1

Assignment #1

Assignment #1

Joy Cortez

Riverside City College

1. "Bid Night" at the local fraternity is a big party where new pledges make their
formal decision to join the brotherhood. In preparation, older brothers purchased
$2,000 worth of alcohol. One drinking game for new pledges is to drink as much
alcohol as possible in 2 minutes. Ron drank hard liquor and immediately became
disoriented. Ron tried walking around, fell down, and passed out on the floor.
Partygoers simply assumed Ron was drunk and "sleeping it off." While Ron was
seemingly unconscious, fraternity brothers searched the Web for "alcohol poisoning
remedies." By the time the brothers called 9-1-1, it was too late. Autopsy results
indicated Ron's blood alcohol level (BAC) was "life threatening." The frat brothers
who purchased the alcohol and those who had walked by Ron without helping him
were all charged under the following statute:
Anyone who purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of
another shall be guilty of a felony.
All brothers facing charges claim they are not the cause of Ron's death and had no
duty to help him. The brothers who walked by Ron when he was passed out claim
they had no mens rea to harm Ron and are, therefore, not responsible for his death.
Who will win at trial, the prosecution or the defense? (ROL: purposely, knowingly,
recklessly, negligently; causation; duty to act).
The prosecution will win at trial, against the brothers that purchased the alcohol and those

that had walked by Ron without helping him. Although the brothers claimed they had no mens

rea and had different actions that led to and caused Ron’s death, they were responsible. The

brothers that purchased the alcohol are guilty because they recklessly caused Ron’s death. They

were aware of that consuming a large amount of alcohol in a short period of time would have

severe medical consequences up to and possibly death. Behaving recklessly is “consciously

disregard[ing] a substantial and unjustifiable risk” (Jirad 2020) and the frat brothers acted in this

manner. Those that had passed by Ron unconscious on the floor are guilty by negligently causing

his death. Although most charged with negligence it is an accident but regardless a death

occurred, and they need to be held responsible. Negligence is the “gross deviation from the
 3
Assignment #1
standard of care that a reasonable person would observe” (Jirad 2020) and any reasonable person

that had seen a young man unconscious on the floor of a party would check on their well-being.

2. A prisoner at the local jail, Kent Cool, was awaiting trial on the charge of

conspiracy to commit tax fraud when he learned that one of his codefendants, who

was also in jail, Miles Friend, was going to become a state's witness and testify

against Cool. Cool saw Friend at lunch and told him to "keep his mouth shut." At

Cool's pretrial hearing, Cool put two fellow prisoners, Blank and Macaw, on his

witness list even though the two men did not testify. On return to prison, Blank and

Macaw beat up Miles Friend. The government then charged Cool with conspiracy to

retaliate against a witness. Does the government have enough evidence to sustain a

conviction? (ROL: conspiracy).

The government does have enough evidence to sustain a conviction against Kent Cool for

conspiracy because it meets all the criteria of the crime. Conspiracy is when “two or more

people agree to an ‘endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements’ of the

crime the conspirators want to achieve” (Jirad 2020) and Cool and the other two prisoners

agreed to intimidate and retaliate against a witness. The verbal altercation and the act of

putting the two prisoners on the witness list although they were not involved in the case just

to put them and Friend in the same place at the same time is a clear act of conspiracy to

retaliate against a witness.

3. Betsy bought some jewelry thinking it was stolen, but it was not, it was just cheap.

The jewelry was legally owned. Betsy was charged with receiving stolen property.

She raised the defense of impossibility. Will she win her case? (ROL: scienter,

impossibility).
 4
Assignment #1
She will win her case by using the defense of impossibility because she did not meet the

criteria of the crime. She had no mens rea of receiving stolen property, she did not purchase it

knowing it was possibly stolen, and the jewelry was in fact not stolen. She did not commit the

crime of receiving stolen property and therefore should not be charged with the crime.

4. Tim and Tom were roommates and best friends, but their relationship soured when

Tim lost his job and stopped paying the bills. After 4 months of Tim's freeloading,

Tom ordered Tim to leave the apartment, but Tim refused. Tom approached Tim

and said, "I'm going to kill you," and then squeezed Tim's arm really hard. Tim

moved out. When Tom learned where Tim was living, Tom parked in front of Tim's

apartment and followed him to work every day for 6 months. Tim has reported

Tom's behavior to the police. What crimes, if any, has Tom committed, and what

defenses may he raise? (ROL: assault, battery, stalking, terroristic threats).

Tom has committed assault, terroristic threats, and stalking against Tim and does not have a

defense against any of the charges. Tom assaulted Tim by squeezing his arm and causing him

harm and made a terroristic threat to him by threatening to kill him. He also stalked Tim by

continually harassing and causing him distress for following him to work everyday for six

months.

5. Ken and Fred hated each other. They were next door neighbors who often

exchanged unkind words. One day the two were cutting the hedges that spread

along the boundary of their property. As Ken was at one end of the hedges, Fred

began to taunt Ken. Fred said to Ken, "I hear your wife was at the local tavern

looking to score some real action," at which point Ken took his hedge trimmers,

which looked like large scissors, and stuck them in Fred's leg. As Fred screamed in
 5
Assignment #1
pain and tried to crawl back to his house, Ken walked away. Fred later died. When

police came to arrest Ken, he confessed that he only meant to hurt Fred, not to kill

him. What crimes against Ken can be charged? (ROL: first-degree murder with a

deadly weapon, second degree murder, heat of passion manslaughter).

Ken can be charged with heat of passion manslaughter because he did not intend to or

premeditate to kill Fred, but he did mean to cause him harm. It would be a heat of passion

crime because the statement Fred made to Ken about his wife because “the offender was

provoked by acts that would make a reasonable man in the offender’s shoes react violently”

(Jirad 2020). Ken was angry and was not thinking clearly when he made the decision to stab

Fred with his garden tool resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

6. Erin left her dormitory room to visit a male friend in another dorm. When she

knocked on the door, there was no answer, but the door was unlocked, so Erin went

inside. Her friend was not there, but his roommate, Marty, was sleeping in a nearby

bed. Marty asked Erin to stay, and she agreed. Marty asked for a back rub, but

Erin declined and sat on the floor. Marty got out of bed and sat on the floor beside

Erin. Marty lifted Erin's shirt and massaged her chest. They both stood up and

Marty locked the door. He then placed Erin on the bed, removed her

undergarments, and penetrated her vagina with his penis. After withdrawing,

Marty said, "I guess we got carried away," to which Erin replied, "No, we didn't get

carried away, you got carried away." Police have charged Marty with raping Erin

under the traditional, common-law definition of rape. Does Marty have a defense?

(ROL: rape).
 6
Assignment #1
Marty does have a defense against the charge of rape. The common-law definition of rape

is “Penile penetration, however slight, emission not required, by…Force or threat…

Against a victim’s will and without that person’s consent (Jirad 2020). Based on the

information Marty’s actions do not meet all the elements of the crime to commit rape. He

did not force or threaten Erin, do it against her will, or without her consent. Since these

elements were missing from the crime, Marty has a strong case against the prosecution.

References
 7
Assignment #1
Jirard, S.A. (2020). Criminal Law & Procedure: A Courtroom Approach. Sage

Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA.