Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
15. Should the man's conviction be affirmed?
The man was convicted on both counts. On appeal, he argued that the conviction for malicious damage to property should be reversed because the instruction was not a correct statement of the law.
The man was charged with larceny of the car and with the crime of malicious damage to property. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that if the jury found both that the man was guilty of larceny of the car and that the damage to the store was the result of that larceny, then it should also find him guilty of malicious damage to property.
A man decided to steal a car he saw parked on a hill. After he got in and started the engine, the car began rolling down the hill. The man quickly discovered that the car's brakes did not work. He crashed through the window of a store located at the bottom of the hill.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Malicious damage to property is an intentional crime and the necessary mens rea must exist in order for a defendant to properly be convicted. The mens rea of «malice» requires that the defendant was engaged in reckless conduct, i.e., conduct taken in disregard of a known high probability of risk. Recklessness is further defined as acting with the knowledge that a specific injury might result.
The Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. The relevant part of the Fifth Amendment states, «No person shall. .. be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.» Double jeopardy does not preclude conviction of two distinct crimes with separate legal elements. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932).
C is correct. The man here was charged with larceny of the car and with the crime of malicious damage to property. A conviction, therefore, requires a finding that the man «maliciously» damaged the property, or, in other words, that he acted recklessly (with knowledge that the result was likely to occur). The judge instructed the jury that the defendant's guilt from the larceny charge was sufficient for a conviction of malicious damage to property. The judge's instruction that the damage to property conviction hinges on the defendant's conviction of larceny is mistaken because both crimes are separate and distinct and both require mens rea. For larceny, the defendant must have acted with the intent to steal; for the malicious damage to property conviction, the man must have acted with the intent to damage property (defined as knowingly/recklessly). In this case, the man's intent to steal the car does not prove he had the intent to damage the property. Further, there is nothing to suggest the man would have been certain that his conduct would damage the store. The car brakes did not work and so his actions cannot be said to be intentional As such, the man's conviction for malicious damage to property was improper.
A is incorrect. As discussed above, the man's intent to steal the car does not mean he had the intent to damage the store. For a conviction of malicious damage to property, the defendant must have acted knowingly/recklessly and must have intended to damage the store. Just because the man had the intent to steal the car does not mean he knowingly damaged the store. The man's intent to steal the car does not speak to the intent to knowingly damaging the store.
B is incorrect. The fact the man was committing a felony does not prove the man knowingly damaged the store. This answer choice is a distractor because there is no rule that if you are in the process of committing a felony, the intent to commit a further intentional crime can be inferred. The fact that the man was in the process of committing a felony does not prove that the man knowingly damaged the store.
D is incorrect. A proper conviction would have required the jury to find that the man knowingly, (i.e., practically certain) acted in a way where his conduct would surely damage the store.