Criminal Law – Assessmentback
0 of 2 questions completed
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to pass the previous Module’s quiz in order to start this quiz:
you have successfully completed the quiz.
A defendant, on trial for robbing the victim of some jewelry, relied on the defense that he was only trying to recover property that the alleged victim had previously stolen from him. The trial court instructed the jury that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if the jury should find that the defendant had established by a preponderance of the evidence that he was only trying to recover his property, they should find him not guilty. After he was convicted of robbery, the defendant asserts that the instruction to the jury was error.
His conviction should probably be:CorrectIncorrect
A defendant was charged with murder. His principal defense was that he had kil1ed in hot blood and should be guilty only of manslaughter. The judge instructed the jury that the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was presumed to be murder, and that the charge could be reduced to manslaughter, and the defendant accordingly found guilty of this lesser offense, if the defendant showed by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the killing was committed in the heat of passion on sudden provocation. The defendant was convicted of murder. On appeal, he seeks a new trial and claims error in the judge’s instructions to the jury.
The defendant’s conviction wil1 most probably be:CorrectIncorrect