Intermittent Explosive Disorder - Criminal Law - Solved Past Paper, Exams of Criminal Law

Download Intermittent Explosive Disorder - Criminal Law - Solved Past Paper and more Exams Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity! ID: ID: Exam Name: instructor: Grade: CrimLaw_LSN_Chang_2010UL CrimLaw_LSN_Chang, 2010UL Chang Chang Page 1 of 1 Exam taken with SofTest v8.9 CrimLaw_LSN_Chang_2010UL 1) The US constitution offers protection to our D's by instituting that before they are found guilty that the Se prove each element of the crime (actus reus, mens rea, and causation) beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the highest standard) Additionally, the D may then raise any affirmative defenses that D may have by a wo of either a prepondonerance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence. If the D is found to be guilty the 8th smelt prohibits cruel and unusual punishment by determining whether the punishement is grossly disproportionate to the crime, whether it affects human dignity, or whether it is against contemporary moral and social decency. . 9 jo cows’ — git” SOLICITATION OF POLLY-DRAKE — is where you hire, entice, encourage another to commit a crime with the specific intent that they complete the crime. Here, Polly approached Drake about helping her win the contest by "incapacitating" Oscar. The significance of this is that Polly is hiring Drake to commit an unlawful act, with the specific intent that Drake complete the crime. Therefore, a solicitation has occured. Because solicitation merges, if Polly and Drake are egos committed a conspiracy, then the solicitation charge would merge. avers MAYHEM-DRAKE & POLLY 7 Page 1 of 15 (es continued) Cri # LsN_chang_20 10UL Chang se - ese ae = —— on Voluntary mansjatighter is where an intentional killing is done with adequate provocation. In order to illustrate adequate provocation under the c.| you would have to epjonstrate actual provocation, mean that a reasonable person would have been we foked and that there was no cooling off period. In fact, his mannerisms of him losing his cool or anything of the sort. There is no evidence here that Drake was q9 adequately provoked. This was not the cause of Quinn's death, therefore, Drake seal ‘ “pence should not be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER pSirtary Manslaughter is the unintentional killing of a human being. This is accomplished either by being done in a criminally negligent manner or a death occuring during the commission of an unlawful act (aka misdemeanor manslaughter). A death done in a criminally negligent manner is one where the D is committing a lawful act, unlawfully. Here, there is no indication that having LSD is a legal drug, in fact it is most likely illegal, therefore D was not committing a lawful act, he was in fact committing an unlawful act, therefore we cannot hold him liable under involuntary manslaughter done in a criminally negligent manner. However, because he is committing an unlawful act we will be able to hold him liable under the second prong of involuntary manslaughter where a killing occurs during the commission of an unlawful act. Therefore, D should be found guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter during the commission of an unlawful act. vecsnatolgo issue Page 4 of 15 (Question 1 continued) CrimLaw_LSN_Chang_2010UL e= hoe +? D will argue that it was not a result of the LSD ther Every crime needs the Chang elements of the actus reus, mens reus and caustion, and here D will claim that causation is missin (ee Q reacted poorly to the LSD and begain to vomit in the forest, cay doe the LSD was not sitting with his body very well, in addition, Q felt ean the combination of the LSD and dehydration from the week on the island. D also make the argument that the LSD is a hallucinogenic drug and there was no indication of Q hallucinating at all, indicating that the symptoms that Q was experiencing were more from the dehydration and less from the drugs (if any symptoms from the drug at all). Additionally, he tripped and fell, hitting his head on the tree stump and as he stumbled around a wild boar attacked him and he bled to death. D will argue that these are all unforeseeable events and that ultimately because of the wild boar attacked Q, that is why he died. However, The state will make the argument that if not has D intoxicating Q he would not have vomited from the deyhydration alone, (at least probably not as severely) and that he would not have fainted, and had a boar attack him. They will also make the argument that as a result of the LSD this was the anes result. However, the state will probably not be successful in this argument because Q showed no symptoms of hallucinating from the LSD, making the dehydration a superseding and interveneing cause. - MURDER OF OSCAR-DRAKE Attempt is a specific intent crime that merges a crime. In order to have an attempt it must be proven that the actor intended that the target crime be completed Page 5 of 15 (Question 1 continued) CrimLaw_LSN_Chang_2010UL Chang and that there was an overt athena mere preparation. The fact that during the next survivor contest that D decided to use a real bullet in one of the muskets during the battle, and the fact that he inteded to shoot oscar illustrates that he intended for the target crime to be completed. In order to determine whether or not an overt acbeyond mere preparation existed, there are eight tests available to analyze this. 1. CL last act test (this is the last act of the crime) 2. vue as Act (the last foreseeable act before the last act) 3. ounls Proximity (which is a balancing test between the nearness of danger, greatness of danger, and proximity of danger, 4. incispeCoe Element Test (which tests whether or not an indispensable element is missing and if so, then no attempt), 5. ee oe Test (which questions whether or not the D has passed the point of no return) 6. Ta Step Test (this tests whether or not the D has taken an abormal step that a reasonable D would not have taken) 7. ae Loquitor (this test oe from consideration talking, and is used more like a slide show) and last 8. MPC Substantial Step Test: which tests whether they D has taken a substantial step towards the crime. We will use the Abormal Step Test and the Res Ipsa Loquitor Test. ABNORMAL STEP TEST The abnormal step test indicates whether or not the D has taken an abnormal step that a reasonable person would not have taken. Here, when D had failed to realize that it was not normal behavior to put a real bullet inside the musket when the whole point of the survivor game was just supposed to be for fun, is the point where he took an abormal test that a reasonable person would not have taken. This constitutes an overt Page 6 of 15 (Question 1 continued) CrimLaw_LSN_Chang_2010UL of the unlawful act. ATTEMPTED RAPE OF POLLY-DRAKE Attempt is a specific intent crime, and there must be an intent to commit the target crime + an overt act beyond mgre preparation to complete the act. (see above for the 8 -7W attempt tests and actnildlgy — Abnormal Step Test The abnormal step test considers wehther or not the D has taken an abnormal step that a reasonable D would not have taken. Here, when D grabbed polly, threw her on the ground and ripped off her pants, this would constitute an overt act beyond mere preparation because he was not just limited to thinking about raping her. The law does not punish for thoughts alone, but instead he took actual actions to undress her and attempt completing the crime. Therefore, he can be found guilty of attempted rape under the abnormal step test. Res Ipsa Loquitor Test The Res Ipsa Loquitor Test excludes from consideration talking. Here, scene 1 would be Drake having a stress triggered explosive outburst, 2. grabbing Polly and throwing her on the ground, Scene 3, ripping off her pants while she struggled, and screamed (will not take sound into consideration). These acts would signify that he attempted to Page 9 of 15 (Question 1 continued) CrimLaw_LSN_Chang_2010UL Chang a rape Polly. Therefore, D can be found guilty of attempted rape under we Ipsa Loquitor test. pom nor DEFENSES FOR DRAKE 1. INSANITY There are 5 different tests that are used to determine if one is insane. 1. the tain test (md/d where D was not aware of the nature/quality of his acts or did not know that they were wrong) 2. the irresistable impulse test (md/d that renders D unable to control an insane impluse) 3. MPC Substantial an test (md/d where the D does not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or is unable to conform it to the law) 4. The vrenbone test (if not "but for" the md/d this attempted rape crime would not have happened) 5. The Federal est (md/d that must be proven with convincing clarity that the D did not understnad the nature/quality of his actions or he did not know that they were wrong). In order to determine whether or not D was insane when he committed the attempted rape, we must analyze two of the insaniity tests. IRRESISTABLE IMPULSE TEST The irresistable impulse test is one whtere the mental disease or defect renders the D unable to control an insane impulse. Here, when Polly was screaming at D to stop after he misfired and killed Rufus, and the additional shock that he felt when he misfired and Page 10 of 15 (Question 1 continued) CrimLaw_LSN_Chang_2010UL Chang did not kill his target, the stress that he felt from this triggered a violent explosive outburst from Drake. This is possible evidence that he might suffer from intermittant explosive disorder where people engage in acts such as raod range, throwing, or breaking objects, which they later may feel remorse, regret or embarrassment for. here, it is obvious that he did not have control over his actions, because as soon as he regained control , he unzipped his pants and stopped. Therefore, D can use the irresistable impulse test as a defense under insanity. DURHAM PRODUCT TEST The Durham product test is where if not "but for" the mental disease or defect the crime would not have happened. It is obvious that based upon the intermittant disorder defintion and the actions of the D that he has a mental illness that triggers him to behave in a certain way and that once he regains self control, he will stop the act. Therefore, but for his mental illness D would not have attempted to rape Polly. Therefore, the Durham product test may be used to prove D's insanity. IMINISHED CAPACITY Diminished capacity is as a result of the D's mental state and incapacity he was unable to form the Mens Rea for the crime. In the insanity defenses fail, D may be able to use Diminished capactiy as a defense and say that because he lost control in the moment, that he actuall did not know what he was doing. Attempted rape is a specific intent crime and all he needs to show is a reasonable/unreasonable honest mistake of fact, Page 11 of 15 (Question 1 continued) CrimLaw_LSN_Chang_2010UL Chang because hitting someone with a deadly weapon would most likely result in death, therefore, making it inherently dangerous. We have also now determind that during the commission of the felony the death of Polly occurred. Now, we must see who is liable for this death. Merger imytton says that If the crime merges with the felony then there can be no FMR. Here, in order to get out of the merger limitation we must show that there was an independant felonious intent to regain the intent for the crime. Here, if this cannot be proven, then the crime merges and Polly's death will be suicide. If it can be proven and we do have felony murder, no one is liable for Polly's death anyway, because she was a co-felon. Therefore, this rule does not really apply. Modernly, there is the agency rule (majority rule) which states that if the killing occurs by an agent who is a non agent of the shooter, then the non shooter is not liable, proximate cause rule (minority) says that any foreseeable death deems the felon liable, _C Lule: any death that occurs makes the felon liable, redline rule: if the killing is —— justified, then no killing under FMR. a Here, because Polly is assisting Oscar, to help attack Drake, no one is liable for her death because she is a co-felon. When a felong ides during the commission of a crime, then that is just the risk that one takes. Therefore, no one is liable. QUESTION #3 Page 14 of 15 (Question 1 continued) CrimLaw_LSN_Chang_2010UL Chang If D is convicted the arguments he can make in regards to male prison rape is that because of his insanity plea he a to go to the male prision and instead he should be going to civil commitmeRt’ This means, that as soon as they reach a verdict, that he will go to an institution and that the courts can decide how long it is necessary for him to stay there. Additionally, he can argue that incarcerating him with statistics such as the fact that 50% of the inmates have had to submit to forced anal sex ee would give rise to a violation of the 8th and 14th amendments. The 8th amehdment because going to prison can be his punishment, but the excess punishment of getting raped while in prison would not be a proportionate about of punishment, does noxfcomport with social/moral standards and would offend his human dignity) Pai ly under the 14th amendment it would be arbitary and capricious. Hiis argument would be that he should not submit to any access punishment besides incarceration, and by being incarceration he is subject to physical pain and it would be restricting of his rights and justices. Page 15 of 15 CrimLaw_LSN_Chang_2020UL Chang END OF EXAM Page 1 0f0