Criminal Law Keyed to Dresslerback
0 of 4 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
A grand jury was investigating a bank robbery. The only information known to the prosecutor was a rumor that a certain ex-convict might have been involved. The grand jury subpoenaed the ex-convict. He refused to answer questions about the robbery and was granted use immunity. He then testified that he and a friend had robbed the bank. The grand jury indicted both the ex-convict and his friend for the bank robbery. The prosecutor permitted the friend to enter a plea to a lesser offense in exchange for the friend’s agreement to testify against the ex-convict. The prosecutor had no evidence as to the identity of the robbers except the testimony of the friend and the ex-convict.
At the ex-convict’s trial, his objection to his friend’s being permitted to testify should be:CorrectIncorrect
Seven members of a mafia family were indicted for the murder of victim, who had been working with the FBI as an informant. The father of the family pleaded guilty. At the trial of the others, state evidence showed that the father had announced a party to celebrate his daughter’s engagement, and had planned to announce the victim as a member of the wedding party. However, at that point the father already knew that the victim was an informant, and had invited the other members of the family to the party so they could see how he made an example of the victim. He had told no one of this plan. At the party, after announcing the engagement of his daughter, and after all present had consumed a large amount of wine, the father took the others into the basement and announced that the victim was a rat and shot him point blank, in front of the rest. The others watched and did nothing to help the victim, as they all feared the father. The jury found the other family members guilty of murder and they appealed.
Should the appellate court uphold the conviction?CorrectIncorrect