Criminal Law Test with Answers Essay Sample

•Common Law
oAdultery was sexual intercourse with another’s married woman
oSexual intercourse out of marriage was punished by the church as an ecclesiastical offense

oStatutes against fornication and criminal conversation are unenforced ; omitted any commissariats associating to these discourtesies
•State Legislative acts

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

oState Legislative acts vary:
?Voluntary sexual intercourse between individuals. one of whom is legitimately married to another. both parties being guilty ?Intercourse by a married individual with one who is non his or her married woman or hubby. the married individual merely being guilty of criminal conversation ?Intercourse with a married adult females by one non her hubby. both parties being guilty •Actus Reus: voluntary sexual intercourse ; between two individuals unmarried to each other ; with at least one of the parties being married to another •Mens Rea: Purpose to hold intercourse ; knowing of the matrimony to another

•Voluntary improper sexual intercourse. under fortunes non representing criminal conversation. While fornication was non a offense at common jurisprudence. it was made a offense by early legislative acts in many of the provinces •Actus Reus: Voluntary sexual intercourse ; between two grownups who are non married to eachother •Mens Rea: Intentional

Vibrator/Sex Toy
•Because of Lawrence v. Texas. the issue is whether the Texas legislative act impermissibly burdens the individual’s substantial due procedure right to prosecute in private intimate behavior of his or her choosing. • Contrary to the territory court’s decision. we hold that the Texas jurisprudence burdens this constitutional right. •An person who wants to lawfully utilize a safe sexual device during private intimate minutes entirely or with another is unable to lawfully buy a device in Texas. which to a great extent burdens a constitutional right.

•Common jurisprudence
oProstitution is non synonymous with the discourtesy of harlotry oProstitution was non a offense at common jurisprudence
oMore appropriate to discourse this mode in footings of “crimes associating prostitution” instead than utilizing harlotry. the discourtesy. interchangeably with harlotry. the pattern oElements:
?Only adult females would perpetrate harlotry
?Offering one’s ego or one’s organic structure
?For hire or for money

oProstitution. A individual is guilty of harlotry. a junior-grade misdemeanour. if he or she: ?Is an inmate of a house of harlotry or otherwise engages in sexual activity as a concern ; or ?Loiters in or within position of any public topographic point for the intent of being hired to prosecute in sexual activity •State Legislative acts

oEvery province. except Nevada. has a legislative act criminalizing solicitation and other offenses related to harlotry oAlmost all provinces have legislative acts associating to prostitution—“solicitation” is the most common charge and applies to the act of offering to prosecute in sexual behavior for a fee •Actus Reus: offering to. prosecuting in. or inquiring others to prosecute in sexual behavior. for a fee ( or monetary addition ) •Mens Rea: Intentional

•Common Law
oObscenity refers to the word pictures of sexual Acts of the Apostless that are defined as lawfully impermissible oStatutes outlaw lewdness. non erotica ; but that begs the inquiry as to what constitutes lewdness •MPC

oObscene. Material is obscene. if considered as a whole. its prevailing entreaty is to lubricious involvements. that is. a black morbid involvement. in nakedness. sex or elimination. and if in add-on it goes well beyond customary bounds of fairness in depicting or stand foring such affairs oOffenses. A individual commits a misdemeanour if he knowingly or recklessly: ?Sells. delivers or provides. or offers or agrees to sell. present or supply. any obscene authorship. image. record or other representation or incarnation of the obscene ; or ?Presents or directs an obscene drama. dance or public presentation. or participates in that part thereof which makes it obscene ; or ?Publishes. exhibits or otherwise makes available any obscene stuff airing ; or ?Possesses any obscene stuff for intents of sale or other commercial airing ; or ?Sells. advertises or otherwise commercially disseminates stuff. whether or non obscene. by stand foring or proposing that it is obscene •State Legislative acts

oMiller v. California
?The US supreme tribunal announced a wide trial that defined lewdness ?Miller trial has been followed by province and federal tribunals ?The tribunal stated that three inquiries must be asked before a literary work could be considered obscene and therefore underserving of 1st amendment protections: •Does the material entreaty to prurient involvements?

oSomething more than the inclination to elicit normal. healthy sexual desire •Does it depict “hard-core” sexual Acts of the Apostless antecedently defined by province jurisprudence in a obviously violative manner? •Does it lack serous literary. artistic. political. scientific. or other value? •Actus Reus: Possession and distribution of obscene affair. harmful to bush leagues •Mens Rea: Wittingly

Child Pornography
•Mere ownership of kid erotica is a offense
•Virtually any show of lubricious nakedness. sexual activity. or presence of a kid in relation to sexual activity will fall within the definition of kid erotica •Texas Penal Code:

oA individual commits an discourtesy if:
?The personal knowingly or deliberately possesses ocular stuff that visually depicts a kid younger than 18 old ages of age at the clip the image of the kid was made who is prosecuting in sexual behavior ; and ?The individual knows that the stuff depicts the kid as described •Actus Reus: Exploitation or leting a minor to prosecute in sexually expressed behavior. bring forthing. possessing. or administering word pictures of such behavior •Mens Rea: Wittingly

•Common jurisprudence
oNot a offense. but was considered an discourtesy of ecclesiastical jurisprudence with penalty in the custodies of the ecclesiastical courts instead than the common jurisprudence tribunals oBigamy is holding two married womans or hubbies at the same clip

oBigamy. A married individual is guilty of bigamy. a misdemeanour. if he contracts or intents to contract another matrimony. unless at the clip of the subsequent matrimony: ?The histrion believes that the anterior partner is dead ; or

?The act and the anterior partner have been populating apart for five back-to-back old ages throughout which the prior partner was non known by the histrion to be alive ; or ?A tribunal has entered a judgement purporting to end or one-year any anterior disqualifying matrimony. and the histrion does non cognize that judgement to be invalid ; or ?The histrion moderately believes that he is lawfully eligible to remarry •State Legislative acts

oTwo indispensable elements of the offense of bigamy: a anterior matrimony. and a 2nd matrimony before the first matrimony is dissolved oThe work forces rea varies and in some instances condemnable purpose is non basically to bigamy dullard is good religion a defence ; nevertheless in other provinces a sensible belief that the first matrimony was dissolved can be an affirmatory defence •Actus Reus: Marriage. while old matrimony is still lawfully adhering •Mens Rea: Knowing ( although in some provinces it may be rigorous liability )

•Common jurisprudence
oNot a offense. but it was punishable as an discourtesy in the ecclesiastical tribunals in England oIn the US. incest is a statutory offense. the object of which is to forbid sexual intercourse between those within certain grades of relationships oIncest is as the exogamy. or sexual dealingss without matrimony. between a adult male and adult female related to each other in any of the grades of blood kinship or affinity within which matrimony is prohibited


oA individual is guilty of incest. if he knowingly marries or cohabits of has sexual intercourse with an ascendant or descendent. or brother or sister of the whole or half blood o“cohabit” means unrecorded together under the representation of visual aspect of being married oThe relationships referred to herein include blood relationships without respect to legitimacy. and relationship of parent and kid by acceptance •State Legislative acts

oStatutes differ as to the grade of the relationship ; nevertheless. they are reasonably consistent in keeping that matrimony or sexual dealingss between male parent and girl. female parent and boy. brother and sister. uncle and niece. and aunt and nephew are prohibited oSome legislative acts include first cousins but under other legislative acts. prohibition of matrimony between first cousins does non do their matrimony or cohabitation incest •Actus Reus: sexual intercourse or matrimony. between two individuals related by forbidden grades of blood kinship of affinity •Mens Rea: Knowledge ( of the relationship ) ( in most legal powers )

Child Endangerment
•Many provinces have a condemnable legislative act that covers what is considered foolhardy hazard of a kid •These legislative acts typically do non necessitate a mens rea of purpose but do necessitate knowing or foolhardiness. instead than simple carelessness •They cover a broad assortment of behavior including. but non limited to. leting the kid to drive. imbibe. be present when drug usage is happening. be present in sexually charged state of affairss. and so on.

•Common Law
oAbortion was non a offense under the common jurisprudence
oIn fact. the foetus had virtually no legal protection because it was non defined as a individual apart from the female parent oAbortion: is the ejection of the foetus at so early a individual of uterogestation that it has non acquired the power of prolonging an independent life •Roe vs. Wade

oPurposely and inexcusably ending the gestation of another other than birth was a offense oThe elements of abortion ( anterior to Roe vs. Wade )
?An purpose to bring forth a abortion
?Unlawful disposal of drugs or noxious substances or utilizing an instrument ; and ?A ensuing in abortion

oVery composite and is patterned after the Roe v. Wade determination oElements:
? ( 1 ) Prohibits undue expiration of the gestation of another •This requires existent expiration of the gestation
? ( 2 ) Defines what constitutes justifiable abortion and exclusions •A accredited physician believes there is significant hazard that continuation of gestation would impair the physical or mental wellness of the other ? ( 3 ) Requires that two doctors certify in progress their belief as to the fortunes warranting the abortion • but misdemeanor of this demand would non itself make the abortion improper ? ( 4 ) Deals with the self-abortion in late gestation

? ( 5 ) Contains a proviso associating to one who represent that he is executing an abortion although he may cognize or believe that the adult females is non pregnant ? ( 6 ) trades with the distribution of anything specifically designed to end a gestation or held out by the histrion as utile for that purpose ? ( 7 ) Designed to do it clear that the usage of prophylactic devices or drugs to forestall gestation make non come with the scope of the discourtesy •State Statues

oWhen the determination in the instance of Roe vs. Wade was announced. many province abortions legislative acts became invalid oMany of these were besides challenged as go againsting the woman’s right to privateness •Cases
oPlanned Parenthood v. Casey
?The act requires that a adult females seeking an abortion notify her hubby prior to the abortion process. and that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed ?For a minor to obtain an abortion. the Act requires the informed consent of one of the minor’s parents. but provides for a judicial beltway option if the child does non wish to or can non obtain a parent’s consent ?Another proviso requires. unless certain exclusions apply. a married adult females seeking an abortion must subscribe a statement indicant that she has notified her hubby about the intended abortion oGonzales v. Carhart

?The Supreme Court heard an entreaty sing the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban. signed by President Bush in 2003 ?Both the 8th and 9th circuits had overturned the federal act. opinion that it was unconstitutional under the logical thinking of Stenberg v. Carhart ?The Supreme tribunal evaluated the statements that the Act was obscure and did non give doctors due notice as to whether their actions would be condemnable ; was overbored in that it included behaviours that might hold been accidental and. that it posed an undue load on the women’s right to abortion in that it did non supply an exclusion for the women’s wellness ( merely life ) •Actus Reus: improper behavior

•Mens Rea: improper purpose

Disorderly Behavior
•Disorderly behavior legislative acts have. in many cases. been declared unconstitutional as either excessively obscure or as conflicting on 1st amendment rights oFighting words are NOT protected by the 1st amendment

•Disorderly behavior:
oSwearing in public
oWearing violative jerseies
oYelling at a constabulary officer
•Common Law
oThere was no offense known as “disorderly conduct” although misconduct that was of such a nature as to represent a public nuisance was chargeable •MPC

oA individual is guilty of disorderly behavior if. with purpose to do public incommodiousness. irritation or dismay. or recklessly making a hazard thereof he: ?Engages in contending or threating. or in violent or disruptive behaviour ?Makes unreasonable noise or offensively harsh vocalization. gesture. or show. or address opprobrious linguistic communication to any individual present ; or ?Creates a risky of physically violative status by any act which serves no legitimate intent of the histrion •Actus Reus: combat. violative linguistic communication ( either lewdness or combat words ) . or other risky or unsafe actions—all must be given to motivate an immediate breach of the peace •Mens Rea: Purpose. Knowing or Foolhardy

•Riot: either an existent beginning of the executing of an improper common intent. or the executing of an improper intent by an assembly that was lawful when its members foremost assembled ; in each instance. force and force are used to breed panic •Common Law

oRiot: a disruptive perturbation of the peace by three individuals or more. piecing together of their ain authorization. with an purpose reciprocally to help another against any who shall oppose them in executing of some endeavor of a private nature and subsequently really put to deathing the same in a violent and disruptive mode. to the panic of the people. whether the act intended was. of itself. lawful or improper •MPC

oRiot. A individual is guilty of public violence. a felony of the 3rd grade. if he participants with [ two ] of more others in a class of disorderly behavior: ?With intent to perpetrate to ease the committee of a felony or misdemeanour ; ?With aim to forestall or hale official action ; or

?When the histrion or any other participant to the cognition of the histrion uses or programs to utilize a piece of other deathly weapon •Actus Reus: three or more individuals. set about a common action. that is improper or lawful but done in an improper mode. that is violent and disruptive. and that obstructs orderly authorities •Mens Rea: General Purpose

Vagrancy and Loitering
•Laws associating to vagrancy and loitering have been declared unconstitutional •State legislators have been forced to outline legislative acts that are more narrowly worded so as to protect the constitutional right of persons oVagrancy referred to the position of being homeless. penniless and on the street or merely being an unsavoury character oLoitering typically was defined as being someplace in public without purpose •Common Law

oA individual was deemed a “vagrant” who went from topographic point to put without seeable agencies of support. was idle and. although able to work for his care. refused to make so and lived without labour or on the charity of others •MPC

oRecognizing that statutes that were excessively wide violated the due procedure clause of the 14th amendment and in some cases the 1st amendment recent statute law is more definite and contains more confining linguistic communication oNote that the “status” of being a drifter can ne’er be penalized. so modern legislative acts must place specific behaviours that are against public involvement oThe histrion must lounge or prowl in a topographic point. at a clip. or in a mode non usual for jurisprudence abiding persons and under fortunes that warrant dismay for the safety of individuals or belongings in the locality •Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada

oOne of the component that might take to a charge of loitering is the failure to place oneself and the nature of one’s concern oSome provinces. nevertheless. have created separate “failure to place statutes” oThe offense occurs when a constabulary officer. with sensible intuition that a offense has been or is about to be committed. requests a person’s individuality and they refuse to give it o Mr. Hiibel believed that the Constitution gave him the right to decline the reply. he was incorrect.

•While being a “drunk” can non be a offense ; being imbibe in public can be. These legislative acts are justified under the constabulary power of the province. •Common Law
oDrunkenness was non an discourtesy under the common jurisprudence of England. but was punishable in the ecclesiastical tribunals •Powell v. Texas
oa self-confessed alky was convicted of being drunk in a public topographic point oon entreaty. he contended that he was compelled to imbibe. and one time rummy. would lose control over his behaviour and that it was barbarous and unusual penalty to enforce condemnable countenances on him for looking rummy in a public topographic point ohe relied on the logical thinking in the instance of Robinson v. California. which held that an person could non be branded a condemnable or subjected to penal countenances. no affair how little. merely because he occupied the position or status of being a “known drug addict” othe US supreme tribunal rejected the suspects statement. explicating that although the province of Texas could non penalize him for being position of being an alky. the Robinson determination did non set up a constitutional philosophy of lessened condemnable duty for nuts and other likewise affected oPenalizing a individual for looking in public for looking in public while intoxicated does non go against the U. S. fundamental law because it punishes an act. non a position •Actus Reus: voluntary alcoholic poisoning ( sometimes includes drugs ) . in a public topographic point ( sometimes private with other conditions. i. e. . violative behaviour ) ; sometimes violative behaviour is required even in a public topographic point •Mens Rea: Intentional. reckless ( mens rea goes to determination to imbibe )

•Common Law
oThere were no drug Torahs under the common jurisprudence
oThe MPC does non hold any commissariats for drug ownership or ownership with purpose to sell. oDrug poisoning is included with public inebriation.
•State Legislative acts
oUniformed Controlled Substances Act

?Create a co-ordinated and statute system of drug control. similar to that utilized at the federal degree ?The act sets out forbidden activities in item. but vests the authorization to administrate the Act in an bureau to be established by the province legislator ?The Act follows the federal controlled substances jurisprudence and lists all of the controlled substances in 5 agendas that are indistinguishable to federal jurisprudence ?In categorising the substances. eight standards were followed: •The existent or comparative potency for maltreatment

•Scientific grounds of pharmacological effects
•The province of current scientific cognition sing the substance
•It history and form of maltreatment
•The range. continuance. and significance of maltreatment
•What. if any. hazards there are to the public wellness
•Its psychic or psychological dependance liability
•Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled
oActus Reus: Actual of constructive ownership
omens Rea: Knowing
•Possession with Intent to Deliver
oActus Reus: Actual of constructive ownership ; with fortunes bespeaking purpose is to present ( i. e. . measure ) oMens Rea: Knowing ( goes to ownership ) ; specific purpose ( goes to deliver/distribute ) •Trafficking

oActus Reus: Actual or constructive ownership ; transportation or bringing ( does non hold to be for money ) oMens Rea: Knowing ( goes to ownership ) ; general purpose ( goes to presenting ) Counter Terrorism

•Following the terrorist onslaughts of 9/11 many province legislative assemblies recognized the necessity of ordaining province statute law to do it less hard to forestall terrorist onslaughts and to grok terrorist •Common Law

oThere was no common jurisprudence offense of terrorist act
oThe MPC does non hold a proviso for terrorist act
•State Statues
oNew York Law provides punishments for those who:
?Provide material support for terrorist act
?Engage in terroristic menaces
?Engage in terrorist act ; and
?Render aid to a terrorist
oModified bing Torahs and added new counterterrorism legislative acts to California Penal Code. These included: ?Weapons of mass devastation ; ownership. transportation. usage. etc. ; punishments ?False of facsimile arms of mass devastation ; transportation. bringing. arrangement. ownership. etc. ; punishments ?Threats to utilize arms of mass devastation ; punishments

?Possession of restricted biological agents ; punishments ; exclusions

Polk vs. Virginia ( Obstruction of Justice )
•Polk made a verbal menace to kill. which was sufficient to represent an obstructor of justness •When the words are menaces wittingly made in an effort to intimidate or hinder jurisprudence enforcement officers who are executing their responsibilities ; that the grounds was sufficient to show Polk’s condemnable purpose ; and that Polk can non avoid condemnable liability •Conviction affirmed

Papachristou et al vs. City of Jacksonville
•The supreme tribunal ruled on a metropolis regulation that defined drifters as including knaves or vagabonds. debauched individuals who beg. common gamblers. jugglers. or those who engage in improper games or drama. common rummies. common dark Walkers. stealers. sneak thiefs. or cutpurses. bargainers in stolen belongings. lewd. wanton. and lewd individuals. and keepers of chancing topographic points. among other descriptions •The supreme tribunal held that such an regulation did non give a individual of ordinary intelligence just notice that his behavior was condemnable and it besides allowed for arbitrary enforcement. thereby go againsting the due procedure clause

•Common Law
oThe necessity of vouching the unity of a pledged statement in a judicial proceeding was recognized at common jurisprudence oPerjury was limited to the false curse in a judicial proceeding oPerjury was:

?The willful ; giving false testimony ; on a material point ; in a judicial proceeding ; by a individual to whom a lawful curse had been administered •MPC
oA individual is guilty of bearing false witness if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under curse or tantamount avowal. or swears of affirms the truth of a statement antecedently made. when the statement is material and he does non believe it to be true •State Legislative acts

?Made an Intentional False Statement
•A false statement must associate facts and must besides be susceptible to proof as to its truth or falseness
?That was Material
•Must reflect on a affair under consideration during the action or proceeding in which it is made
?In a Judicial Proceeding under Oath
?For the Purpose of Misleading the Court
•Mens rea: specific purpose
•The suspect intended to do the false statement and intend the statement to misdirect the tribunal •Actus Reus: False statement ( testimony ) . under curse. about a material component. in a judicidal proceeding •Mens Rea: Specific Purpose

•Subornation of Perjury
oThe procuring of one individual by another to perpetrate the offense of bearing false witness oThis offense has two indispensable elements:
?one individual must hold wilfully procured another to perpetrate bearing false witness. and ?the 2nd individual must hold. in fact. committed the discourtesy •If the individual does non really commit bearing false witness. so the proper charge would be solicitation or attempted subornation oActus Reus: Entice. encourage. honor another to perpetrate bearing false witness and bearing false witness did happen omens Rea: Specific Purpose

•Common Law
oBribery: the receiving by a justice or other officer connected with the disposal of justness. of “any undue wages to act upon his behaviour in his office” oElements:
?Receiving or beging ( and subsequently. offering or giving )
?A thing of value
?With purpose to act upon the receivers action
?The receiver is a public functionary

oIt applies to full-time authorities employees. plus advisers to authorities. graft of ballots and political party functionaries. and graft of anyone who exercises official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding oA individual is guilty of graft if he offers. confers. or agrees to confabulate upon another. or solicits. accepts or agrees to accept from another: ?Any monetary benefit as consideration for the receivers determination. sentiment. recommendation. ballot or other exercising of discretion as a public retainer. party functionary or elector ; or ?Any benefit as consideration for the receivers determination. ballot. recommendation or other exercising of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding ; or ?Any benefit as consideration for a misdemeanor of a known legal responsibility as public retainer or party official •State Legislative acts

?Offering. Giving. Receiving. or Soliciting
•Committed by one who offers a bride or offers to accept one ?Thing of Value
•Almost anything may function as a bride every bit long as it is of sufficient value in the eyes of the individual bribed to act upon his official behavior ?With Intent to Influence Public Duties
•The purpose must be to corruptedly act upon an functionary in the discharge of his or her responsibility ; and/or purpose to have ( by a public functionary ) in return for being influenced ?Of Public Official
•Includes any public officer. agent. retainer. or employee •Public functionary includes police officers. sheriffs. and deputy sheriffs ( under most province legislative acts )

Obstruction of Justice
•Common Law
oThe phrase “obstructing justice” means hindering or blockading those who seek justness in a tribunal. or those who have responsibilities or powers of administrating justness therein •MPC
oThe intent of the MPC was to do it possible to penalize those who did non come within the proficient definitions of graft. menace. bearing false witness. or flight. but did execute Acts of the Apostless with the purpose to overthrow the justness procedure oThe discourtesy punishes anyone who “obstructs. impairs. or perverts the disposal of jurisprudence. or other governmental function” •State Legislative acts

•It must be specific purpose
?Impede. Prevent. Obstruct. Delay
•The actus reus of obstructor is wide and can cover a scope of different types of behaviour ?A Public Official from Performing an Official Duty in the Administration of Justice •Police officers. prosecuting officers. lawyer generals. and the similar

•Common Law
oEscape was loosely defined as the voluntary going of a individual. without force. from the lawful detention of an officer or from any topographic point where he is legitimately confined oThe individual can non get away unless he has really been arrested •MPC

oEscape. A individual commits an discourtesy if he unlawfully removes himself from official detainment or fails to return to official detainment following impermanent leave granted for a specific intent or limited period o“official detention” means apprehension. detainment in any installation for detention of individuals under charge or strong belief of offense or alleged or found to be delinquent. detainment for extradition or exile •State Legislative acts

o“Custody” agencies restraint by a public retainer pursuant to a lawful apprehension. detainment. or an order of a tribunal for jurisprudence enforcement intents. but does non include supervising of probation or word or restraint minor expense to let go of on bond oIn some instances. captives have used the defence of necessity when charged with flight ?They have argued that they needed to get away to avoid being earnestly injured or killed by other inmates •Actus Reus: Voluntary going. from detention. with purpose non to return •Mens Rea: Knowing ( one is in detention ) . purpose ( non to return )

Question # 49:
•Resistance: C. Runing

False Report to Military officers
•Whoever wittingly gives false information to any jurisprudence enforcement officer refering the alleged committee of any offense. commits a misdemeanour of the 1st grade •Whoever wittingly gives false information to a jurisprudence enforcement officer. refering the alleged committee of a capital felony. commits a felony of the 3td grade

Question # 51:

Houston vs. Hill
•A municipal regulation made it improper to “oppose. molest. maltreatment. or interrupt any police officer in the executing of his duty” •However the regulation was challenged on 1st amendment evidences and overturned