Crim Q

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
muddup
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:23 am

Crim Q

Postby muddup » Thu May 02, 2013 10:35 pm

Please help if possible. Thanks!

Crime of book-burning: knowingly burning a book.
Facts: D knowingly burns a log, honestly believing that it was a book.

Questions:
0) is "book" an attendant circumstance?
1) is D guilty of book-burning? (I'm thinking no, because there wasn't a book burned..)
2) Is D guilty of attempted book-burning?
- I.e. is there a factual impossibility, or hybrid legal impossibility?

Thanks!
Muddup

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12331
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: Crim Q

Postby gdane » Thu May 02, 2013 10:41 pm

Hybrid. D's confused about a fact that he thinks subjects him to the law. Burning a log isn't illegal, but burning a book is and D thanks he is burning a book.

Not guilty of burning a book.

Guilty of attempt to burn a book. D had the men's rea to burn a book, he performed the acted reus of burning something, and there was concurrence because his men's rea motivated the acute Reus.

Ask, if the facts were as D thought they were, would his actions be illegal? Here the answer is yes.

Why did he think the log was a book? Is there a possible insanity defense issue here?

joetheplumber
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:23 pm

Re: Crim Q

Postby joetheplumber » Fri May 03, 2013 2:50 am

0. Yes, it is an attendant circumstance
1. He is guilty because factual impossibility is not a defense. If the facts were as D believe them to be, a book, then it would have been a crime. This is aka hybrid legal impossibility. There is no mistake of law or fact defense because he has the requisite MR.
2. Attempt needs a MR of purpose. There was an Act of burning so it is already last step. SO it should merge with burning the book.. But even so, D only has the intent of knowingly, not purposefully, so i would say he is not guilty of attempting to burning the book.

muddup
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:23 am

Re: Crim Q

Postby muddup » Fri May 03, 2013 3:58 pm

Ok thanks!

Facts: (i) D1 poisons V; V is to die in 1 hour; (ii) D2 then shoots V; killing V instantly.

Is D1 cause in fact?

User avatar
salix
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Crim Q

Postby salix » Fri May 03, 2013 4:05 pm

muddup wrote:Ok thanks!

Facts: (i) D1 poisons V; V is to die in 1 hour; (ii) D2 then shoots V; killing V instantly.

Is D1 cause in fact?


Using the "Substantial Factor" test - yes - (Occurs when 2 defendants act independently and not in concert with one another, commit 2 separate acts, each of which alone is sufficient to bring about the prohibited result).

But D1 is also an 'Obstructed Cause,' so he'll probably only be convicted of attempt to kill.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LandMermaid, MSNbot Media and 3 guests