard, breaking his nose. Defendant is MOST likely guilty of:
- Robbery and burglary
- Burglary and battery (Correct answer)
- Robbery only
- Assault and burglary
Correct answer: Burglary and battery
Burglary is satisfied by the nighttime breaking and entering with intent to steal; battery occurs when defendant punches the guard, but this is not robbery because the force was not used to accomplish the taking.
Question 4: Which of the following is the MOST accurate statement regarding the voluntary intoxication defense?
- Voluntary intoxication is a complete defense to all crimes
- Voluntary intoxication may negate the specific intent required for a specific-intent crime (Correct answer)
- Voluntary intoxication may negate the mens rea for general-intent crimes
- Voluntary intoxication is never a valid defense under modern law
Correct answer: Voluntary intoxication may negate the specific intent required for a specific-intent crime
Voluntary intoxication is a partial defense that may negate specific intent (e.g., premeditation, intent to steal) but is not available for general-intent crimes.
Question 5: Under common law, provocation reduces a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter only if the provocation was:
- Any conduct that caused the defendant to feel angry
- Sufficient to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control and the defendant actually acted in the heat of passion (Correct answer)
- A verbal insult combined with physical gestures
- Any unlawful act committed by the victim against the defendant
Correct answer: Sufficient to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control and the defendant actually acted in the heat of passion
Provocation must be legally adequate (e.g., witnessing adultery, mutual combat) and must have actually provoked the defendant before cooling time elapsed.
Question 6: Tom agrees with Sue to burn down a building. Tom later changes his mind and tells Sue he is withdrawing and does nothing further. The building is subsequently burned by Sue alone. Under common law, Tom is:
- Not guilty of arson because he withdrew before the crime was committed
- Guilty of conspiracy but not arson (Correct answer)
- Not guilty of conspiracy because he withdrew in time
- Guilty of both conspiracy and arson as a co-conspirator
Correct answer: Guilty of conspiracy but not arson
At common law, conspiracy is complete upon agreement (and an overt act in some jurisdictions), so withdrawal does not undo the already-formed conspiracy, though it may limit liability for subsequent crimes.
Question 7: A defendant who is an accomplice to a crime is generally liable for:
- Only the exact crimes he specifically planned with the principal
- The crimes he aided and abetted plus any reasonably foreseeable crimes committed by the principal in furtherance of the scheme (Correct answer)
- No crimes if the principal is acquitted
- Only crimes where the defendant was physically present at the scene
Correct answer: The crimes he aided and abetted plus any reasonably foreseeable crimes committed by the principal in furtherance of the scheme
Accomplice liability extends to the target crime and any additional crimes that were a natural and probable consequence of the criminal scheme.
CAS Bar Criminal Law 3
Which of the following is an element of common-law larceny that distinguishes it from embezzlement?