Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: State Of Mind

Kofi agreed to transport a sealed box across state lines for a $500 fee. The man who hired him, Lamar, had previous convictions for drug trafficking. The box had a torn corner, but Kofi deliberately looked away whenever he handled it and never asked Lamar what was inside. Police stopped Kofi, searched the box, and found methamphetamine. Kofi is charged with knowingly transporting methamphetamine and testifies that he did not know the box contained drugs.

Which question is most central to determining whether Kofi had the required knowledge?

The Supreme Court of the State of Cassia, in People v. Lindqvist, reviewed a conviction for "purposeful murder" under a statute defining "purposely" as "the defendant's conscious object to cause the result." The evidence showed that Lindqvist, hoping to collect on insurance, placed a bomb in a delivery truck and drove it to a busy loading dock because the bomb needed to be near the insured cargo. He knew with practical certainty that the explosion would kill workers on the dock, though he said he "regretted" that result and did not want anyone to die. The court held that a defendant who knows a result is practically certain does not necessarily act "purposely" as to that result; the legislature's choice of "conscious object" narrowed purposeful murder to cases where the result is desired, and knowledge-based killings must be prosecuted under the separate "knowing murder" statute. The court stated further that "when a statute defines a culpable mental state by reference to a result, the factfinder must identify which result the defendant consciously desired, and may not infer purpose solely from knowledge of practical certainty."

Rafael, angry at his employer, deliberately placed a powerful explosive device in his employer's car and triggered it with a remote detonator while the employer's colleague, Devon, was standing nearby. Rafael knew the explosion was practically certain to kill or seriously injure anyone within thirty feet, and Devon was well within that range. Rafael's stated purpose was only to destroy the car as revenge; he "did not care" whether Devon lived or died. Devon was killed. Rafael is charged with "purposeful murder" under the same statute construed in Lindqvist. Should Rafael be convicted?

Section 12.03 of the State Code provides: "(1) A person commits reckless endangerment if he recklessly creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. (2) A person acts 'recklessly' with respect to a result when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur. (3) A person acts 'negligently' with respect to a result when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur. (4) The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, disregarding it involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation."

Delia, a licensed electrician, was rewiring an old theater. A frayed live wire was lying against a burlap curtain. Delia saw the wire but believed it was a dead decorative wire left over from an old set because it matched the color of the stage curtains, even though she had not yet turned off the circuit breaker at that location. She continued working without moving it. A short time later, another worker tripped over the wire, pulling it free; a spark ignited the burlap curtain; the resulting fire badly burned a stagehand. Delia was charged with reckless endangerment. She testified that she did not actually realize the wire was live or that it posed any risk, but the prosecution argues that a licensed electrician in her situation should have recognized the risk. Under Section 12.03, should Delia be convicted of reckless endangerment?

In United States v. Cray,the Court of Appeals held: "A defendant acts knowingly when he is aware that contraband is present or that a particular circumstance exists. Actual knowledge may be proven by evidence of deliberate avoidance: where the defendant has a strong suspicion that contraband is present and takes deliberate action to avoid confirming that suspicion, he may be treated as having knowledge. But mere negligence, foolishness, or failure to investigate does not amount to knowledge;the government must show purposeful avoidance of what the defendant strongly suspected."

Marcus agreed to drive a rental car across the border for $2,000, far more than the trip was worth,because his friend Jorge said he needed the car moved quickly. Jorge told Marcus: "There's a package under the seat. Don't open it. What you don't know can't hurt you." Marcus did not look under the seat, though he later admitted he "figured it was probably drugs." At the border,a search revealed a kilogram of cocaine under the seat. Marcus was charged with "knowingly importinga controlled substance." Applying Cray, might a jury properly convict Marcus?

In People v. Sosa,the court held: "A conviction for intentionally causing death requires more than proof that the defendant desired death at some point;the intent must coexist with the conduct that causes death. Where a defendant accidentally inflictsa fatal wound and only later forms the intent to kill,the later intent cannot make the earlier accidental killing intentional. The state may, however, convict under a theory of depraved-heart murder if the earlier conduct was reckless."

Dexter,on a rooftop,was showing off his handgun to a friend. The gun discharged accidentally,sending a bullet into the street below unde striking Victor,who was walking home. Dexter did not know he had hit anyone until later,when he looked over the ledgeand saw Victor bleeding on the sidewalk,mortally wounded. Recognizing Victor asa rival,Dexter hoped Victor would die and deliberately walked away without calling for help. Victor died within minutes from the gunshot wound;no medical treatment could have saved him. Dexter was charged with intentionally causing Victor's death. Applying Sosa,which statement is correct?

Dana lived next door to Victor. After Victor accused her of stealing his lawn mower, Dana spent the evening drinking alone at home. That night she climbed through an unlocked kitchen window into Victor's apartment and took his laptop. She was charged with burglary. Dana claims that by the time she entered the apartment she was so intoxicated that she did not know where she was,and that she did not think about taking the laptop until she saw it on the kitchen table.

Which additional fact would be most important in determining whether Dana's intoxication can negate the mental state required for burglary?

A store clerk sold a box of cold medicine to a customer who presented a prescription that appeared genuine but was forged. The box contained ephedrine. The clerk did not know the prescription was forged and could not have discovered the forgery by reasonable inspection. The clerk was charged with a felony under a statute that defines the offense as selling ephedrine without a valid prescription. The statute does not mention knowledge or any other mental state.

Which issue is most central to determining whether the clerk can be convicted?

Sofia worked as a waitress. After her shift, the manager told her the cash register was short and refused to pay her $300 in earned tips. Sofia took $300 from the register, put a note in the drawer saying, "This is my tips," and left. She was charged with larceny. Sofia genuinely believed she was entitled to the $300 even though the manager had told her she was not.

Which issue is most central to determining whether Sofia had the mental state required for larceny?

In State v. Beaumont, the State Supreme Court stated: "Under our law, a mistake of fact is a defense when it negates the mental state required for the offense. Where a theft statute requires that the actor take property 'with intent to steal,' an honest belief that the property is one's own, even if formed carelessly or unreasonably, negates that intent, because a person cannot both believe the property is one's own and intend to steal it. By contrast, when an offense requires only recklessness or negligence, the reasonableness of the mistake matters: a mistake is a defense to a negligence offense only if it was reasonable, and a mistake is a defense to a recklessness offense only if it did not involve a conscious disregard of a substantial risk. The reasonableness of a mistake is therefore relevant only for lower-culpability offenses, not for a crime requiring purpose or knowledge."

Nina, an office worker, placed her black umbrella in a rack by the door of a crowded conference. Her umbrella had a small red stitch on the handle. At the end of the day, as another guest, Paulo, stood next to the rack in a jostling crowd, Nina grabbed the nearest black umbrella from the rack, believing it was hers, and left. The umbrella she took was actually Paulo's; his umbrella looked identical to Nina's except that it lacked the red stitch on the handle. Nina was charged with theft under a statute defining theft as "taking the property of another with intent to steal it." The prosecution proved that Nina's mistake was unreasonable because she had noticed the red stitch on her own umbrella and should have noticed its absence on the umbrella she took. Under Beaumont, which statement best describes Nina's liability?

Renee was angry at her employer, Carl. As Carl drove away from the office, Renee fired a handgun at his car, intending to kill him. The bullet missed Carl, passed through the car window, and struck a pedestrian, Maya, who died. Renee is charged with the murder of Maya. Renee admits she intended to kill Carl but states she never saw Maya and did not intend to harm her.

Which issue is most likely to determine whether Renee can be convicted of murdering Maya?

Section 9.02 of the State Criminal Code provides: "(1) For purposes of this section, an offense is a 'specific intent' crime if its definition requires that the actor have a conscious object to cause a particular result or to commit a further felony. All other offenses are 'general intent' crimes. (2) Voluntary intoxication may negate a specific-intent element, including purpose or knowledge of particular circumstances. (3) Voluntary intoxication may not be considered in determining whether a defendant acted with malice, knowledge, or recklessness required for a general-intent offense."

Evan drank heavily at a party until he was significantly intoxicated. He then broke into a neighbor's detached garage and took a chainsaw,intending to sell it for money. While inside, he stumbled and knocked over a can of paint thinner,splashing it onto a valuable antique cabinet and causing permanent damage. Evan was charged with (1) burglary,defined as "breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony therein," and (2) "maliciously damaging the property of another,"a general-intent offense requiring that he act maliciously. His defenseis voluntary intoxication: he claims he was too drunk to form the intent to steal and too drunk to know his stumbling would damage the cabinet. Under the statute, may voluntary intoxication negate the required mental state for either charge?

Petra, a delivery driver, was talking on her cell phone as she approached an intersection. The traffic light had been red for several seconds, but she drove through it and struck and killed a pedestrian. The state charged Petra with murder. Petra testified that she never saw the red light. She admits she was negligent but argues she did not have the state of mind required for murder.

Which issue is most central to determining whether Petra can be convicted of murder rather than a lesser homicide?

A state statute provides that a person who knowingly sells an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age commits a misdemeanor. The state's code provides that when a statute states a mental state without specifying which elements it applies to, it applies to every element unless a contrary intent plainly appears. Under the code, a person acts knowingly as to a circumstance when aware that the circumstance exists. Jules, a liquor-store clerk, sold beer to a 19-year-old who showed a skillfully made fake driver's license giving his age as 23. Jules believed the customer was 23, though the customer looked young and a more careful clerk would have checked the license's hologram, which would have revealed the forgery.

Is Jules guilty?

A federal statute makes it a crime to knowingly import a controlled substance. Under the governing rule, a person knows that a fact exists if the person is aware of a high probability that it exists, unless the person actually believes that it does not. A stranger offered Reyna $5,000 to drive a car across the border and leave it in a parking garage. Before she left, Reyna noticed fresh welding marks under the rear seat and told a friend, "I don't want to know what's in there. If I don't look, I can't get in trouble." She did not look. Border agents found heroin welded into a hidden compartment. Reyna testified that she suspected the car might contain drugs but never believed one way or the other.

Is Reyna guilty of knowingly importing a controlled substance?

In a jurisdiction that follows the common law, Tess lent her aluminum ladder to her neighbor Omar. A month later, while Omar was away, Tess saw an aluminum ladder leaning against his garage and took it home, honestly believing it was hers. In fact, it was Omar's own ladder; hers was in his basement. Tess's ladder had a red stripe painted on it and this one did not, which she would have noticed had she looked carefully. Tess is charged with larceny.

Is Tess guilty of larceny?

Dex fired a pistol at Al, intending to kill him. The bullet missed Al and killed Bo, who was standing behind a hedge where Dex could not see him. Al was unhurt. Dex is charged with the attempted murder of Al and the murder of Bo. The jurisdiction defines murder as purposely causing the death of another, and attempt as acting with the purpose of committing a crime and taking a substantial step toward it. Its code provides that when a crime requires that the defendant purposely cause a result, the requirement is met if the result differs from the one intended only in that a different person was harmed.

Of which offenses may Dex be convicted?

A state statute makes it a felony for a person 21 or older to engage in sexual intercourse with a person under 16. The statute is silent as to the defendant's knowledge of the other person's age, and the state's courts follow the traditional approach to this offense. Kurt, 23, met Lena at a party near a college campus. She told him she was a 19-year-old sophomore, showed him a college identification card, and appeared to be at least 18. They had consensual intercourse. Lena was in fact 15. Kurt is charged under the statute.

Is Kurt guilty?

A state statute makes it aggravated assault to knowingly cause serious bodily injury to another, and simple assault to recklessly cause bodily injury to another. The code provides that a person acts knowingly as to a result when aware that the result is practically certain to follow, and recklessly when aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregarding it. Lars, a contractor behind schedule, ordered workers to remove the temporary supports from a damaged brick wall beside a busy sidewalk. His engineer had warned him there was roughly a one-in-three chance the wall would collapse before it was reinforced. Lars said, "We'll take that chance." The wall collapsed an hour later, seriously injuring a pedestrian.

Is Lars guilty of aggravated assault?

Under the jurisdiction's code, murder includes causing death recklessly under circumstances showing extreme indifference to human life. The code defines attempt as follows: a person attempts a crime if, with the mental state otherwise required for the crime, the person acts with the purpose of causing, or the belief that the conduct will cause, a result that is an element of the crime, or purposely takes a substantial step toward committing it. Pax drove through a school zone at 100 miles per hour to show off for a passenger, aware that children might be crossing. A crossing guard had to dive out of the way to avoid being struck and was unhurt. Pax did not want to hit anyone and did not believe he would. He is charged with attempted murder of the crossing guard.

Is Pax guilty of attempted murder?

In a jurisdiction that follows the common law, Rafe was angry at being evicted from a rented house. Late at night he returned and fired five shots from a rifle through the front window of the house, which he knew the new tenants occupied and where lights were on. He testified that he meant only to frighten them and aimed high. One bullet killed a tenant. Rafe is charged with murder.

What is the most serious homicide offense of which Rafe can properly be convicted?