Did you get these all right?

Quick Key:
1) B
2) B
3) B
4) D
5) B
6) A
7) C
8) D
____________

Explanations:

1) Correct answer (B)
Generally, the defense of necessity is limited to those situations 
where the pressure comes from the physical forces of nature (ie 
storms, hurricances, earthquakes, etc) rather than from other human 
beings. Usually when the pressure is from human beings, the defense 
if applicable, is called duress rather than necessity. However, 
alternative C is incorrect because it has been held that duress 
cannot justify an intentional killing. As a result, choice B is 
preferred in light of the Model Penal Code commentaries which 
suggest that the defense of necessity should be available in the 
situation where a person intentionally kills one person in order to 
save two or more. Alternative D is wrong because the facts do not 
indicate that Lucy was acting in self-defense.

2) Correct answer (B)
A classic Multistate example that has trapped many students in the 
last few years. Here, the test maker knows that most students will 
incorrectly choose choice A because they are aware that under the 
modern view impossibility is not a defense (to the charge of 
attempt) when the defendant's actual intent-- not limited by the 
true facts unknown to him-- was to do an act or bring about a result 
proscribed by law. Although this is true, choice B is the preferred 
answer because Carlos is an accomplice (or principal in the second 
degree) because he AIDED and ABETTED Jose by supplying him with the 
gun to kill Jesus. LaFave notes that to be a principal in the 
second degree, one must be present at the commission of a criminal 
offense and aid, counsel, command, or encourage the principal in the 
first degree in the commission of that offense. Choice B is correct 
because a principal in teh second degree is subject to and 
accountable for the same crime(s) by the principal in the first 
degree.

3) Correct answer (B)
Students should be aware that the distinction between obtaining 
possession and obtaining title-- the principal dividing line between 
larceny by trick and the separate crime of false pretenses-- is not 
always easy to draw. Remember that the crime of false pretenses 
requires that the defendant, by his lies, obtain TITLE to the 
victim's property. If he obtains possession without title by means 
of his lies, his crime is larceny by trick. In Hufstetler v. State, 
37 Ala.App. 71, 63 So. 2d 730 (1953), defendant's conviction for 
larceny by trick was affirmed where he (driver) suddenly drove off 
without paying for the gasoline. In this particular situation, the 
court held that the defendant got possession but not title because 
the fraud vitiated the gas station owner's consent.

4) Correct answer (D)
The crime of larceny requires the trespassory taking and carrying 
away of the personal property of another with the intent to 
permanently deprive the owner. The MENTAL STATE of intent to steal 
must concur in time with the act of taking and carrying away. In 
this question, Peters, not Lucinda, performed the act of stealing 
the diamond necklace. Lucinda decided to keep it 3 weeks later. 
Therefore, she cannot be guilty of common law larceny. At most, 
Lucinda is an accessory after the fact.

5) Correct answer (B)
Commission of the crime of larceny requires a taking (caption) and 
carrying away (asportation) of another's property. A taking occurs 
when the offender secures dominion over the property, while a 
carrying away requires some slight movement away of the property. 
Once Olga picked up the wallet, with the intent to steal, and placed 
it in her pocket (sufficient asportation), she committed the crime 
of larceny despite the fact that she later returned the property. 
It should be noted that even though Olga later had a "change of 
heart" and returned the wallet to Amy, that would not constitute a 
valid defense. According to LaFave, one who takes another's 
property intending to deprive the owner permanently is nevertheless 
guilty of larceny though he later decides to return it and does so.

6) Correct answer (A)
Choice A is correct because the crime of false pretenses requires 
that the defendant by his lies obtain TITLE to the victim's 
property. Students should note that if one obtains possession 
without title by his lies, his crime is larceny. At common law 
larceny consists of 1) trespassory 2)taking and 3) carrying away of 
the 4) personal property 5)of another 6) with the intent to steal 
it. In this regard, students should be aware that larceny by trick 
is simply one way of committing the crime of larceny; it is not a 
crime separate from larceny.

7) Correct answer (C)
Students should note that at common law larceny was limited to the 
taking and carrying away of TANGIBLE personal property. Modern 
statutes in most jurisdictions have broadened the scope of larceny 
to include the theft of labor or services or the use of property. 
However, LaFave warns that in the absence of a specific statutory 
provision, it has been held NOT to be larceny to make use of the 
labor and services of another. Consequently, choice C is correct 
and Owens is guilty of larceny IF the jurisdiction has a statute 
making theft of services a crime.

8) Correct answer (D)
Conspiracy may be defined as 1) an agreement between two or more 
persons, which constitutes the act; and 2) an intent to thereby 
achieve a certain objective which, under the common law definition, 
is the doing of either an unlawful act or lawful act by unlawful 
means. The agreement between Gilbert, Emmanuel, Smith to take part 
in the bank robbery formed the conspiracy. The fact that Smith was 
an undercover police officer is irrelevant because the plurality 
requirement of two or more persons was satisfied. In addition, 
Gilbert is guilty of automobile theft because he stole the van. 
Furthermore, Gilbert is guilty of attempted robbery because he 1) 
intended to rob the bank and 2) performed an act in furtherance of 
the crime by stealing the car which he intended to use in the bank 
robbery. Although many students will incorrectly choose C, choice D 
is a better answer because the "substantial step" requirement was 
satisfied, thereby making Gilbert guilty of attempt as well as 
conspiracy.