Questions 17-18 are based on the following fact situation.
Dailey and Reavis had been in the same cell together while serving time in prison. Soon after their release, Reavis asked Dailey to join with him in robbing a bank. Dailey refused, stating that he did not want to go back to prison. Reavis then said that he would rob the bank himself if Dailey would provide him with a place to hide afterwards. Dailey agreed that Reavis could hide in Dailey’s apartment following the robbery in return for one fourth of the proceeds of the robbery. The following day, Reavis robbed the bank. While he was attempting to leave the bank, a security guard began shooting at him, and Reavis fired back, killing a bystander. One week later, Reavis was arrested at Dailey’s apartment where he had been hiding, and was charged with robbery and felony-murder.
17. Assume for the purpose of this Text only that Dailey was subsequently charged with felony-murder on the ground that he was an accomplice to the robbery committed by Reavis which resulted in the death of a bystander. The court should find Dailey
(A) not guilty, because he was an accessory after the fact.
(B) not guilty, if he did not know that Reavis was going to use deadly force to accomplish the robbery.
(C) guilty, only if it was foreseeable that someone would be shot during the course of the robbery.
(D) guilty, because an accomplice is responsible for all crimes committed in furtherance of the crime to which he is an accomplice.
18. Assume for the purpose of this Text only that Dailey was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery. The court should find Dailey
(A) not guilty, because he did not agree to participate in the actual perpetration of the robbery.
(B) not guilty, because Dailey’s agreement to permit Reavis to stay at his apartment following the robbery was not per se unlawful.
(C) guilty, because he was an accessory to the robbery.
(D) guilty, because he agreed to furnish Reavis with a place to hide in return for a portion of the proceeds of the robbery.
Questions 19-20 are based on the following fact situation.
Okner was the owner of a department store. One day, Okner asked Shafer, who was employed in the store’s shoe department, to temporarily replace a sporting goods salesman who did not show up for work. Yule, who was 15 years of age, subsequently entered the sporting goods department and asked Shafer to sell her ammunition for a pistol. Shafer placed a box of ammunition on the counter and said, “That’ll be nine dollars, please.” Realizing that she did not have any money with her, Yule left the store without the ammunition, saying that she would return for it later. A statute in the jurisdiction provides as follows: “Any person who sells ammunition for a firearm to a person below the age of 16 years shall be guilty of a felony. The employer of any person who violates this section during the course of such employment shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $250. It shall not be a defense to a violation of this section that the defendant had no knowledge of the age of the person to whom the sale was made.”