Can I email it to you Please send me you email or email me [email protected]
I am doing the regestration with www.mediafire.com
This is the link
Ok, thank you,
Thank you so much, are you up for 10 questions on Criminal Law
ok i will up load
I will have the link soon
In which of the following statements is the best description of the requirements for finding or negating common law murder?
A defendant who intended to cause serious bodily injury short of death, but whose act did cause the death of the victim has committed murder.
A defendant who had no intent to kill, but who acted with a criminally negligent risk of death and whose act did cause the death of the victim, would be guilty of murder.
A defendant who had no intent to kill, but whose act does cause death of the victim cannot be found guilty of murder.
A defendant who had no intent to kill cannot be found guilty of murder.
All of the following words or phrases have been used to describe murder based on an intentional act posing a very high degree of risk of causing the death of another human being except
Conduct ‘‘evincing a depraved heart, devoid of social duty.”
Conduct ‘‘under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.’’
Conduct evidencing an “abandoned and malignant heart.”
Conduct “recklessly mindless” of human life.
Premeditation and deliberation, like intent to kill, are subjective states of mind. Since the jury cannot read a defendant’s mind, how can the existence of premeditation proven?
Only if the killer speaks aloud what is in his mind
Only if the killer confesses to the act and premeditation
Only if there are witnesses who can testify that they saw defendant think about his act
From the defendant’s conduct in the light of all the surrounding circumstances.
The author describes three categories of evidence from which premeditation might be inferred. These categories do not include:
facts about how and what the defendant did prior to the actual killing which show he was engaged in activity directed toward the killing, that is, planning activity;
facts about the defendant’s prior relationship and conduct with the victim from which motive may be inferred;
facts about the character of and how many wounds were inflicted;
facts about the nature of the killing from which it may be inferred that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design.
State statutes have defined involuntary manslaughter as:
an unlawful killing in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony
the commission of a lawful act without due caution or circumspection
the defendant’s conduct, under the circumstances known to him, must involve a high degree of risk of death or serious bodily injury, in addition to the unreasonable risk required for ordinary negligence; and (2) whatever the degree of risk required (merely unreasonable, or both unreasonable and high), the defendant must be aware of the fact that his conduct creates this risk.
All of the above
Involuntary manslaughter may be predicated on a failure to act or omission if there was a duty to act; and
The failure to act was a breach of the duty of care;
The failure to act was an unlawful act or a reckless one;
The failure to act was accompanied by knowing that death is certain or substantially certain from his omission,
The failure to act was accompanied by the intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury
The defendant must be the cause of the victim’s death. This means that:
the defendant’s conduct must be the ‘‘cause in fact’’ of the victim’s death and the victim must be a member of the class of persons foreseeably endangered and the victim be harmed in a manner which is foreseeable
the defendant’s conduct must be the ‘‘cause in fact’’ of the victim’s death and the victim must be a member of the class of persons foreseeably endangered and the victim be harmed in a manner which is foreseeable and the type and degree of harm suffered by the victim must be foreseeable
the defendant’s conduct must be the ‘‘cause in fact’’ of the victim’s death
the defendant’s conduct must be the ‘‘cause in fact’’ of the victim’s death and the victim is a member of the class of persons foreseeably endangered
Where the defendant did not intend for the other person to commit suicide, the providing of dangerous instrumentalities to one foreseeably likely to commit suicide is
No crime if suicide is not a crime in the jurisdiction.
No crime if it is a physician assisted suicide because there is a constitutional bar to prosecution
A conviction for involuntary manslaughter can be based on:
Conduct involving not only an unreasonable but also a high degree of risk of death or serious bodily injury
Assault or battery causing death even though the death was unforeseeable and unintended.
Assault or battery causing death if the death was foreseeable but unintended.
All of the above.
The doctrine of negligence per se applies to which of the following types of statutes?
Statutes that declare any conduct to be unlawful.
Statutes that expressly or impliedly create civil liability.
Statutes that declare conduct to be unlawful, but are silent as to civil liability.
All statutes can be used for negligence per se.
A violation of a criminal statute will be excused by most jurisdictions under which one of the following circumstances?
When compliance with the statute would have required greater danger than the violation.
When a sudden emergency caused by the defendant’s conduct.
When the defendant did not actually know, but had reason to know of the need for diligence.
Never, because there is no excuse for violation of a criminal statute.
Before a statute can be used to provide the standard of care under a negligence per se theory, the judge must determine which one of the following?
The statute was designed to address the type of harm the plaintiff suffered.
The statute specifically identifies the types of torts that fall within its purview.
The defendant falls within the class of individuals intended to be held civilly liable by the statute.
The statute expressly provides for civil liability.
In determining the standard of care to be applied to children in a case involving a statutory violation and negligence per se, most jurisdictions hold:
The child standard of care should be applied, even if the child was engaged in an adult activity.
The statutory standard of care should be applied.
The child standard of care should be applied, unless the child was engaged in an adult activity at which point the statutory negligence per se standard should be applied.
None of the above.
I am workiang on the upload also
I Know it is
Do I ad 60.00 on to you from bonus
Ok Thank you I will do the bonus
Hi I just added the bonus of $60.