Criminal Law Keyed to Weaverback
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.
Caitlin, celebrating a recent promotion at work, took her best friends out for a delicious meal at the Top of the Bean Restaurant.
Unfortunately, it is a cash only establishment, and Caitlin has only thirty cents. Her friends have already left to catch the last train home. Caitlin’s boyfriend, a lawyer at a prominent law firm in downtown Boston, who hasn’t used cash for the last ten years, tells her that it’s not a crime to accept services, such as a meal, without paying for them. Caitlin knows that her boyfriend is a smart and honest guy, and so the two leave without paying for the meal.
Unbeknownst to either Caitlin or her boyfriend, that very morning, the Massachusetts legislature amended its criminal statutes to expand their definitions of property to include services and other intangibles such as gas and electrical power. As is the usual practice, this amendment was set to be made available to the public the next morning in all of the local newspapers and television news programs.
The manager of the restaurant calls the police, who arrive and place Caitlin under arrest for larceny.
You are a criminal defense attorney that comes highly recommended by Caitlin’s boyfriend. Advise Caitlin of the charge against her, her possible defenses, if any, and the probable result.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
Terry is on trial for rape. Pat, the alleged victim, testified that she went out to dinner with Terry. Afterwards, he invited her to his apartment for coffee. Upon entering the apartment, he violently assaulted her. Although she tried to resist, he overpowered and raped her.
Terry testified that during dinner he and Pat drank three bottles of champagne. When they returned to his apartment, he was so intoxicated that he honestly believed that she consented to the intercourse.
The jury determined that Pat did not consent to the intercourse. It also found that Terry, as a result of his intoxication, honestly but unreasonably believed that she was consenting.
As a consequence of the jury’s findings, Terry should be found:Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.