Accounting
Anthropology
Archaeology
Art History
Banking
Biology & Life Science
Business
Business Communication
Business Development
Business Ethics
Business Law
Chemistry
Communication
Computer Science
Counseling
Criminal Law
Curriculum & Instruction
Design
Earth Science
Economic
Education
Engineering
Finance
History & Theory
Humanities
Human Resource
International Business
Investments & Securities
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Medicine
Medicine & Health Science
Nursing
Philosophy
Physic
Psychology
Real Estate
Science
Social Science
Sociology
Special Education
Speech
Visual Arts
Question
Facts and circumstances that indicate an unspoken understanding between conspirators to commit a crimea. are not sufficient to prove a conspiracy existed.
b. must be corroborated by some type of written document that indicates there was an agreement.
c. are often sufficient to prove a conspiracy existed.
d. must be corroborated by the testimony of one of the conspirators.
Answer
This answer is hidden. It contains 1 characters.
Related questions
Q:
A defense in which the defendant admits the act but claims that, under the circumstances, they aren"t legally responsible is called
a. justification.
b. excuse.
c. claim of right.
d. mitigating condition.
Q:
Factual cause is also known as which of the following?
a. "but for" cause
b. legal cause
c. proximate cause
d. intervening cause
Q:
The objective determination that the defendant's act triggered a chain of events that ended as the bad result is called the
a. cause in fact.
b. negligent cause.
c. negligent cause.
d. subsequent cause.
Q:
General intent is the intent to
a. commit a criminal act.
b. cause harm.
c. make the act cause the harm.
d. have the mens rea.
Q:
Most serious crimes require mens rea in in addition to the criminal act. Explain why this is the case and how this relates to culpability. Additionally, mens rea is complex and it is difficult to determine just how much intent is necessary to convict someone of a crime. Describe the reasons why mens rea is so baffling.
Q:
What does the prosecution have to prove with regard to causation to get a conviction? What are intervening causes and how do they affect a defendant's responsibility? Be sure to provide examples.
Q:
What are strict liability crimes? Provide an example. What are some of the arguments for and against such crimes? Do you think there should or should not be strict liability crimes? Explain your position.
Q:
Negligence is a totally objective standard.
Q:
Negligence involves conscious risk creation.
Q:
The most blameworthy state of mind in the Model Penal Code is purpose.
Q:
In strict liability crimes, accidental injury can be criminal.
Q:
All courts define general intent as the intent to commit the criminal act.
Q:
In the absence of a confession, mens rea is usually proven by circumstantial evidence.
Q:
Amelia wishes her sister was dead. If her sister dies, Amelia will receive a great deal of money. As Amelia is driving she sees her sister walking down the street. Amelia makes the decision to run her over with the car. She swerves off the road and runs her sister over and kills her.
What state of mind best describes Amelia during her crime?
a. purposely
b. knowingly
c. recklessly
d. negligently
Q:
The subjective judgment that it's fair and just to blame the defendant for the bad result is called
a. cause in fact
b. but for cause
c. legal cause
d. concurrence
Q:
The test for negligence is
a. totally objective.
b. totally subjective.
c. totally conscious.
d. totally negligent.
Q:
__________________ involves a connection between the mens rea and the actus reus.
Q:
Tory was fifteen years old when he intentionally pushed another high school student in front of a car, killing him. Tory stated in court that he wanted to kill someone and picked his victim at random. Tory has an extensive record of antisocial behavior and was sentenced to life-without possibility of parole. Tory appealed the sentence but the appeal was unsuccessful.
In his appeal, Tory likely argued that his sentence was
a. retroactive
b. ex post facto
c. disproportionate
d. void-for-vagueness
Q:
The American Association on Mental Retardation includes three elements in its definition of mental retardation. Which one of the following is not one of those elements?
a. the person has substantial intellectual impairment.
b. the impairment of the person impacts their everyday life of the mental retarded individual.
c. retardation is present at birth or during childhood.
d. the person has an IQ below 80.
Q:
In what case did the Court apply the Apprendi rule to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines?
a. Penry v. Lynaugh (1989)
b. U.S. v. Booker (2005)
c. Roper v. Simmons (2005)
d. Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Q:
Which of the following is protected by the First Amendment?
a. obscenity
b. flag burning as a political protest
c. fighting words
d. expression that creates a clear and present danger to compelling government interests
Q:
A trial without a jury is called:
a. a bench trial
b. a jury trial
c. a verdict trial
d. an unconstitutional trial
Q:
What name is given to offensive, sexually explicit material that is not protected by the First Amendment?
a. obscenity
b. profanity
c. libel
d. literature
Q:
According to what principle must there be a specific law defining a crime and setting out the punishment before a person can be punished for that crime?
a. the principle of legality
b. the principle of comity
c. the principle of proportionality
d. the principle of reciprocity
Q:
What are affirmative defenses? How do the burdens of production and persuasion relate to affirmative defenses?
Q:
What behavior deserves criminal punishment? Explain the purposes of criminal punishment (deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation)?
Q:
The text case method stimulates you to think _______________ about legal principles and their application.
Q:
Affirmative defenses such as justification and excuse place the burden of production or of _______________ on the defendant.
Q:
___________ principles of criminal law apply to many or all crimes.
Q:
The burden of proof for crimes is different than the burden of proof for torts.