Model Penal Code - Assignment Example

?Running Head: MODEL PENAL QUESTIONS Topic: Model Penal Questions Model Penal Questions No, because Joe did not take “substantial step” towards making good his threat. In almost all jurisdictions, under the Model Penal Code, it is impossible to get a conviction in an attempted arson case against a defendant unless it can proven that that defendant took some kind of act towards committing the unlawful act. Under the Model Penal Code, this sort of act or acts ought to satisfy a number of conditions. First, it ought to amount to a ‘substantial step’ in a line of acts that are intended to culminate in the performance of arson or any other criminal act. Second, it ought to be ‘strongly corroborative’ of his or her criminal intent. Here, Joe’s conduct does not satisfy any of the two conditions. First, a substantial step in this case might involve gathering a significant number of materials that ought to be present in committing arson which is hugely deficient in this case. This is because both the gasoline and the book on “prosecution and defense of arson case” fail miserably to satisfy this condition. This is because Joe can argue that the gasoline is for his car that he normally carries, not to mention the fact that we are not even told that it had gasoline in it which further weakens the prosecution case for arson against Joe. He can also argue that the book was in his car for purposes of a case he is handling in arson and not necessarily meant to prepare him in advance of how to handle the consequences that will follow in case he make good his threat. Second, the activities revolving this whole scenario are not “strongly corroborative” of the proposition that he intended to burn down the firm. This is because as much as his wife and the colleague who overheard him issuing threat to the effect that he was going to ‘torch ‘the firm premises might testify to show intention, that in itself cannot be taken on face value if there is no more acts to corroborate. His going there at night cannot also be used against him because he can comfortably claim that it was part of his winding up that was expected of him as he prepared to quit in two months time. 2. A. The charge of perjury will only be entertained if only the woman can corroborate the allegation of falsehood on the side of his ex-husband. Otherwise it would not be possible to convince the trial judge that indeed the ex-husband lied if he is to get a perjury conviction against her husband. B. The question that we need to belabor in this case concerns the materiality, or lack of it, of this case. This is because a falsehood that does not meet the ‘material’ element cannot sustain a perjury conviction. This is because despite having a prior felony record nowhere does this state insinuate that he is likely to be inclined to either side in his testimony. This therefore shows that the false testimony does not affect the credibility of Franklin’s evidence as a witness and therefore not material, and therefore unable to sustain a perjury conviction against him. C. Once again, we are supposed to establish the materiality of the false testimony in the trial. First, the arresting officer’s racial bias has nothing to do with the crime that the Mexican faces unless it can be proved that he arrested the Mexican as an extension of his racial bias. Second, the racial bias against the Mexican will have no material element if it can be proved that indeed the Mexican committed whatever crime he is accused of committing. 3. Both Al and Gus can be charged with attempted armed robbery. This is because Gus uses a ‘deadly weapon’ to intimidate cashier into surrendering money. It does not matter whether he was using a toy pistol to intimidate the cashier, all what matter is the fact that he made the cashier believe that he was in great danger of being shot if he did not agreed to surrender the money. Gus on the other hand would also face charges of attempted armed robbery by virtue of the accomplice liability. Al certainly cannot be convicted of murder under the Model Penal Code. This is because the common practice with MPC is to ascertain the ‘rebuttable presumption’ of “recklessness manifesting excessive indifference to human life” in person or an accomplice to a felony, which is precisely lacking in Al and Gus case of attempted robbery. Any attempt by the prosecution to charge the two or any of them with murder is doomed to fail because they are likely to ‘rebut’ the presumption that they acted with reckless indifference to human life. If anything, they are not the ones who shot the cashier. In fact, to rebut that presumption they can as well point to the fact that they never carried a gun and therefore never intended to harm, let alone kill, in course of their robbery. This is consistent with the felony-murder rule which state that an actor must be engaged in commission of a felony, which in our case is an armed robber, and the action pertaining to this felony have proximate caused the death of another person as is the case with the cashier. However, at common law, Al and Gus would have been convicted of manslaughter were the prosecutor to apply the felony-murder doctrine, which is a doctrine that is normally applied to killings occurring in course of the commission of a felony (256-257). This is because the killing of the cashier occurred reasonably close to the felony that was robbery, both in time and also in place. As for Gus conviction, it stem from the accomplice liability because there is evidence that appear to suggest that he intentionally promoted this offense, not to mention the fact that he possessed a culpable-mental state for the attempted offense. However, Gus can counter the charge of manslaughter by arguing that he believed a burglary was the only one that would take place because he did not know that AL had a toy gun that necessitated the shooting of the cashier. 4. This case satisfies all the condition needed for the prosecution of a burglary charge. First, though Dean does not break Mike’s place of dwelling which is not a necessity in MPC domain anyway, he enters his abode uninvited or without consent from Mike, which in MPC is an important condition in a burglary charge. There is also no evidence to suggest that Dean had strayed into Mike’s abode which could have boasted his defense. There is also evidence that seems to suggest that Dean’s entry to Mike’s abode is informed by the intention to commit a felony, in this case, steal. These three conditions are enough to make Dean a candidate for a burglary charge. It is important to note that burglary is more of a tresspassory offense as opposed to theft which is concerned with appropriating another person’s property, which therefore means that they cannot both merge and especially in this particular case. 5. According to MPC “any person who purposely aids or solicits another to commit suicide is guilty of a felony of the second degree if his conduct causes such suicide or attempted suicide,” 210.5(2) this therefore render Dr. K’s actions at advising her patient on the best way to terminate her life, which she does, a perfect candidate for the felony of manslaughter. If anything, Dr. K’s action goes against the salutary principle that states that the law protects all life, irrespective of its quality. 6. A. The charges of arson can be brought against Marvin. This is because his deliberate burning of his own car in order to collect insurance proceeds or defraud an insurer is malicious in itself. He would also have to face separate charges of fraud emanating from his evil intent at defrauding an insurer. This is because his action satisfies both condition set aside for arson namely; intent and recklessness. In this case, Marvin starts a fire intentionally in order to defraud the insurer which explains why he drives in a deserted area Marvin’s action also reeks of recklessness abandon if the burning of shacks nearby is anything to go by. B. Yes, the charge of manslaughter can be brought against Marvin. This is because there is a criminal liability that is attached to the death of this homeless person proximately resulting from his unlawful acts of setting his car on fire. 7. Harrison can be charged with the offense of escape from custody which is described as “unlawfully removing oneself from official detention…..”. However, according to MPC his new found evidence that exonerate him from his previous criminal act can be used to whitewash his subsequent crime of escape from custody. 8. A prosecutor in this case might not have much problem making the case that no entrapment occurred. This is because all the twelve thieves originated the thefts or where induced into the act. These are two conditions that an entrapment defense has to furnish the court with. The prosecutor can use the “subjective” test to show that the defendants had the predisposition to commit a felony. Otherwise they could not have gone out of their way to open another person’s car in order to take expensive appliances and therefore should not argue that they were instigated or induced to commit a crime. Faced with this kind of a case a defense attorney will have some problem making the case of entrapment. However, he/she can argue that the expensive appliances that have been placed in the wagon to act as “baits” created the requisite inducement that is needed in entrapment defense. He can also argue that by placing the expensive appliances in a plainly visible and careless manner, the detective not only ‘planted’ the idea but also lead law-abiding citizens with absolutely no prior criminal intent into committing a crime that they would not otherwise be inclined to commit. In fact the defense can use the “objective” test to shows that the detectives conduct was such that it could cause an otherwise law-abiding citizen with absolutely no prior criminal intent into commit such a felony. 9. A: CHARGES: (1)Two, one for killing the woman and the second for killing the fetus (2) The first problem that the homicide charge against the defendant might encounter as to do with the fact that a fetus in some jurisdictions is not considered a human being worthy to be murdered. The second has to do with the fact that the woman did not die immediately but took a whole 18 month before she was removed from support system, which therefore can bring about the argument from the defendant that that he did not murder the woman. B: DEFENSES: (1) If the defendant decides to raise the insanity defense, then he has to convince the court that he had a mental impairment that played a major role in the commission of the said criminal act. (2) The defense of insanity might be effective in exonerating him especially if he adopt the line of argument that claim that his hatred for abortion and all it manifestations drove him to a state where his mental faculties were impaired. (3) No, because his application of the irresistible impulse test in claiming that he was completely incapable of controlling his rage/passion in course of the alleged criminal act is anchored on the idea that he had mental impairment, which is similar to insanity. (4) No, this is because the determination of his impairment in the face of his commission of the criminal act that he claim prevented him from understanding it or restrained him from ascertaining whether it was legal or illegal is anchored on the same ground of his alleged impairment. (5) Yes, because it is the only defense that justifies the killing of somebody else. 10. (1) Under MPC a charge of murder ought to be a planned act that has specific malicious purpose. In this regard the defendant ought to be in a state of mind that enables him/her to know what he/she is doing and therefore able to make a decision not to go ahead with the execution of that decision. (2) In this case, the father appears to have planned the act with the malicious intent of killing the teacher upon hearing the allegation from his daughter. However, he can also argue that he never planned in advance to kill the teacher but was forced into doing so during the confrontation that ensured upon asking the teacher, a confrontation that might as well have cost him his own life. He can also argue that he was provoked into shooting the teacher by certain thing that he uttered that made him lose self-control just as any reasonable person would do. (3) A Manslaughter charge basically require that the defendant ought to have been reasonably provoked into killing, committed the act while in that state of rage or provocation, did not had a reasonable time to cool off as a reasonable person, and did not actually cool-off by the time he committed the crime. A manslaughter charge might also be sustained against the father especially if he maintains that the allegation by his daughter placed him in extreme mental disturbance that is not only enough to provoke a standard person but also offers a reasonable excuse for such a person. However, this line of argument might be rebuffed by argument to the effect that there was a reasonable time between the time the father got the allegation and the time he actually committed the act, a duration that can be argued by the prosecution as a cooling-off period. (4) Manslaughter, this is because a manslaughter charge shifts emphasis from the actual provocation to the emotion condition of the father at the time he committed the criminal act. This is because the actual provocation line of argument is likely to be met by the claims of the existence of ‘cooling-off period’ that would have necessitated the subsiding of passion while enabling the reasserting of reason on the father. Reference The American Law Institute. 1962. Model Penal Code. New York: United Stated Government Read More