Criminal Law Flashcards
7 cards from real Multistate Bar Exam practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Criminal Law flashcards as text
A defendant takes a car from a parking lot believing it to be his own car, which looks identical. He is charged with larceny. Which defense applies?
Answer: Mistake of fact negating intent to steal
A genuine mistake of fact negates the specific intent to steal required for larceny, as the defendant honestly believed the property was his own.
A defendant enters a building through an unlocked door, intending to commit theft inside. Under common law, is this burglary?
Answer: No, because there was no breaking
Common law burglary requires a 'breaking,' which means creating or enlarging an opening; walking through an unlocked door does not satisfy this element.
A defendant shoots at A intending to kill him, but misses and kills B. Which doctrine allows the defendant to be charged with murdering B?
Answer: Transferred intent
Under the transferred intent doctrine, the defendant's intent to kill A transfers to the unintended victim B, making him liable for B's murder.
A defendant is prosecuted for attempted rape. He argues that he voluntarily stopped before completing the act. Under the MPC, is voluntary abandonment a defense to attempt?
Answer: Yes, if the abandonment was voluntary and complete
Under the MPC, voluntary and complete renunciation of criminal purpose after a substantial step is taken is an affirmative defense to attempt.
Which of the following is NOT a required element of common law larceny?
Answer: Use of force or threat
Common law larceny does not require force or threat; robbery requires force or threat, but larceny is a taking without force.
A defendant, intending to kill his enemy, poisons the enemy's coffee. The enemy drinks it but does not die due to medical intervention. The defendant is charged with attempted murder. Under the MPC, which test applies?
Answer: Substantial step test
The MPC uses the substantial step test, which asks whether the defendant took a substantial step strongly corroborative of criminal purpose.
A defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit fraud. The prosecution proves the defendant agreed with one other person to commit the fraud, but that person was an undercover officer. Under the MPC, is the defendant guilty of conspiracy?
Answer: Yes, because the MPC adopts a unilateral approach to conspiracy
The MPC takes a unilateral approach, so a defendant can be guilty of conspiracy even if the only 'co-conspirator' was an undercover officer who never intended to commit the crime.