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.
The supplier arranged a meeting in a remote area of a state park. After the three men arrived, the supplier fired two shots at the lookout, who fell to the ground. Both the supplier and the dealer believed that the lookout was dead. The dealer subsequently pushed the lookout's body off a nearby cliff. Unbeknownst to the supplier and the dealer, the lookout had been wounded by the bullets but was not dead; he died as a result of the fall from the cliff.
A drug-dealing operation consisted of three men: a supplier, a dealer, and a lookout. The supplier became convinced that the lookout was a police informant. He persuaded the dealer that they should kill the lookout to avoid problems. They purchased a gun and ammunition to commit the murder and planned to dispose of the lookout's body by pushing it off a cliff.
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. The shooting and the disposal of the body were part of the same scheme or plan devised by the supplier and the dealer, which was to purposefully aid each other in killing the lookout. Consequently, the supplier remains responsible for all the acts committed by his accomplice.
B is incorrect. The lookout's death was clearly intended by both the supplier and the dealer. If the death was caused by acts committed in furtherance of their scheme, it does not matter that the death occurred in an unanticipated way.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct conclusion based on incorrect legal reasoning. The supplier is responsible because he purposefully aided in the killing of the lookout, not because he subjectively believed that he had killed the lookout.