subject
Law, 25.07.2020 03:01 zekrader18

1. Wilbert James is approached by his friend Kevin who tells James he needs some money for Valentine’s Day shopping and intends to burglarize a home that he knows has a small safe with over $5,000 and will give James half if he helps out. James agrees and late that evening the two of them drive to the residence in James’s car. James stays outside with the engine running while Kevin quietly lifts up an unlocked window and enters the home. Kevin goes into the bedroom where he knows the safe is located and attempts to lift the small safe. While doing so, the owner, Mabel, who is sleeping in the bedroom wakes up. Kevin pulls out his replica Smith & Wesson handgun that although appears like a real handgun is not real and points it at the owner and tells her to open the safe. Mabel, who has had heart problems, goes over and opens the safe. Kevin reaches in and grabs the money and runs out of the house and into James’ car. Mabel looks out the window and gets a glimpse of James’s car and then calls 911 and gives a description of the vehicle to the police. She then grabs her chest and collapses. Mabel is later transported by ambulance to the hospital where she receives some improper medical treatment and dies. The death did not result solely from the effects of the improper medical treatment. While driving away from the home, James hears sirens in the distance and assumes the police are chasing them. He then begins to drive 105 mph in a 40 mph zone and begins passing vehicles on the wrong side of the roadway, causing oncoming vehicles to swerve out of the way. While passing one vehicle on the wrong side of the roadway, James hits an oncoming vehicle head-on that instantly kills the driver, Franco, of that vehicle. Other motorists who saw the accident stop to provide aid to James, Kevin and the other motorist. One motorist, Axel, who had been following James and observed his various violations and had called to 911 to report him, also stops at the scene. Axel sees that the driver of the other vehicle is likely dead and becomes enraged at James and walks over to James’s car and drags him out of the driver’s seat. Axel then begins to repeatedly punch James in the face. Kevin, who is still dazed from the accident, sees the motorist punching James and gets out of the vehicle, approaches the motorist and hits him in the back of the head with the replica Smith & Wesson handgun, killing him.

a. Are James and/or Kevin criminally liable for the death of the homeowner, Mabel? If so, with what crimes will they be charged and under what theory? What is the applicable mens rea? James it matter that his death was partially caused by improper medical treatment? According to what you have learned from your textbook and modules, why or why not?

b. Are James and/or Kevin liable for the death of the motorist, Fanco, driving the vehicle James’s vehicle hit? If so, with what crimes will they be charged and under what theory? What is the applicable mens rea?

c. Is Kevin criminally liable for the death of the motorist, Axel, who was beating James with what crimes will he be charged? Does he have any defenses to those charges? Assuming a jury believed that the motorist was not using deadly force on Doe but that Bobby, intending to cause great bodily harm, used deadly force on the motorist, for what crime would he be convicted?

ansver
Answers: 3

Another question on Law

question
Law, 16.07.2019 15:10
If you can't get enough sleep, you should a. close your eyes when stopped in traffic b. not drive, period c. drink extra coffee before you drive d. leave earlier so you can drive slower
Answers: 2
question
Law, 16.07.2019 17:20
Ageneral requirement for informed consent is that no informed consent may include any exculpatory language. exculpatory language is that which waives or appears to waive any of the subject’s legal rights or releases or appears to release those conducting the research from liability for negligence. which of the following statements in a consent form is an example of exculpatory language? a. your participation in this research is voluntary. if you choose not to participate, or change your mind later, your decision will not affect your relationship with the researcher or your right to other services that you may be eligible for. b. taking part in the research is voluntary, but if you choose to take part, you waive the right to legal redress for any research-related injuries. c. the researcher may stop you from taking part in this research without your consent if you experience side effects that make your emotional condition worse. if you become too emotionally distressed during the research, you may have to drop out. d. in the event of any distress you may have related to this research, you will be given access to appropriate resources.
Answers: 1
question
Law, 16.07.2019 18:10
Who is the petitioner and who is the respondent?
Answers: 1
question
Law, 16.07.2019 18:30
Which statement best explains why article iii of the constitution gives congress the ability to create lower courts inferior to the supreme court "from time to time”? a.the framers of the constitution believed that as the country grew, more courts would be needed to meet its needs. b.the framers of the constitution believed that as courts made unpopular decisions, they would need to be replaced. c.the framers of the constitution wanted to ensure that congress always had more power than the courts. d.the framers of the constitution wanted to ensure that new courts were always being created so new judges could be appointed.
Answers: 3
You know the right answer?
1. Wilbert James is approached by his friend Kevin who tells James he needs some money for Valentine...
Questions
question
Mathematics, 08.04.2020 12:28
question
Mathematics, 08.04.2020 12:29
question
Mathematics, 08.04.2020 12:29
question
Mathematics, 08.04.2020 12:30
question
Mathematics, 08.04.2020 12:30
question
Computers and Technology, 08.04.2020 12:41
Questions on the website: 13722363