Question: Are words of encouragement sufficient for accomplice liability?

Answer: Yes, words of encouragement coupled with criminal intent will suffice for accomplice liability.


Question: Can a criminal statute require that only one participant in a criminal transaction is punished?

Answer: Yes. A criminal statute can require that only one participant in the criminal transaction is punished, such as an exception to aider and abettor liability.


Question: Is passive behavior sufficient for accomplice liability?

Answer: No, passive behavior, such as mere presence or continuous presence, without evidence of an affirmative act to instigate, incite, embolden, or help others in committing a crime, is not accomplice liability.


Question: Is mere presence, coupled with silent approval and intent, sufficient for accomplice liability?

Answer: No, mere presence, coupled with silent approval and intent, is insufficient for accomplice liability.


Question: Is a person guilty of murder as an accessory if the person did not plan to use force and had no idea that the other person was armed?

Answer: No. A person is not guilty of murder as an accessory if the person did not plan to use force and had no idea that the other person was armed.


Question: A person gives an antibiotic when the defendant wanted poison. Is the person an accomplice to any degree of criminal homicide if the victim dies as a result of a reaction to the antibiotic?

Answer: No. The person is not an accomplice to any degree of criminal homicide because they did not intentionally provide what was requested to commit the crime and lacked the requisite mens rea to assist in the criminal act.


Question: Is an accessory after the fact subject to accomplice liability and guilty of the substantive crime?

Answer: No. Accomplice liability requires participation in the commission of the crime. An accessory after the fact only assists the offender after the crime has been completed, making them guilty of the separate crime of obstruction of justice.


Question: What is required to be convicted as an accomplice at common law?

Answer: At common law, to be convicted as an accomplice, a person generally must have given aid, counsel, or encouragement with the intent to aid or encourage the principal in the commission of the crime charged.


Question: Can a corporation be held vicariously liable for the acts of its agents committed in the scope of their employment, including criminal acts?

Answer: Yes. A corporation can be held vicariously liable for the acts of its agents committed in the scope of their employment, including criminal acts because the agents are acting within the scope of their duties for the corporation.


Question: A person moved with another to prevent the other from being convicted of a crime. Can a jury properly find that person guilty of accessory after the fact?

Answer: Yes. A jury can properly find a person guilty of accessory after the fact if that person moved with another to prevent the other from being convicted of a crime because they took actions to help the other avoid conviction.


Question: A defendant is angry at Victor and goes to Victor's workplace with a gun intending to kill Victor, but his shot misses and kills a police officer standing behind Victor. What is the most serious crime the man may be charged with?

Answer: The most serious crime the man may be charged with is first-degree murder of the police officer because he had the specific intent to kill Victor, which is transferred to the police officer.


Question: Can defenses and mitigating circumstances be transferred under the doctrine of transferred intent?

Answer: Yes. Defenses and mitigating circumstances may be transferred under the doctrine of transferred intent because they apply to the specific intent that is transferred from the intended target to the actual victim.


Question: When does the doctrine of transferred intent apply?

Answer: The doctrine of transferred intent applies when an individual has the intent to harm one particular individual or object, and in the act of trying to accomplish that harm, another is injured because the intent to harm the original party can be transferred to the party that actually was injured.


Question: A defendant kills his victim upon finding him in bed with his wife. Is it appropriate to instruct the jury on the charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter?

Answer: Yes. It is appropriate to instruct the jury on the charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter because the defendant acted in the heat of passion and was provoked by a situation that would inflame the passion of a reasonable person.


Question: What is the standard by which murder and voluntary manslaughter are distinguished?

Answer: Provocation is the standard by which murder and voluntary manslaughter are distinguished because voluntary manslaughter is murder committed in response to adequate provocation.


Question: When can a defendant be found to have acted in the heat of passion?

Answer: A defendant can be found to have acted in the heat of passion if he was provoked by a situation that would inflame the passion of a reasonable person to such an extent that a reasonable person would act out of passion rather than reason because provocation rulings are very fact-specific.


Question: Is the intent to cause bodily harm sufficient for a charge of attempted murder?

Answer: No. The intent to cause bodily harm is not sufficient for a charge of attempted murder because only an intent to cause death meets the requirement for attempted murder under common law.


Question: The defendant's intent was to cause bodily harm which was likely to cause death. Is this sufficient for a charge of attempted murder?

Answer: No. This is not sufficient for a charge of attempted murder because the intent to accomplish serious bodily harm, which would provide the malice necessary for murder if the victim died, is not sufficient intent for attempted murder if the victim does not die.


Question: What does an attempt require?

Answer: An attempt requires an intent to commit the crime because nothing less than an intention to cause the death will suffice for a charge of attempted murder.


Question: What intent is required for the crime of common law attempted murder?

Answer: For the crime of common law attempted murder, nothing less than an intention to cause death will suffice because the defendant's intent must align with the specific result of causing death.


Question: What is required for an attempt under criminal law?

Answer: An attempt requires an intent to commit the crime because it demonstrates the defendant's specific intention to achieve the criminal result.


Question: Why is the intent to accomplish serious bodily harm not sufficient for attempted murder if the victim does not die?

Answer: The intent to accomplish serious bodily harm is not sufficient for attempted murder if the victim does not die because the malice necessary for murder if the victim died is not the same as the specific intent required for attempted murder when the victim survives.


Question: A defendant hits his friend on the head with a hammer in anger because the friend broke the defendant's new laptop over a trivial argument. The friend subsequently dies from the injury. Can the jury properly convict the defendant of common law murder?

Answer: Yes. The jury can properly convict the defendant of common law murder because the defendant either intended to cause death or serious bodily harm and acted without adequate provocation.


Question: What does common law murder require?

Answer: Common law murder requires the presence of the specific intent to cause death or serious bodily harm, and the absence of adequate provocation because these elements distinguish it from other types of homicide.


Question: A defendant hires a hit man to kill someone, and the hit man shoots the person but the person is already dead. What can the defendant be charged with?

Answer: The most the defendant can be charged with is attempted murder because the victim was already dead at the time of the shooting, meaning no life was taken.


Question: What does murder require?

Answer: Murder requires the taking of a life because it is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.


Question: What is the culpability of a victim who kills an attacker when no longer in fear of being attacked?

Answer: The victim is guilty of either murder or manslaughter, depending on whether the killing was intentional or done in the heat of passion stemming from the attack because the justification for the killing is no longer present.


Question: A defendant puts an explosive in a house intending to kill his wife, then has a change of heart and tells the police, but the bomb still kills someone else. Is the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree?

Answer: Yes. The defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree because the initial intent to kill and the subsequent act that resulted in death constitute premeditation and deliberation.


Question: A defendant intentionally puts poison in someone's drink, killing them. Is the defendant guilty of first degree murder?

Answer: Yes. The defendant is guilty of first degree murder because there is premeditation and intent to kill by using poison.


Question: A defendant kills someone after being hit by them. Can this be voluntary manslaughter?

Answer: Yes. Killing someone after they hit you may be voluntary manslaughter if a jury could find that being hit constituted adequate provocation because the act was committed in the heat of passion.


Question: A person poisons another with the intent to kill, but a heart attack brought on by the poison kills the victim instead. Is the person guilty of criminal homicide (murder)?

Answer: Yes. The person is guilty of criminal homicide (murder) because the intent to kill was present and the act of poisoning directly caused the victim's death.


Question: What is required to be guilty of murder?

Answer: To be guilty of murder, one must unlawfully kill another human being with malice aforethought, which may be (1) intent to kill; (2) intent to inflict great bodily injury; (3) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (depraved heart); or (4) the intent to commit a felony.


Question: A person is hit in the face with an umbrella. Is this adequate provocation?

Answer: Yes. Getting hit in the face with an umbrella is adequate provocation because it constitutes a serious battery that can inflame the passion of a reasonable person.


Question: A person sees their spouse in bed with another and loses control. Is this adequate provocation?

Answer: Yes. Seeing your spouse in bed with another person and losing control is adequate provocation because it would inflame the passion of a reasonable person to act out of passion rather than reason.


Question: Can adequate provocation reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter?

Answer: Yes. Adequate provocation can reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter because it shows the defendant acted in the heat of passion rather than with malice aforethought.


Question: What are the requirements for provocation for voluntary manslaughter?

Answer: Provocation for voluntary manslaughter requires: (1) adequate provocation; (2) heat of passion; (3) lack of opportunity for the passion to cool; and (4) a causal connection between the provocation, passion, and the act.


Question: If the basis for provocation is unreasonable, is homicide mitigated to voluntary manslaughter?

Answer: No. Homicide is not mitigated to voluntary manslaughter if the basis for provocation is unreasonable because the provocation must be adequate to inflame the passion of a reasonable person.


Question: Does the consent of a victim excuse, mitigate, or reduce the level of a criminal homicide (murder)?

Answer: No. The consent of a victim does not excuse, mitigate, or reduce the level of a criminal homicide (murder) because the unlawful taking of life is not justified by the victim's consent.


Question: What does voluntary manslaughter require?

Answer: Voluntary manslaughter requires passion or provocation because these elements distinguish it from murder, where malice aforethought is present.


Question: A defendant drinks too much at a party and gets into a drunk driving accident that kills someone. Can the defendant be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

Answer: Yes. The defendant can be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter because the culpable mental state of recklessness is satisfied by driving while drunk, and the intoxication contributed significantly to the accident.


Question: What is the difference between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter?

Answer: Unlike murder and voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter is a homicide that is committed without the intent to kill, but with criminal recklessness or negligence.


Question: When may involuntary manslaughter be considered depraved-heart homicide or extreme-indifference murder?

Answer: Involuntary manslaughter may be considered depraved-heart homicide or extreme-indifference murder if the defendant exhibited aggravated recklessness, such as by having previous drunk driving convictions or accidents.


Question: A defendant causes an accident while speeding which kills a pedestrian. If the defendant is properly charged with the misdemeanor of reckless driving, can the defendant be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

Answer: Yes. The defendant can be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter under the misdemeanor-manslaughter doctrine because the intentional commission of the misdemeanor supplies the culpability required to impose homicide liability.


Question: A defendant causes an accident while speeding, which kills a pedestrian, and is charged with the misdemeanor of reckless driving. Can the defendant be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter under the misdemeanor-manslaughter doctrine?

Answer: Yes. The defendant can be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter under the misdemeanor-manslaughter doctrine because the defendant's intentional commission of the misdemeanor of reckless driving supplies the culpability required to impose homicide liability.


Question: What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer: Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful and unintentional killing of another person without malice resulting from: (1) criminal negligence; (2) misdemeanor manslaughter; or (3) intent to inflict slight injury.


Question: When does involuntary manslaughter liability attach under the misdemeanor-manslaughter doctrine?

Answer: Involuntary manslaughter liability attaches under the misdemeanor-manslaughter doctrine even where the defendant does not act with the degree of recklessness ordinarily required for involuntary manslaughter predicated on criminally negligent behavior because the defendant's intentional commission of a misdemeanor supplies the culpability required to impose homicide liability.


Question: When does involuntary manslaughter liability attach under the misdemeanor-manslaughter doctrine?

Answer: Involuntary manslaughter liability attaches under the misdemeanor-manslaughter doctrine even where the defendant does not act with the degree of recklessness ordinarily required for involuntary manslaughter predicated on criminally negligent behavior, because the defendant's intentional commission of a misdemeanor supplies the culpability required to impose homicide liability.


Question: A defendant commits a robbery and the victim has a fatal heart attack from the stress. Is the defendant guilty of murder?

Answer: Yes. The defendant is guilty of murder because the victim's death is the proximate result of the defendant's act of robbery, even if there was no way to know of the victim's heart condition.


Question: An accidental shooting death occurs during an attempted robbery. Is liability for that death attached to all participants in the felony?

Answer: Yes. Liability for that death attaches vicariously to all participants in the felony because it is foreseeable that an accidental shooting death may occur when a felon is armed during the course of an attempted felony.


Question: Is the felony murder doctrine limited to foreseeable deaths?

Answer: No. The felony murder doctrine is not limited to foreseeable deaths because as long as the homicide is the direct causal result of the felony, the felony murder rule applies whether or not the death was a natural or probable consequence of the felony.


Question: What does the causation theory for felony murder state?

Answer: According to the causation theory for felony murder, it is foreseeable that when a felon is armed, an accidental shooting death may occur in the course of an attempted felony, and liability for that death attaches vicariously to all participants in the felony.


Question: A person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room and someone dies. Can that person be convicted of depraved heart murder under the common law of homicide?

Answer: Yes. That person can be convicted of depraved heart murder under the common law of homicide because intentionally firing a gun into a crowded room demonstrates a callous or reckless disregard for the value of human life.


Question: How was murder defined at common law?

Answer: At common law, murder was defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought because malice aforethought encompasses various types of mens rea including intent to kill, intent to commit grievous bodily injury, depraved heart, and felony murder.


Question: When is a person liable for depraved heart murder?

Answer: A person is liable for depraved heart murder if he kills someone in a way that demonstrates a callous or reckless disregard for the value of human life because this constitutes a depraved heart.


Question: A CEO of a pharmaceutical company shows a reckless disregard for human life by knowingly selling diluted cancer medicine, and it results in the death of a cancer patient. Is the CEO guilty of murder?

Answer: Yes. The CEO is guilty of murder because knowingly selling diluted cancer medicine demonstrates a reckless disregard for human life, resulting in the death of a cancer patient.


Question: What is murder?

Answer: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, which includes a reckless disregard for human life because it demonstrates an extreme indifference to the value of human life.


Question: An angry employee secretly puts laxative pills into her boss's coffee with the intent to cause discomfort, but the boss dies from a heart attack due to a laxative allergy that the employee was unaware of. Is the employee guilty of murder?

Answer: No. The employee is not guilty of any degree of murder because she lacked malice aforethought since she did not intend to kill or inflict great bodily injury, nor did she act with extreme indifference or reckless disregard for human life.


Question: What does murder require?

Answer: Murder requires that a killer have acted with malice aforethought, express or implied, because it indicates the presence of intent to kill, intent to inflict great bodily injury, extreme indifference or reckless disregard for human life, or commission of an inherently dangerous felony.


Question: A person indiscriminately fires gunshots above their head while inside an occupied building and a bullet ricochets and kills someone. Is the person guilty of murder?

Answer: Yes. The person is guilty of murder because firing gunshots in such a manner demonstrates a reckless disregard for the high risk of death or serious bodily harm, constituting depraved heart murder.


Question: When is a defendant guilty of depraved heart murder?

Answer: A defendant is guilty of depraved heart murder if he intentionally or recklessly disregards what he knows is an extremely high risk of death or serious bodily harm because this constitutes a depraved heart.


Question: A robber shoots warning shots that accidentally kill someone. What is he guilty of?

Answer: The robber is guilty of common law depraved heart murder because the act of shooting warning shots demonstrates a reckless disregard for human life.


Question: Are any co-conspirators found guilty of murder if a robber shoots warning shots that accidentally kill someone?

Answer: Yes. Any co-conspirators will also be found guilty of murder because they are vicariously liable for the acts committed in furtherance of the robbery.


Question: A defendant ties up a victim during a robbery and the victim dies while trying to free himself. What is the defendant guilty of?

Answer: The defendant is guilty of robbery and murder because the act of tying up the victim during the robbery directly led to the victim's death.


Question: What is a defendant guilty of if he kills another person while playing Russian roulette?

Answer: A defendant who kills another person while playing Russian roulette is guilty of murder in the second degree because of the very high risk of death or serious injury, but he is not guilty of murder in the first degree because the killing was not intentional and premeditated.


Question: A defendant shoots someone intending to only injure them, but they die. What is the defendant guilty of?

Answer: The defendant is guilty of murder because the intent to inflict grievous bodily injury is sufficient to establish malice aforethought if the victim dies.


Question: Is manslaughter likely to be the underlying felony for felony murder when compared against attempted rape as the underlying felony?

Answer: No. Manslaughter is least likely to be the underlying felony for felony murder when compared against attempted rape as the underlying felony because manslaughter typically does not meet the criteria for felony murder.


Question: Will a prosecution for felony murder fail if the underlying felony is manslaughter?

Answer: Yes. A prosecution for felony murder will fail if the underlying felony is manslaughter because manslaughter does not meet the criteria for felony murder.


Question: Will a prosecution for felony murder succeed if attempted rape was the underlying felony?

Answer: Yes. A prosecution for felony murder will succeed if attempted rape was the underlying felony because attempted rape meets the criteria for felony murder.


Question: Can a person be convicted of murder if he is fooling around with a gun shooting near a person and a bullet accidentally hits the person, killing him?

Answer: Yes. A person can be convicted of murder if he is fooling around with a gun shooting near a person and a bullet accidentally hits the person, killing him because such reckless behavior demonstrates a depraved heart.


Question: Is a person guilty of murder if they commit an act highly dangerous to life, without an intent to kill but with disregard of the consequences?

Answer: Yes. A person is guilty of murder if they commit an act highly dangerous to life, without an intent to kill but with disregard of the consequences because such behavior demonstrates a depraved heart.


Question: Is a person guilty of felony murder if the person did not intend to commit the felony that is the underlying crime?

Answer: No. A person is not guilty of felony murder if the person did not intend to commit the felony that is the underlying crime because intent to commit the underlying felony is necessary for felony murder liability.


Question: What are you guilty of if you accidentally kill someone during a robbery?

Answer: You are guilty of common law murder if you accidentally kill someone during a robbery because the act of committing the robbery creates a high risk of death or serious injury, satisfying the malice requirement for murder.


Question: What are you guilty of if you fire a gun in the direction of a number of people, and one of them is struck by the bullet and killed?

Answer: You are guilty of common law murder because firing a gun in the direction of a number of people demonstrates a reckless disregard for human life, satisfying the malice requirement for murder.


Question: What are you guilty of if your child dies from an illness caused by malnutrition and you wouldn't accept help?

Answer: You are guilty of involuntary manslaughter if your child dies from an illness caused by malnutrition and you wouldn't accept help because such behavior constitutes criminal negligence.


Question: Can manslaughter be charged if you kill someone while acting recklessly under an unreasonable apprehension of danger?

Answer: Yes. Manslaughter can be charged if you kill someone while acting recklessly under an unreasonable apprehension of danger because such behavior demonstrates a lack of intent to kill but constitutes criminal recklessness.


Question: What is common law murder?

Answer: Common law murder is wanton and reckless because it involves an intentional act that demonstrates a disregard for human life.


Question: What is murder in the second degree (i.e., extreme recklessness or 'depraved heart' murder)?

Answer: Murder in the second degree (i.e., extreme recklessness or 'depraved heart' murder) is the willful and wanton disregard of an unreasonable or unjustifiable human risk because it demonstrates a callous indifference to human life.


Question: What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer: Involuntary manslaughter is criminal or gross negligence manslaughter or misdemeanor manslaughter, which is a killing while committing a malum in se misdemeanor or an unenumerated felony but not a BARRK felony.


Question: What is embezzlement?

Answer: Embezzlement is the unlawful conversion of property by someone who, while serving in a position of trust, was given possession of the property and who had a clean mind at the time of acquiring possession. The intent for the crime of embezzlement is to fraudulently convert the property to personal use, so a temporary use of the property can be sufficient for embezzlement. The defendant's culpability is measured by the value of the property when the crime was committed, not by its subsequent value.


Question: A defendant picks up a wallet that just fell out of a man's jacket and discovers $20 in cash. The defendant decides to keep the cash and walks away with the wallet. Has the defendant committed larceny?

Answer: Yes. The defendant has committed larceny under the doctrine of continuing trespass because the defendant intended to steal the lost property and had reason to believe he could find out the owner's identity.


Question: Can a finder of abandoned property be found guilty of larceny?

Answer: No. A finder of abandoned property cannot be found guilty of larceny because there is no intent to steal property that is abandoned.


Question: When can a finder of lost or mislaid property be found guilty of larceny?

Answer: A finder of lost or mislaid property can be found guilty of larceny if: (1) the finder intended to steal the lost/mislaid property; and (2) the finder must know who the owner is or have reason to believe that he can find out the owner's identity.


Question: A defendant, honestly believing that a neighbor has stolen his bike, offers to buy the neighbor's bike if he is allowed to test ride it briefly, but rides the bike to his home and never returns. Is the defendant guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses?

Answer: No. The defendant is not guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses because he believed that the bike belonged to him, and theft crimes require a specific intent to steal or permanently deprive another of his property.


Question: Is the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses a specific intent crime?

Answer: Yes. The crime of obtaining property by false pretenses is a specific intent crime because the defendant must know that his representation is false and he must intend to defraud the owner.


Question: What is required to support a conviction of theft for obtaining property by false pretenses?

Answer: To support a conviction of theft for obtaining property by false pretenses, it must be shown that the defendant made a false pretense or representation, that the representation was made with intent to defraud the owner of his property, and that the owner was in fact defrauded in that he parted with his property in reliance upon the representation.


Question: A defendant enters a building with the intent to commit a felony. Is this larceny or burglary?

Answer: This is burglary because it requires the defendant to have the specific intent to carry out a felony at the time of entry, whereas larceny can be committed if the intent to permanently deprive another's possession was formed after taking under the theory of continuing trespass.


Question: What does larceny consist of?

Answer: Larceny consists of a taking and carrying away of tangible personal property of another by trespass, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of her interest in the property. The intent to permanently deprive must exist at the time of the taking, unless the doctrine of continuing trespass applies.


Question: Is a person guilty of burglary if he takes back his own property or takes property in the honest but mistaken belief that the property belongs to someone who has authorized him to take it back?

Answer: No. A person taking back his own property or taking property in the honest but mistaken belief that the property belongs to someone who has authorized him to take it back is not guilty of burglary because there is no intent to steal or commit larceny.


Question: A defendant convinces a salesperson to let him try on jewelry and walks out of the store without returning it. Is this larceny?

Answer: Yes. This is larceny because the intent to steal is established when the taker's conduct creates a substantial risk of permanent loss.


Question: Is a defendant guilty of larceny if he takes and carries away the personal property of another by trespass, even if the person deprived of the property later gives it to the defendant?

Answer: Yes. A defendant is guilty of larceny if he takes and carries away the personal property of another by trespass because the initial taking was unlawful, regardless of subsequent consent.


Question: Is a defendant guilty of common law forgery if he forges a historical document with the intent to defraud?

Answer: No. A defendant is not guilty of common law forgery if he forges a historical document with the intent to defraud because the false document has no legal significance.


Question: A defendant hides an item in his pocket while in a store, intending to steal it, but then changes his mind and leaves the item in the store. Is the defendant guilty of larceny?

Answer: Yes. The defendant is guilty of larceny because the intent to steal was present at the time of taking, even though he later abandoned the item.


Question: Is a defendant guilty of larceny if he uses an innocent agent to perform the larceny for him?

Answer: Yes. A defendant is guilty of larceny if he uses an innocent agent to perform the larceny for him because the defendant orchestrated the unlawful taking through the agent.


Question: What is larceny if you take and carry away the personal property of another by trespass and intend to return it, but not within a reasonable time?

Answer: It is larceny if you take and carry away the personal property of another by trespass and intend to return it, but not within a reasonable time because the intent to return the property within a reasonable time is required to avoid larceny charges.


Question: Is it larceny if you take and carry away the personal property of another by trespass but intend to return it a day or two later?

Answer: No. It is not larceny if you take and carry away the personal property of another by trespass but intend to return it a day or two later because the intent to return the property within a reasonable time negates the intent to steal.


Question: What is false pretense?

Answer: False pretense is the acquisition of title from a victim by fraud or misrepresentation of a material past or present fact where the victim is actually deceived by the misrepresentation, even if the victim's belief was unreasonable.


Question: A defendant takes an item from another person with intent to deprive him of it, even if the defendant mistakenly believes that larceny does not include the taking of this particular item. Is the defendant guilty of larceny?

Answer: Yes. The defendant is guilty of larceny because the mistaken belief about the scope of larceny does not negate the intent to deprive the owner of the item.


Question: Is a pawn shop that sells an item before they are allowed to guilty of embezzlement, even if they give the owner all the proceeds from the sale?

Answer: Yes. A pawn shop that sells an item before they are allowed to is guilty of embezzlement, even if they give the owner all the proceeds from the sale because they unlawfully converted the property to their use before the authorized time.


Question: What is larceny?

Answer: Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent to steal.


Question: You steal drugs from someone to destroy the drugs. Is this larceny?

Answer: Yes. This is larceny because the intent to steal is present even if the motive is to destroy the drugs.


Question: What is larceny considered as?

Answer: Larceny is considered a crime against possession, and contraband may be the object of larceny.


Question: You steal cocaine from someone. Are you guilty of larceny?

Answer: Yes. You are guilty of larceny because contraband, such as cocaine, can be the object of larceny.


Question: A person obtains possession of property by false promise and then fraudulently converts the property. Is the person guilty of larceny by trick, even if he later returns the property?

Answer: Yes. The person is guilty of larceny by trick because the fraudulent conversion satisfies the elements of the crime, even if the property is later returned.


Question: Is a person guilty of the crime of appropriating government property if the person honestly believed the property had been abandoned?

Answer: No. A person is not guilty of the crime of appropriating government property if the person honestly believed the property had been abandoned because the honest belief negates the intent to steal.


Question: A person commits burglary and larceny but then has a change of heart and returns the stolen item. Will the person still be found guilty of burglary and larceny?

Answer: Yes. The person will still be found guilty of burglary and larceny because once all the elements of burglary and larceny are satisfied, a subsequent renunciation has no effect.


Question: Is a pawn shop that sells an item before they are allowed to guilty of embezzlement?

Answer: Yes. A pawn shop that sells an item before they are allowed to is guilty of embezzlement because they unlawfully converted the property to their use before the authorized time.


Question: What does embezzlement require?

Answer: Embezzlement requires that the defendant intend to and lawfully take possession of the property in a fiduciary relationship and then fraudulently convert the property, thereby interfering with the owner's rights.


Question: What is false pretenses?

Answer: False pretenses is the crime of obtaining title to property of another by the intentional false statement of facts.


Question: What is larceny by trick?

Answer: Larceny by trick occurs when a defendant obtains property falsely based on an intentional misrepresentation of present or past fact.


Question: What is larceny if you intend to deal with the property in a way that involves a substantial risk of loss to the owner?

Answer: Larceny occurs if you intend to deal with the property in a way that involves a substantial risk of loss to the owner because such intent demonstrates an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.


Question: The defendant snatches a purse from the victim so suddenly that the victim can't resist at all. Is this larceny or robbery?

Answer: This is larceny because the lack of violence distinguishes it from robbery.


Question: The defendant snatches a purse from the victim who resists in any way or the defendant uses force to make his escape. Is this larceny or robbery?

Answer: This is robbery because the use of force distinguishes it from larceny.


Question: What distinguishes robbery from larceny?

Answer: The line between robbery and larceny is between violence and lack of violence.


Question: What does robbery consist of?

Answer: Robbery consists of: (1) the trespassory taking and carrying away; (2) of the personal property of another; (3) from the person in their presence; (4) by the use of force or threat of immediate physical harm; (5) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.


Question: Can a defendant be convicted of robbery if there is no violence or intimidation during the larceny?

Answer: No. A defendant cannot be convicted of robbery if there is no violence or intimidation during the larceny because robbery requires the use of force or threat of immediate physical harm.


Question: You take money from a sleeping person while you are carrying a gun. Is this larceny or robbery?

Answer: This is at most larceny because there is no violence or intimidation during the taking.


Question: Can a defendant be convicted of both robbery and larceny?

Answer: No. A defendant cannot be convicted of both robbery and larceny because larceny is a lesser included offense of robbery.


Question: Is it robbery if there is a threat of immediate harm to the victim during a larceny, even if the victim is unsure whether the threat truly exists?

Answer: Yes. It is robbery if there is a threat of immediate harm to the victim during a larceny, even if the victim is unsure whether the threat truly exists because the presence of the threat satisfies the element of force or intimidation.


Question: Is a person guilty of robbery if he forcibly takes property from another person because he mistakenly thought it was his property?

Answer: No. A person is not guilty of robbery if he forcibly takes property from another person because he mistakenly thought it was his property because the mistaken belief negates the intent to steal.


Question: Is it robbery if you take a wallet from a man who is too drunk to notice?

Answer: No. It is not robbery if you take a wallet from a man who is too drunk to notice because there is no use of force or intimidation.


Question: Is a defendant guilty of robbery if he takes money from a person by threatening that person's companion with violence?

Answer: Yes. A defendant is guilty of robbery if he takes money from a person by threatening that person's companion with violence because the threat of violence satisfies the element of force or intimidation.


Question: What is a defense to a charge of robbery?

Answer: A defense to a charge of robbery is that the victim was not placed in fear by the criminal because the element of force or intimidation is not satisfied.


Question: You take a wallet from someone you accidentally kill. Is this robbery?

Answer: No. Taking the wallet from someone you accidentally kill is not robbery because you did not take the wallet by means of force or putting the victim in fear.


Question: If a defendant is robbing a store and a customer comes in and fires a gun to stop the defendant but kills the clerk, will the defendant be found guilty of felony murder in an agency jurisdiction?

Answer: No. The defendant will not be found guilty of felony murder in an agency jurisdiction because he is not responsible for the acts of the customer.


Question: A defendant is robbing a store and the clerk faints and hurts his head causing the defendant to run away with no money. Is the defendant guilty of assault?

Answer: No. The defendant is not guilty of assault because assault is a lesser included charge within robbery, and he is only guilty of attempted robbery.


Question: What happens under the doctrine of merger?

Answer: Under the doctrine of merger, lesser included charges are merged into the more serious offense.


Question: What does common law robbery consist of?

Answer: At common law, robbery consists of: (1) a taking; (2) of personal property of another; (3) from the other's person or presence; (4) by force or intimidation; and (5) with the intent to permanently deprive him of it.


Question: Can a person be found guilty of burglary if he breaks and enters into a dwelling but does not intend to commit a crime inside the house?

Answer: No. A person cannot be found guilty of burglary if he breaks and enters into a dwelling but does not intend to commit a crime inside the house because the intent to commit a felony is required for burglary.


Question: To be convicted of burglary, must one intend to commit a felony inside the dwelling house?

Answer: Yes. To be convicted of burglary, one must intend to commit a felony inside the dwelling house because the intent to commit a felony is a necessary element of burglary.


Question: What does common law burglary require?

Answer: At common law, burglary requires breaking and entering the dwelling house of another, at night, with intent to commit a felony therein.


Question: Is a person guilty of burglary if they unlawfully enter a house at night, even by just briefly putting their hand inside a window, with the intent to commit a felony?

Answer: Yes. A person is guilty of burglary if they unlawfully enter a house at night, even by just briefly putting their hand inside a window, with the intent to commit a felony because the brief entry satisfies the element of breaking and entering.


Question: What is a defense to burglary?

Answer: A defense to burglary is that the store was open to the public because the entry was not unlawful.


Question: What is an argument for the acquittal of a charge of burglary?

Answer: An argument for the acquittal of a charge of burglary is that you reasonably thought you had the owner's permission to go into the house and take the item because the reasonable belief negates the intent to commit a felony.


Question: Is breaking and entering the house of another in the nighttime, with intent to commit a felony, whether the felony is actually committed or not, burglary?

Answer: Yes. Breaking and entering the house of another in the nighttime, with intent to commit a felony, whether the felony is actually committed or not, is burglary because the intent to commit a felony satisfies the elements of burglary.


Question: Can a person be found guilty of burglary if he breaks and enters to commit an act that he mistakenly believes is a crime?

Answer: No. A person cannot be found guilty of burglary if he breaks and enters to commit an act that he mistakenly believes is a crime because the legal impossibility negates the required intent.


Question: Can you be found guilty of burglary if you reasonably think you are entering a house you have consent to enter?

Answer: No. You cannot be found guilty of burglary if you reasonably think you are entering a house you have consent to enter because the reasonable belief negates the intent to commit a felony.


Question: What is common law burglary?

Answer: At common law, burglary is a breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the intent of committing a felony therein.


Question: What satisfies the breaking element for common law burglary?

Answer: To satisfy the breaking element for common law burglary, the use of force or intimidation to gain entry is considered a breaking.


Question: Is fraudulently entering a hotel room at night to steal considered a constructive breaking and therefore burglary?

Answer: Yes. Fraudulently entering a hotel room at night to steal is considered a constructive breaking and therefore burglary because the entry was obtained by fraud.


Question: The plaintiff is riding his bike between cars in traffic. The defendant opens his car door to deter the plaintiff's dangerous behavior, but the plaintiff is unable to stop and hits the door with his bike and falls to the pavement, sustaining serious injuries. Is the defendant liable for battery?

Answer: Yes. The defendant is liable for battery because the defendant had the requisite intent to cause the harmful contact and even though the contact was to the bike, the bike is closely enough connected to the plaintiff.


Question: What is battery?

Answer: Battery is a voluntary, intentional act that causes a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff or with something closely connected to the plaintiff.


Question: When is the harmful or offensive contact element of battery satisfied?

Answer: The harmful or offensive contact element of battery is satisfied if the contact would inflict pain or impairment of any body function, or if a reasonable person would regard it as offensive.


Question: Is it aggravated assault if, while trespassing, you use reasonable force to defend yourself because someone is causing bodily harm to you because you trespassed?

Answer: No. It is not aggravated assault if, while trespassing, you use reasonable force to defend yourself because someone is causing bodily harm to you because the use of reasonable force in self-defense is justified.


Question: Is a defendant guilty of assault if he hits a person who mistakenly grabs him because the defendant was acting in self-defense?

Answer: No. A defendant is not guilty of assault if he hits a person who mistakenly grabs him because the defendant was acting in self-defense and lacked the intent to harm.


Question: Is a person guilty of assault and battery if he had no control over his arms because of a seizure and accidentally hits a person?

Answer: No. A person is not guilty of assault and battery if he had no control over his arms because of a seizure and accidentally hits a person because the lack of control negates the voluntary act required for assault and battery.


Question: Is a person guilty of assault if he did not intend to hit the other person?

Answer: No. A person is not guilty of assault if he did not intend to hit the other person because the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact is required for assault.


Question: Under the Model Penal Code, if a defendant forces his victim to drive a car for a few miles to a remote location and then robs the victim, can the defendant be found guilty of kidnapping?

Answer: Yes. The defendant can be found guilty of kidnapping because under the Model Penal Code, the asportation was sufficient and the restraint was not incidental to the robbery.


Question: Is a defendant guilty of arson and murder if he intentionally drives his car into a gas pump, knowing a person lives above the gas station, and a fire ensues and kills the resident?

Answer: Yes. A defendant is guilty of arson and murder if he intentionally drives his car into a gas pump, knowing a person lives above the gas station, and a fire ensues and kills the resident because the act demonstrates malice and intent to cause harm.


Question: Is it arson if you maliciously burn a portion of the ceiling in a room?

Answer: Yes. It is arson if you maliciously burn a portion of the ceiling in a room because any burning of a structure qualifies as arson.


Question: What is arson?

Answer: Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.


Question: Is it arson under the common law if you burn a building that has a homeless person sleeping inside?

Answer: Yes. It is arson under the common law if you burn a building that has a homeless person sleeping inside because the presence of a person elevates the severity of the crime.


Question: If a defendant wants to burn down a building, then inadvertently starts a fire, but doesn't put it out because he wants the building to burn, is the defendant guilty of arson?

Answer: Yes. The defendant is guilty of arson because his failure to extinguish the fire demonstrates intent to cause the burning of the building.


Question: What intent or knowledge is required for common law arson?

Answer: The defendant must act with the intent or knowledge that the structure will burn, or with reckless disregard of an obvious risk that the structure would burn.


Question: What is common law arson?

Answer: At common law, arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.


Question: A defendant is offered to buy stolen drugs from someone who is an undercover narcotic agent. The defendant meets the agent, checks the drugs, and pays the agent with instructions to deliver the stolen drugs to someone else. Can the defendant be found guilty of attempting to receive stolen property?

Answer: Yes. The defendant can be found guilty of attempting to receive stolen property because his actions demonstrate a substantial step toward the completion of the crime and corroborate his criminal purpose.


Question: What is attempt?

Answer: A defendant is guilty of attempt if: (1) he had the specific intent to commit a crime; and (2) took an overt act sufficiently beyond mere preparation.


Question: What is required for an overt act in attempt?

Answer: Most states and the Model Penal Code require that the overt act be a substantial step toward the completion of the crime that is strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal purpose.


Question: A foreigner who speaks a rare language is selected for extra screening at the airport due to his nervous appearance. An officer confines him in a small room for five hours in order to find a translator. The man goes into a seizure because his insulin kit was confiscated, and he wildly flails his arms and punches the officer. Can the man be convicted under a statute that states, 'It is a felony to assault a federal officer'?

Answer: No. The man cannot be convicted under a statute that states, 'It is a felony to assault a federal officer,' because the statute requires proof of a voluntary action by a defendant and a seizure is an instance of involuntary conduct.


Question: If an individual's action is involuntary and caused by circumstances beyond his control, will he be guilty?

Answer: No. If an individual's action is involuntary and caused by circumstances beyond his control, he will not be guilty because involuntary actions do not satisfy the requirement for criminal liability.


Question: Is an individual criminally responsible for unlawful acts which he commits voluntarily?

Answer: Yes. An individual is criminally responsible for unlawful acts which he commits voluntarily because voluntary action is required for criminal liability.


Question: Can a person generally be held criminally responsible for failing to warn others of danger, no matter how morally reprehensible?

Answer: No. Generally, a person cannot be held criminally responsible for failing to warn others of danger, no matter how morally reprehensible because there is typically no legal duty to warn others of danger.


Question: Does a crime exist if you systematically deprive your child of food and don't call the doctor, where the child would have died from malnutrition in a few months, but the child's cause of death is cancer?

Answer: No. No crime exists if you systematically deprive your child of food and don't call the doctor, where the child would have died from malnutrition in a few months, but the child's cause of death is cancer because the causation for the crime is not established.


Question: Can a corporate officer be held criminally liable for failing to prevent violations of food and drug laws, even if duties were delegated to lower-level personnel?

Answer: Yes. A corporate officer can be held criminally liable for failing to prevent violations of food and drug laws because strict liability applies, even if duties were delegated to lower-level personnel.


Question: Can legislatures enact strict liability criminal offenses in areas relating to public welfare and safety regulations?

Answer: Yes. Legislatures can enact strict liability criminal offenses in areas relating to public welfare and safety regulations because such crimes do not require a mens rea, and people involved in these areas should be on notice of the likelihood that such regulation exists.


Question: A co-conspirator never intended to carry out the unlawful scheme agreed upon. Can he be prosecuted for conspiracy?

Answer: No. He cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy because he lacks the requisite intent to commit a crime.


Question: Can a person be held liable for conspiracy if they lack a corrupt or wrongful intent?

Answer: No. A person cannot be held liable for conspiracy if they lack a corrupt or wrongful intent because the requisite intent to commit a crime is absent.


Question: A man breaks into his fiancée's house at night to retrieve an engagement ring because she broke off the engagement. Is his best defense against a charge of burglary that he believed he legally owned the ring?

Answer: Yes. His best defense is that he believed he legally owned the ring because this belief negates the specific intent required for burglary.


Question: Is any mistake of fact a defense to a specific intent crime?

Answer: Yes. Any mistake of fact, whether reasonable or unreasonable, is a defense to a specific intent crime because it negates the specific intent required for the crime.


Question: Can a store clerk and the store owner be convicted under a state law that makes selling alcohol to someone under 21 a misdemeanor, if the clerk sells a bottle of wine to a 19-year-old with a fake ID?

Answer: Yes. Both the store clerk and the store owner can be convicted because selling alcohol to a minor is a strict liability offense requiring no mens rea, and the statute imposes strict liability on the clerk and vicarious liability on the owner.


Question: Can instructions or training to employees be a defense to vicarious liability in strict liability offenses?

Answer: No. Instructions or training to employees is not a defense to vicarious liability in strict liability offenses because the statute imposes strict liability regardless of such measures.


Question: A defendant is charged with aggravated robbery against an elderly person over 65 years of age, and the necessary mental state for the crime is recklessness. Can the jury properly convict the defendant if he robbed a grey-haired man outside a senior citizens center?

Answer: Yes. The jury can properly convict the defendant because under the totality of circumstances, the defendant disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk that the victim was over age 65, satisfying the mental state of recklessness.


Question: A defendant is charged with aggravated robbery against an elderly person over 65 years of age. The necessary mental state for the crime is recklessness. If the defendant robbed a grey-haired man outside a senior citizens center, can the jury properly convict the defendant?

Answer: Yes. The jury can properly convict the defendant because under the totality of circumstances, the defendant disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk that the victim was over age 65, satisfying the recklessness requirement.


Question: If no mens rea is provided in a crime, what must it be at least?

Answer: If no mens rea is provided, it must be at least recklessness because it ensures fairness and accountability for one's actions.


Question: Is every crime presumed to have an accompanying mens rea under both the common law and Model Penal Code?

Answer: Yes. Every crime is presumed to have an accompanying mens rea under both the common law and Model Penal Code because it would be unfair to punish a person for acts they did not intend or have some reason to know about.


Question: Must the prosecution show that there was a high probability the defendant deliberately attempted to avoid knowledge?

Answer: Yes. The prosecution must show that there was a high probability the defendant deliberately attempted to avoid knowledge because this establishes the defendant's 'knowing' engagement in the offense.


Question: What is required to 'knowingly' engage in an offense?

Answer: To 'knowingly' engage in an offense, the defendant must be aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result, and he must have actual knowledge of the attendant circumstances unless he willfully shut his eyes to avoid knowing.


Question: A defendant kills another person thinking he was firing a stage prop instead of a real gun. If the jury believes the defendant and finds the belief reasonable, can the defendant be found guilty of murder or manslaughter?

Answer: No. The defendant cannot be found guilty of murder or manslaughter because his reasonable belief negates the required mens rea for these crimes.


Question: Is a person guilty of attempt if he knew the substance was not illegal?

Answer: No. A person is not guilty of attempt if he knew the substance was not illegal because he lacked the intent to commit the crime.


Question: Is a person guilty of attempting to sell a drug if he believed the substance was illegal, even though it was harmless?

Answer: Yes. A person is guilty of attempting to sell a drug if he believed the substance was illegal because his intent to sell an illegal substance satisfies the requirement for attempt.


Question: Do you have to have the mental state needed for attempt, even if the underlying crime is a strict liability offense?

Answer: Yes. You have to have the mental state needed for attempt, even if the underlying crime is a strict liability offense because attempt requires a specific intent to commit the crime.


Question: If a defendant engages in conduct that he believes is forbidden by a statute, but the statute has been repealed, has he committed a crime?

Answer: No. The defendant has not committed a crime, not even attempt, because the conduct is no longer prohibited by law.


Question: Is a defendant guilty of an intent crime if it can be shown he had the necessary state of mind?

Answer: Yes. A defendant is guilty of an intent crime if it can be shown he had the necessary state of mind because the requisite mens rea is established.


Question: What is an argument for the acquittal of burglary?

Answer: An argument for the acquittal of burglary is that there was no intent to commit a felony because intent is a necessary element of burglary.


Question: If a statute makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly fail to file a report, should a defendant be found not guilty if a jury believes he did not know?

Answer: Yes. The defendant should be found not guilty because he lacked the necessary mental state required by the statute.


Question: If a statute makes it a crime to knowingly make a false statement, should a defendant be found not guilty if a jury believes he did not know it was false?

Answer: Yes. The defendant should be found not guilty because he lacked the necessary mental state to commit the crime.


Question: Is a state statute making the sale of adulterated food a crime likely a strict liability offense?

Answer: Yes. A state statute making the sale of adulterated food a crime is likely a strict liability offense because it aims to protect public welfare and does not require mens rea.


Question: Does vicarious liability pose a due process or other constitutional issue where the principal has control over the agent's conduct?

Answer: No. Vicarious liability does not pose a due process or other constitutional issue where the principal has control over the agent's conduct because the principal is responsible for the acts performed within the scope of the agency.


Question: If it is a strict liability crime to employ persons under the age of 18 in a liquor store, can both the store manager and store owner be held criminally liable if the manager hires a minor?

Answer: Yes. Both the store manager and store owner can be held criminally liable because the owner can be held responsible for the criminal acts the manager performed within the scope of his agency.


Question: If a defendant does something thinking it's a crime, but it isn't, can he be charged with attempt?

Answer: No. He cannot be charged with attempt because legal impossibility negates the requisite intent to commit a crime.


Question: Is factual impossibility a defense to attempt?

Answer: No. Factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt because the defendant's intent and actions were directed toward committing a crime.


Question: Is legal impossibility a defense to attempt?

Answer: Yes. Legal impossibility is a defense to attempt because the defendant's actions, even if completed, would not constitute a crime.


Question: Is it necessary to show intent to injure or kill to satisfy the mens rea of malice?

Answer: No. It is not necessary to show intent to injure or kill to satisfy the mens rea of malice because recklessness is sufficient.


Question: What must the prosecution show to satisfy the mens rea of malice?

Answer: The prosecution must show that the defendant was reckless because this satisfies the mens rea of malice.


Question: When does a person act 'knowingly'?

Answer: A person acts 'knowingly' when he knows his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause such a result because this awareness meets the requirement for 'knowing' conduct.


Question: Is a mistake of law an excuse to larceny?

Answer: No. A mistake of law is no excuse to larceny because ignorance of the law is not a defense.


Question: Is a mistake of fact a valid defense to general intent crimes such as rape, battery, kidnapping, and false imprisonment?

Answer: Yes. A mistake of fact is a valid defense to general intent crimes if it is honestly entertained, based upon reasonable grounds, and would make the conduct lawful if the facts were as supposed.


Question: What is required for a mistake of fact to be a valid defense to a general intent crime?

Answer: A mistake of fact must be honestly entertained, be based upon reasonable grounds, and be of such a nature that the conduct would have been lawful and proper if the facts had been as they were reasonably supposed to be.


Question: Can a defendant who formed an intent to commit a crime and then drinks in order to work up his nerve to commit it rely on the defense of voluntary intoxication?

Answer: No. A defendant cannot rely on the defense of voluntary intoxication because the intoxication was used to strengthen the intent to commit the crime.


Question: If a man intends to commit a murder and then drinks to strengthen his nerve, can he use subsequent intoxication to negate the specific intent required for murder?

Answer: No. He cannot use subsequent intoxication to negate the specific intent required for murder because the intent was formed prior to the intoxication.


Question: A woman enters a child's home at night after several hours of stalking and waiting, and strangles the child to death with a belt. If an expert witness determines that the woman knew that killing was illegal and wrong, but that she suffered from a serious mental illness that left her in the grip of a powerful and irresistible compulsion to kill the victim, how should the jury find if the jurisdiction follows the Model Penal Code test?

Answer: The jury can properly acquit the woman of murder if the jurisdiction follows the Model Penal Code test because her mental illness left her unable to conform her conduct to the law.


Question: If a jury believes a woman understood that killing was wrong when she killed a child, but she suffered from a serious mental illness that left her with an irresistible compulsion to kill, how should the jury find if the jurisdiction follows the M'Naghten test?

Answer: The woman will be found guilty under the M'Naghten test because she understood that killing was wrong when she killed the child.


Question: Under the ALI Model Penal Code test, when must a criminal defendant be found not guilty by reason of insanity?

Answer: A criminal defendant must be found not guilty by reason of insanity if he is diagnosed with a relevant mental defect and at the time of the incident was unable to either appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.


Question: Under the M'Naghten test, when is a person not guilty by reason of insanity?

Answer: A person is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the act, due to a defect of reason from disease of mind, the actor did not know the nature and quality of the act, or did not know that what he was doing was wrong.


Question: A defendant baseball player hits a spectator with his bat after being taunted. What is a good argument to support a jury instruction for the defense of involuntary intoxication?

Answer: A good argument is that his coach, lying that it was a vitamin, gave him cocaine instead because involuntary intoxication occurs without knowledge that the substance is intoxicating.


Question: When does involuntary intoxication occur?

Answer: Involuntary intoxication occurs when one ingests an intoxicating substance without knowledge that the substance is intoxicating, under duress, or pursuant to medical advice.


Question: What is second degree murder if intoxication generally does not reduce it down to manslaughter?

Answer: Second degree murder is killing another person in a drunken rage because intoxication does not generally reduce the charge to manslaughter.


Question: Is evidence of voluntary intoxication admissible under the common law to negate the intent required for either assault or attempted murder?

Answer: Yes. Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible under the common law to negate the intent required for either assault or attempted murder because it can show the defendant was incapable of forming the specific intent.


Question: Is the defendant's insane delusion that the only way to prevent his wife from destroying the world was to kill her a defense to murder under the insanity defense?

Answer: Yes. The defendant's insane delusion is a defense to murder under the insanity defense because it negates the requisite mens rea for the crime.


Question: Can the defendant's insane delusions brought on by intoxication be a defense to murder if he killed because voices told him to kill?

Answer: Yes. The defendant's insane delusions brought on by intoxication can be a defense to murder because they negate the requisite mens rea for the crime.


Question: Under the M'Naghten test of insanity, what must the defendant not know?

Answer: The defendant must not know that his act was morally wrong because this lack of knowledge satisfies the test for insanity.


Question: Can intoxication be a defense to burglary?

Answer: Yes, intoxication may be a defense to burglary if the defendant did not form an intent to commit the crime because he was drunk.


Question: Is intoxication a defense to reckless conduct?

Answer: No, intoxication is not a defense to reckless conduct, but it may be asserted to show the defendant was too intoxicated to realize he was creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk.


Question: Can intoxication be a defense to a crime that requires intent?

Answer: Yes, intoxication may be a defense to a crime that requires intent if the defendant could not form an intent to commit the crime because he was drunk.


Question: What is the best defense for a defendant who kills someone because he delusionally thinks that the other person was attacking and voices in his head told him to kill that person?

Answer: Insanity is the best defense for a defendant who kills someone under such delusions.


Question: What is the best defense for a person who kills someone else because he delusionally thinks that the other person was going to kill others?

Answer: Insanity is the best defense for a person who kills someone under such delusions.


Question: Is evidence of intoxication admissible in defense of reckless crimes?

Answer: Generally, evidence of intoxication in defense of reckless crimes should be inadmissible because a person who creates such a risk but is unaware of the risk solely because of voluntary intoxication is acting recklessly.


Question: Is it constitutional to eliminate the insanity defense or require the defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of evidence?

Answer: Yes, it is constitutional to eliminate the insanity defense or to require the defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of evidence.


Question: Is voluntary intoxication a defense to strict liability crimes?

Answer: No, voluntary intoxication is no defense to strict liability crimes. No defense that negates intent is permitted for strict liability crimes.


Question: Is voluntary intoxication a defense to crimes involving recklessness?

Answer: No, voluntary intoxication is NOT a defense to crimes involving recklessness.


Question: Can voluntary intoxication reduce a murder charge?

Answer: Voluntary intoxication will never reduce murder to manslaughter, but it may reduce a First Degree Murder charge to Second Degree Murder if it negates the defendant's premeditation, deliberation, or intent to kill.


Question: If a defendant starts a rumor that ruins a victim's career and the victim ultimately commits suicide, what is a defense to a manslaughter charge?

Answer: The defendant did not commit an act that proximately caused the victim's death.


Question: What is the guilt of a person who obtains poison to kill someone if the victim dies, even if what was given to the victim wasn't deadly but the victim died from it anyway?

Answer: The person is guilty of murder.


Question: Can you be found guilty of murder if you mistreat a person but their death is the result of something else?

Answer: No, you cannot be found guilty of murder if you did not cause the death.


Question: If a defendant sees someone trying to take his laptop from his car and he shoots him with a gun, does the defendant have a defense to his actions?

Answer: No. The defendant has no defense to his actions because he used excessive force.


Question: When may a person use reasonable non-deadly force to prevent a tort against his or her property?

Answer: A person may use reasonable non-deadly force to prevent a tort against his or her property so long as (1) a request to stop is made before the use of force, unless the request would be futile or expose the defender to danger; and (2) force can only be used to prevent the tort against the property, and once the tort is committed, force can no longer be used.


Question: Can a justification defense be valid to a charge of gun possession if the defendant took possession of the gun to prevent an intoxicated friend from harming herself or others?

Answer: Yes. A justification defense may be valid in such a case.


Question: What must a defendant show to succeed with a justification defense?

Answer: The defendant must show that he had no reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law to avoid an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.


Question: Can the jury take into account circumstances, physicality, and past experiences when determining the reasonableness of the fear in a self-defense case?

Answer: Yes. The jury can take into account such things as the circumstances, the physicality, and past experiences.


Question: When is a person justified in using deadly force to protect himself?

Answer: A person is justified in using deadly force to protect himself if he has an honest and reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death from an unlawful and immediate threat. The honesty of the belief is subjective while the reasonableness of the fear is objective.


Question: If a man, intending to kill his wife, provokes her by claiming he is having an affair with her sister, and then he kills his wife with a gun when she charges at him with a knife, will he be guilty of first degree murder?

Answer: Yes, he will be guilty of first degree murder since his killing was willful with premeditation and deliberation, and the defense of self-defense is not available because he purposely provoked another to violence in order to kill the victim in self-defense.


Question: When is the right to claim self-defense lost?

Answer: The right to claim self-defense is lost where an actor provokes the victim's use of force purposely in order to kill the victim in self-defense.


Question: What is the obligation of a defender in a jurisdiction that follows the retreat doctrine before resorting to non-deadly force?

Answer: A defender has no obligation to retreat prior to resorting to non-deadly force.


Question: Can a person who reasonably believes deadly force is about to be used against him use deadly force to act in self-defense without a duty to retreat?

Answer: Yes. A person may use deadly force to act in self-defense and has no duty to retreat.


Question: What force can be used in self-defense when attacked, and is there a duty to retreat?

Answer: You can use reasonable force when attacked, and there is no duty to retreat. There is no crime if the reasonable force kills the person.


Question: Are you guilty of murder if you kill a person that attacked you with a deadly weapon?

Answer: No, you are not guilty of murder if you kill a person that attacked you with a deadly weapon.


Question: What force is a person entitled to use to prevent any threatened harmful or offensive bodily contact?

Answer: A person is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent any threatened harmful or offensive bodily contact.


Question: If you act in self-defense and use non-deadly force, are you guilty of a crime if the aggressor dies?

Answer: No, you are not guilty of a crime even if the aggressor dies.


Question: Under common law majority rule, when may deadly force be used, and is there a need to retreat?

Answer: Deadly force may be used when a person reasonably believes deadly force is about to be used against him, and there is no need to retreat.


Question: Under the Human Shield Exception, what is the felon guilty of if the victim is killed by the police or someone else while being used as a human shield?

Answer: The felon is guilty of felony murder.


Question: When can a witness's character for truthfulness be rehabilitated?

Answer: A witness's character for truthfulness can be rehabilitated after it has been attacked, through reputation or opinion testimony about the witness's good character for truthfulness.


Question: Are prior statements of identification admissible for substantive purposes?

Answer: Yes. Prior statements of identification are admissible for substantive purposes if the declarant is testifying at trial and is subject to cross-examination.


Question: When is evidence of a prior conviction inadmissible for impeachment?

Answer: Evidence of a prior conviction is generally inadmissible for impeachment if more than 10 years have elapsed since the date of the conviction or the release of the witness from confinement, whichever is the later date.


Question: When is evidence relevant to some issue at trial admissible?

Answer: Evidence that is relevant to some issue at trial other than the defendant's character is admissible if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.


Question: A witness testifies that the plaintiff was going 55 mph. The defense calls another witness to testify that the first witness told her the plaintiff was going 75 mph. Is this testimony admissible?

Answer: Yes. This statement is admissible to impeach the first witness as a prior inconsistent statement.


Question: What is the most common method of impeachment?

Answer: The most common method of impeachment is the use of a prior inconsistent statement, action, or omission to show that the witness has made contradictory statements.


Question: When are religious beliefs inadmissible to attack or support a witness's credibility?

Answer: Religious beliefs are inadmissible to attack or support a witness's credibility, but they can be admitted when relevant to other matters, such as bias, damages, or motive.


Question: When is a prior inconsistent statement admissible as substantive evidence?

Answer: A prior inconsistent statement is admissible as substantive evidence if it was given under oath as part of a formal trial, hearing, or deposition.


Question: A defendant in a criminal trial for embezzlement calls a witness who testifies to the defendant's reputation for honesty. The prosecution asks, 'Did you hear that three years ago he was arrested for forgery?' Is this question permissible?

Answer: Yes. The prosecution is allowed to inquire into relevant bad acts to test the witness's knowledge of the defendant's reputation.


Question: Can a character witness be cross-examined about specific acts committed by the person they are testifying about?

Answer: Yes. When a character witness is cross-examined, the court may allow inquiries into specific acts committed by the person about whom the witness is testifying.


Question: A defendant in a criminal trial calls his wife to testify that she, and not the defendant, burned down the neighbor's house. Can the prosecutor ask on cross-examination about scars on the wife's arms caused by the defendant?

Answer: Yes. The question explores the wife's possible motive to give false testimony and is allowed to impeach her truthfulness.


Question: When can a court restrict cross-examination into the motives or bias of a witness?

Answer: A court may restrict cross-examination into the motives or bias of a witness as long as the cross-examiner has an adequate opportunity to explore the witness's motives and biases, and the cross-examination elicits adequate information to allow a jury to assess the witness's credibility.


Question: A police officer testifies, 'The defendant is robbing a gas station! Stop him,' and this statement is admitted under the excited utterance hearsay exception. Later, the same woman who made this statement is unavailable to testify but had previously said to her sister, 'I wanted to punish the defendant for cheating on you, but I made a mistake.' Is this prior inconsistent statement admissible to impeach her credibility?

Answer: Yes. The prior inconsistent statement is admissible to impeach her credibility even though the woman is unavailable to testify because a hearsay declarant may be impeached with a prior inconsistent statement without being given a fair opportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent statement.


Question: Is a prior inconsistent statement admissible as substantive evidence if the witness is unavailable?

Answer: No. A prior inconsistent statement is not admissible as substantive evidence if the witness is unavailable unless the statement was made under oath at a prior hearing, trial, or deposition. It is always admissible for impeachment purposes.


Question: In a trial for battery on his wife, the defendant testifies that he was in a loving relationship and would never hurt his wife. Can this testimony be impeached by a neighbor's testimony that he saw the defendant choke his wife 4 years ago?

Answer: Yes. This is a proper contradiction and is admissible for impeachment because it directly contradicts the defendant's testimony on a non-collateral matter.


Question: Is evidence that directly contradicts a previous witness on a non-collateral matter admissible for impeachment?

Answer: Yes. Evidence that directly contradicts the previous witness on a non-collateral matter, demonstrating that some particular part of what a witness has testified is false, is admissible as an impeachment by contradiction.


Question: In a negligence suit against an amusement park, a bystander's statement shortly before the accident that 'a crazy boy is standing up in the roller coaster' is introduced to prove the plaintiff's contributory negligence. Is this statement admissible substantively?

Answer: Yes. This statement is admissible substantively because it falls under the hearsay exceptions of present sense impression and excited utterance.


Question: Is a prior inconsistent statement admissible only for impeachment?

Answer: Yes. A prior inconsistent statement is admissible only to impeach unless the statement meets the conditions of another hearsay exception.


Question: Can the credibility of a hearsay declarant be attacked by any evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness?

Answer: Yes. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the credibility of the hearsay declarant may be attacked by any evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness, such as evidence of bias or poor perception.


Question: Can a witness be cross-examined regarding specific instances of conduct to attack the witness's character for truthfulness?

Answer: Yes. In a civil trial, a witness can be cross-examined regarding specific instances of conduct to attack the witness's character for truthfulness. Attacking the witness's character for other traits, such as carelessness, is not admissible.


Question: Can a party call a second witness to impeach their own first witness?

Answer: Yes. A party can call a second witness to impeach their own first witness, but statements from the first witness to the second witness are admissible only to impeach the first witness and not for the truth of the matter.


Question: Can specific instances of a witness's conduct be inquired into on cross-examination?

Answer: Yes. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness can be inquired into on cross-examination at the discretion of the trial court if it is probative of the truthfulness or untruthfulness of the witness, although such specific instances cannot be proven by extrinsic evidence.


Question: If a hearsay statement is admitted into evidence, can the credibility of the declarant be impeached?

Answer: Yes. If a hearsay statement is admitted into evidence, the credibility of the declarant is subject to impeachment in the same manner as if the declarant was an actual witness.


Question: Can a plaintiff impeach his own witness's testimony with a tape recording of the witness making statements contrary to the witness's statements made at trial?

Answer: Yes. A plaintiff can impeach his own witness's testimony with a tape recording of the witness making statements contrary to the witness's statements made at trial.


Question: Can specific instances of the conduct of a witness be proven by extrinsic evidence for the purpose of attacking the witness's credibility?

Answer: No. Except for conviction of a crime, specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking the witness's credibility, cannot be proven by extrinsic evidence.


Question: Is impeachment of a dying declaration by showing a prior inconsistent statement admissible?

Answer: Yes. Impeachment of a dying declaration by showing a prior inconsistent statement by the declarant is admissible to impeach the dead declarant.


Question: Is impeachment on a collateral issue with extrinsic evidence admissible?

Answer: No. Impeachment on a collateral issue with extrinsic evidence such as the testimony of another witness is inadmissible.


Question: Are judgments of felony convictions admissible to prove any fact essential to the judgment in both criminal and civil actions?

Answer: Yes. Judgments of felony convictions are admissible in both criminal and civil actions to prove any fact essential to the judgment, whether the judgment arose after trial or upon a plea of guilty.


Question: Can specific instances of misconduct by a witness be proved by extrinsic evidence for the purpose of attacking the witness's credibility?

Answer: No. Specific instances of misconduct by a witness, for the purpose of attacking the witness's credibility, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.


Question: Can a witness's testimony be impeached by presenting a second witness who contradicts the first witness?

Answer: Yes. Even if the testimony is of no consequence to the lawsuit, a witness's testimony may be impeached at the judge's discretion by presenting a second witness who contradicts the first witness, whether or not there was an objection to the first witness's testimony.


Question: Are questions regarding the bias of a witness permitted on cross-examination?

Answer: Yes. Questions regarding the bias of a witness are permitted on cross-examination to prove that the witness is biased in favor of a party, such as if they are friends or relatives.


Question: Are a witness's prior inconsistent statements made in a deposition admissible as former testimony under the hearsay exception?

Answer: Yes. A witness's prior inconsistent statements made in a deposition are admissible as former testimony under the hearsay exception and can be used for impeachment of the witness and as substantive evidence.


Question: Is extrinsic evidence that the defendant's primary witness is a partner of the defendant admissible as evidence of possible bias?

Answer: Yes. Extrinsic evidence that the defendant's primary witness is a partner of the defendant is admissible as evidence of possible bias.


Question: Is a prior inconsistent statement admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence?

Answer: Yes. A prior inconsistent statement is admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence.


Question: Can a cross-examiner bring out the fact that the witness has committed prior bad acts?

Answer: Yes. A cross-examiner is permitted to bring out the fact that the witness has committed prior bad acts, but only prior bad acts that are probative of truthfulness may be asked about.


Question: Is a judgment against another plaintiff to prove an issue generally admissible?

Answer: No. A judgment against another plaintiff to prove an issue is generally not admissible.


Question: Are beliefs or opinions of witnesses on matters of religion admissible to impair credibility?

Answer: No. Evidence of beliefs or opinions of witnesses on matters of religion is not admissible to impair credibility.


Question: Can a party impeach a witness with a prior felony conviction?

Answer: Yes. A party can impeach a witness with a prior felony conviction by introducing the record of judgment as extrinsic evidence.


Question: Do the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to grand jury proceedings?

Answer: No. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to grand jury proceedings except with respect to privileges.


Question: Do the Federal Rules of Evidence apply at probation revocation proceedings?

Answer: No. The Federal Rules of Evidence (except those governing privileges) do not apply at probation revocation proceedings.


Question: What is the general rule for determining privileges in federal courts under Rule 501?

Answer: In federal courts, federal law governs issues of privilege in the absence of a written rule, and the privilege is based on federal common law. For civil cases in federal court involving state law (diversity cases), the court applies the state's law of privilege.


Question: If a case will use federal substantive law, what rules for privilege must the court use?

Answer: The court must use federal common law rules for privilege.


Question: What is the primary function of a grand jury?

Answer: The primary function of a grand jury is to determine probable cause, not guilt, and they may consider hearsay evidence and other evidence that would be otherwise inadmissible at trial.


Question: Is evidence of flight admissible?

Answer: Yes. Evidence of flight is admissible as relevant circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt, provided sufficient evidence exists to establish that the defendant fled to avoid prosecution of the charged offense.


Question: What must testimony meet to be admissible as evidence of habit?

Answer: To be admissible as evidence of habit, the proffered testimony must generally meet the three elements of regularity, specificity, and an involuntary or semiautomatic response.


Question: When are potentially gruesome photographs admissible?

Answer: Potentially gruesome photographs may be admitted into evidence where the photographs are not so gruesome that their prejudicial potential absolutely requires their exclusion. They are admissible if the photographs offer some evidence of the victim's identity or establish relevant details about the accident and their probative value is not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.


Question: Is testimony that a weapon in the defendant's possession was consistent with the victim's wound admissible in a criminal prosecution?

Answer: Yes. Testimony that the weapon in the defendant's possession was consistent with the victim's wound is admissible even if a number of other weapons could have caused the wound, because the probative value of this evidence is for the jury to assess.


Question: What is the standard for admitting evidence in federal courts?

Answer: Evidence need only have any tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.


Question: Is evidence of a defendant's intoxication admissible to provide an alternate explanation of an accident's cause?

Answer: Yes. Testimony of a driver's intoxication is admissible to provide an alternate explanation of the accident's cause and it is not substantially more prejudicial than probative.


Question: When may relevant evidence be excluded?

Answer: Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.


Question: Can a defendant show due care or the absence of a defect by showing that there have not been similar accidents in the past?

Answer: Yes. A defendant can show due care or the absence of a defect by showing that there have not been similar accidents in the past, so long as the conditions were the same in the past as when the accident occurred and if there were any injuries in the past, they would have been reported to the defendant.


Question: When is evidence considered legally relevant?

Answer: Evidence is legally relevant if (1) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and (2) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.


Question: Is evidence of drug possession at the time of arrest by a person on trial for robbery admissible?

Answer: No. Evidence of drug possession at the time of arrest by a person on trial for robbery should be excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.


Question: Why should evidence of drug possession at the time of arrest by a person on trial for robbery be excluded?

Answer: Evidence of drug possession at the time of arrest by a person on trial for robbery should be excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.


Question: Is extrinsic evidence of a collateral matter admissible?

Answer: No. Extrinsic evidence of a collateral matter is inadmissible since it does not relate to a material issue in the case.


Question: Are color photos of grisly deaths admissible?

Answer: Usually no. Color photos of grisly deaths are usually inadmissible because they are prejudicial. Color photos of grisly deaths are only admissible when there is no other way to prove the death.


Question: Is polygraph evidence admissible?

Answer: No. Polygraph evidence is inadmissible because it is considered unreliable and potentially confusing to jurors.


Question: Are newspapers self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence?

Answer: Yes. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, newspapers (along with journals, trade inscriptions and commercial papers) are self-authenticating, meaning their authenticity need not be proved by extrinsic evidence. However, newspaper articles are self-authenticating as to proof of publication, not necessarily proof of authorship or contents, which would likely require additional witness testimony to establish admissibility of the assertions contained within the article.


Question: A police officer testifies, 'That is the gun I took from the defendant. It is a very rare Luger. I've never seen one like it before.' Can this testimony authenticate the gun as evidence?

Answer: Yes. The officer's testimony can authenticate the gun as evidence because it satisfies the requirement of a witness with first-hand knowledge testifying under oath that the item is what the proponent claims it is.


Question: A police officer testifies, “That is the gun I took from the defendant. It is a very rare Luger. I've never seen one like it before.” Can this testimony authenticate the gun as evidence?

Answer: Yes. The officer's testimony can authenticate the gun as evidence because it satisfies the requirement of a witness with first-hand knowledge testifying under oath that the item is what the proponent claims it is.


Question: The first witness testifies to taking a gun from the defendant at the time of arrest, tagging it, and giving it to the second witness. The second witness testifies to receiving the gun, keeping it secure until trial, and bringing it to court. Can this establish a chain of custody to authenticate the gun as evidence?

Answer: Yes. This can establish a chain of custody to authenticate the gun as evidence because it traces the item from the real-world event to the courtroom.


Question: What is required to authenticate a tangible object?

Answer: When a party seeks to introduce a tangible object into evidence (for example: document, weapon), the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. There are two methods of authenticating a tangible object: (1) if the object is unique or has been marked in such a way that it can positively be identified later, the authentication requirement can be satisfied by a witness with first-hand knowledge testifying under oath that the item is what the proponent claims; or (2) authentication can also be accomplished by establishing a chain of custody that traces the item from the real-world event to the courtroom.


Question: Can a witness with personal knowledge authenticate a photograph even if they are not the photographer?

Answer: Yes. A photograph is authenticated for evidentiary purposes by the testimony of a witness with personal knowledge that the photograph accurately depicts what its proponent claims it depicts.


Question: A bag of drugs is offered as evidence. The chain of custody is established from the time it was seized until the trial, and it is sufficiently identified that it remains in an unaltered condition. Can this authenticate the bag of drugs as evidence?

Answer: Yes. This can authenticate the bag of drugs as evidence because a non-unique object can be authenticated by establishing a chain of custody from the time it was seized until the trial and sufficiently identifying that it remains in an unaltered condition.


Question: Is a photograph admissible if it is properly authenticated?

Answer: Yes. If a photograph is properly authenticated, it can be introduced into evidence, although it is the jury's task to make determinations and give weight to the evidence.


Question: What is required to authenticate a voice?

Answer: To authenticate a voice, the proponent of the evidence is required to introduce enough evidence for a reasonable juror to find that the item is what it purports to be, and it is up to the jury to determine how much weight to give the evidence.


Question: Is a caller's self-identification sufficient to authenticate an incoming telephone call?

Answer: No. An incoming telephone call in which the caller identifies himself is insufficient to authenticate that the person was the caller. There must be additional evidence that the caller is who he said he was, such as recognition of the voice.


Question: Can a witness authenticate an outgoing telephone call?

Answer: Yes. A witness can authenticate an outgoing telephone call by showing that the witness made a call to the number assigned by the phone company to a particular person and the circumstances show that the person who talked on the other end was in fact the person the caller was trying to reach.


Question: Can a layperson's identification of handwriting be admissible?

Answer: Yes. A layperson's identification of handwriting is admissible if the layperson had seen the person's handwriting at some time before the litigation began, and that they recognize the signature or handwriting in question to be that of the person.


Question: Is a statement of prior identification admissible?

Answer: Yes. A statement of prior identification of a person made after perceiving him is substantively admissible if the declarant testifies at the trial and is available for cross-examination.


Question: When is a photograph admissible?

Answer: A photograph is admissible if a witness testifies that it fairly and accurately represents what it is claimed to represent.


Question: Is a vehicle registration admissible without authentication or certification?

Answer: Yes. A vehicle registration is admissible without authentication or certification to prove the connection between the defendant and ownership of the car.


Question: Is a prior identification admissible if the declarant does not testify and is not subject to cross-examination?

Answer: No. A prior identification is only admissible if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination.


Question: Can evidence of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice be admitted to prove conduct on a particular occasion?

Answer: Yes. Evidence of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice, even if the evidence is not corroborated.


Question: Is it proper to prove that a person did an act on a particular occasion by showing that they did a similar act on a different, unrelated occasion?

Answer: No. In both civil and criminal cases, it is improper to prove that a person did an act on a particular occasion by showing that they did a similar act on a different, unrelated occasion. However, evidence of uncharged crimes may be admitted if it helps establish some element of the crime or is otherwise relevant for some purpose besides showing character and if its probative value exceeds its potential for prejudice.


Question: Under Rule 404, is evidence of the character of a party in a civil case admissible to establish that the individual acted consistently with that character trait?

Answer: No, under Rule 404, evidence of the character of a party (who was not also a witness) in a civil case that is offered for the circumstantial purpose of establishing that the individual acted consistently with that character trait is inadmissible, regardless of whether it is offered in the form of opinion, reputation, or specific prior acts.