7. In which of the following situations is the defendant most likely to be convicted, even though he did not intend to bring about the harm that the statute defining the offense is designed to prevent?

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. Malice refers to the mens rea required for a murder conviction. Malice aforethought arises where the defendant commits the unlawful killing with one of the following mental states: intent to kill, intent to inflict great bodily harm, or depraved/malignant heart (a killing committed with reckless indifference to an unjustified risk of human life).

A criminal attempt is an act done with the intent to commit a crime, which constitutes an overt or substantial step towards the commission of that crime, but falls short of completing it. Attempt is a specific intent crime and requires the defendant to specifically intend to commit the underlying crime.

Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another (note that on the MBE, a dwelling can be a non-residential structure). Like murder, the mens rea required for arson is malice. Malice means that the defendant either intended to burn the structure, knew that her actions would result in the burning of the structure, or that the defendant intentionally created a fire hazard that threatened the structure. Since the mens rea requirement is malice, if a defendant burns a structure through an act of negligence, he cannot be convicted of arson.

Manslaughter is a killing committed with criminal negligence or during the commission of an unlawful act. Criminal negligence arises if the defendant is grossly negligent.

B is correct. The defendant in this situation would most likely be convicted of murder even though he did not intend to kill. When the defendant hit the victim with a baseball bat, he acted with the required mens rea, intent to inflict great bodily harm. Accordingly, this is the only situation where the defendant acted with the appropriate mental intent that a conviction of the charged crime requires.

A is incorrect. The defendant is being charged with attempt to introduce adulterated drugs into interstate commerce. For specific intent crimes like attempt, the defendant must have the specific objective to commit the given crime; specific intent cannot be inferred. In this case, the fact that a large number of aspirin tablets randomly scattered through several bottles in a carton ready for shipment were laced with arsenic does not spell out the necessary specific intent to be convicted of attempt. Because there is no evidence of the specific intent, the defendant in this situation cannot be convicted of attempt.

C is incorrect. The mens rea required for a conviction of arson is malice. Malice means that the defendant intended to burn the structure. In this situation, the facts indicate that the defendant short-circuited the store's alarm system in order to bypass the system and commit a burglary. The defendant did not intend to burn the structure with malice. Because the defendant did not burn the structure with malice, he will not be convicted of arson.

D is incorrect. The defendant here is charged with manslaughter, which is a killing committed with criminal negligence in situations where a defendant is grossly negligent or reckless. The facts state that the defendant wanted to frighten the victim's friend by placing a plastic rattlesnake. This conduct, however, does not rise to the level of criminal negligence. Because the victim's death was not a result of the defendant's criminal negligence or reckless conduct, the defendant will not be convicted of manslaughter.