Miscellaneous Quiz / Criminal Cases

Random Miscellaneous Quiz

QUIZ: Can you name the Criminal Cases?

Quiz not verified by Sporcle

Forced Order
Score 0/51 Timer 15:00
No appreciable time for premeditated and deliberate murder, can be concurrent with pulling the trigger on sleeping wife after fight. 
Some distinction between premeditated and deliberate and spontaneous and nonreflective. PS - don't hit this defendant in nose with towel 
Provocation is more than words, even if your wife taunts you. 
Provocation is anything the natural tendency of which would produce state of passion, like being told your wife is cheating on you and seeing her enter woods with another man. 
Extreme Emotional Disturbance has subjective and objective element. So you can't become obsessed when your ex-girlfriends rejects your presents. 
No criminal negligence, but the grave danger of fire in club was apparent and defendant chose to run risk 
Substantial risk of skiing at high speeds with loss of control could be reckless if defendant knew. 
Lack of ordinary caution shown by parents in care of child is negligent homicide 
Playing Russian Roulette thinking the bullet is in the fifth chamber is a callous disregard for human life. Depraved-Heart Murder. 
Excessive speeding and driving into oncoming while intoxicated traffic are a greater degree of deviation from standards of conduct then most vehicular homicides. 
Were these parents subjectively aware that their child would die from praying instead of getting medical treatment? 
Homicide: Felony-Murder
Only felonies known to be dangerous to human life and likely to cause death qualify for felony-murder. What about setting your house on fire with your sons inside? 
Grand Theft, even if its medical fraud resulting in death of child with cancer, is not a inherently dangerous in the abstract. No Felony-Murder. 
Not feeding your child as a form of Child Neglect is inherently dangerous as committed. 
The convicted felon with a gun shot in the hunters direction, at dusk, while drinking. This foreseeable risk of death means the felony of his possession of a gun inherently dangerous as committed. 
Assault with a deadly weapon merges with murder. 
Burglary with purpose of assault with a deadly weapon also merges with murder. 
Armed robbery has an independent felonious purpose: theft. It does not merge with murder. 
Defendant was trying to scare man off from stealing hubcaps, not kill him. Felony-murder rule applies 
These cofelons are not liable for the killing of a cofelon by the owner being robbed. Agency theory of In Furtherance. 
It is not a highly extraordinary circumstance that police helicopters covering defendant's car chase would crash. 
Starting a fire near your meth lab? If it results in two firefighting planes crashing, that is reasonably foreseeable. 
This defendant, appropriately named, is an indispensable link in the causal chain when he starts a fire on the 5th floor and responding firefighters get trapped by a second independent fire. 
The explosive dust in this defendant's factory was not sufficient evidence of a particular chain of events leading to the explosion. 
You know, you should really think about shooting yourself. Hear, have a gun. I won't be liable. 
Creating suicide machines is furnishing the means, not actively participating. 
One drag-racer is not liable for the other's death. He chose to swerve into oncoming traffic. 
Ordinary proximate cause is enough to make it foreseeable that drag-racing could result in the death of your opponent and a 6yo girl. 
Just because the victim pulled the trigger in this game of russian roulette does not mean you weren't actively part of the game. 
In using an objective standard (natural and probably consequence) to show a defendants conscious purpose to attempt a crime, the court found that risk of death by AIDS is not enough. 
You can load a gun, lie in wait, and even aim it, but that still isn't enough for the last proximate act standard of attempt. 
These potential robbers could not even find their mark so they were not in dangerous proximity of completing the crime. 
The 90 minute window between creating a 'bill trap' and robbing the responding ATM technicians proved too much for a substantial step towards completion. 
Accomplice Liability
'Take off your hat and die like a man.' Oh, I didn't mean that intended conduct to result in Colvard's death! 
There was not nexus between this defendant and the marijuana dealer he recommended. So there was no evidence of a purposive attitude. 
When sending some goons to get information about your ex-lover, it is foreseeable (a natural and probably consequence) that they might kill him. 
Hey Mister Telegram-man, please don't send that warning along to my brothers' intended victim. I'm trying to facilitate. 
There is no inherent agreement to conceal the fact that you all were involved in some interstate prostitution. 
Though he was in jail, this defendant was still liable for the actions of his co-conspirator/brother. 
Sending a letter to 8 distributors with the name of all the addressees can lead to an inference of agreement. They all knew each about each other and displayed unanimous action. 
Just knowing that prostitutes are using your messaging service to facilitate their business is not enough. 
Hub and Spoke as one conspiracy? Not this time. 
Affirmative Defense
Don't ask this defendant for five dollars! His previous experience with muggings goes into the objective standard judging the reasonableness of his self-defense. 
Testimony about battered woman syndrome can help jury understand why this woman didn't leave her abusive husband, and why she reasonably feared imminent peril. So she stabbed him with her scissors. 
Shooting husband while he's asleep, no matter how abusive he was while awake is apparently not responding to an imminent threat. 
The social interest in prohibiting marijuana is greater than its medicinal qualities for the defendant. No necessity. 
You cannot set spring guns in your garage to catch would-be robbers. 
The criminal offense of making false medical reports for insurance fraud is minor enough that the imminence requirement for duress can be dropped. 
Though assault with a deadly weapon can be a general or specific intent crime, you are capable of forming an intent to shoot a police officer while drunk. No defense. 
There is no distinction between specific and general intent crimes for the intoxication defense. You can be liable for assault with intent to rob. 
SCOTUS says: it's not unconstitutional for the great state of AZ to restrict testimony about mental disease and defect only to the insanity defense, not diminished capacity. 

You're not logged in!

Compare scores with friends on all Sporcle quizzes.
Sign Up with Email
Log In

You Might Also Like...

Show Comments


Top Quizzes Today

Score Distribution

Your Account Isn't Verified!

In order to create a playlist on Sporcle, you need to verify the email address you used during registration. Go to your Sporcle Settings to finish the process.