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.
2. Has the warehouse owner committed attempted arson?
Arson is defined in this jurisdiction as «the intentional burning of any building or structure of another, without the consent of the owner.» The warehouse owner believed, however, that burning one's own building was arson, having been so advised by his lawyer.
The owner of an old warehouse decided to destroy the warehouse because the taxes on the structure exceeded the income that he could receive from it. He crept into the building in the middle of the night with a can of gasoline and a fuse and set the fuse timer for 30 minutes. He then left the building. The fuse failed to ignite and the building was not harmed.
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
A is incorrect. Although factual impossibility is not a defense, the owner also had a legal impossibility claim that served as a defense to the attempt charge.
B is incorrect. Mistake of law can be a defense, and it confuses the mistake of law defense to a criminal charge with the legal impossibility defense to an attempt charge. It was impossible for the owner to commit the crime of arson, regardless of whether the owner made the mistake of believing it was. This kind of legal impossibility is a defense to a charge of attempted arson.
C is incorrect. The owner's «mistake» did not negate a necessary mens rea. The owner did have the requisite mental state for arson, which is intentionally burning a building. However, he could not be convicted of attempted arson, because the building he intended to burn was his own.