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.
11. What is the most serious crime of which the woman properly could be convicted?
The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness.
When the woman learned of the neighbor's death, she paid the hit man $10,000. A medical examiner determined that the neighbor was already dead when the hit man shot him.
A woman promised to pay $10,000 to a hit man if he would kill her neighbor in any manner that could not be traced to her. The hit man bought a gun and watched the neighbor's house for an opportunity to shoot him. One evening, unaware of the hit man's presence, the neighbor tripped as he was walking toward his house, falling and hitting his head against the front steps. Believing that the neighbor was unconscious, the hit man ran over to him and shot him twice in the chest.
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
To be convicted as an accomplice, a defendant must have aided, abetted, or facilitated the hit man's crime with the intent that the hit man committed that crime. In order to be guilty as an accomplice, however, someone must have committed the underlying crime.
To be convicted of attempt, a defendant must take a substantial step that is more than mere preparation toward committing a crime, with the intent to actually commit that crime.
Conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more people, the intent to agree, the intent to commit the target offense, and in some jurisdictions, an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Solicitation requires a defendant to request or encourage another to commit a crime with the intent that the target crime occurs. The other person's response is irrelevant to finding a defendant guilty of solicitation.
B is correct. The hit man bought the gun, stalked the neighbor, and shot the neighbor twice in the chest. If the neighbor had not died from his accidental trip and fall, the hit man would have killed him. This conduct goes far beyond mere preparation and more than satisfies the requirements of a substantial step. The hit man also intended to kill the neighbor, as evidenced by shooting the neighbor in the chest (an area of the body very likely to result in death) and accepting of the woman's money for the killing. The hit man would be guilty of attempted murder here.
As explained above, the woman would be charged as an accomplice to the hit man, meaning that she must have aided, abetted, or facilitated the hit man's attempted murder. Because the woman hired the hit man and paid him for the killing, a jury could find that she facilitated the hit man's attempted murder of the neighbor. The facts do not indicate that the hit man would have had any reason to kill the neighbor if the woman had not hired him to do so. Because the woman facilitated the hit man's attempted murder and accomplices are treated as principals for purposes of liability and punishment, she could properly be convicted of attempted murder.
A is incorrect. The neighbor was already dead when the hit man shot him, so the hit man was not the cause of the neighbor's death. The fact that the woman hired the hit man to commit the killing and did not intend to kill her neighbor herself would not relieve her of liability if the hit man she hired had in fact killed the neighbor. The woman would be charged as an accomplice. Because the hit man was not the cause of the neighbor's death, he did not commit the murder, and the woman cannot be guilty as his accomplice. Therefore, she could not properly be convicted of murder.
C is incorrect. The fact that the woman hired the hit man and paid him to kill her neighbor demonstrates that she had an agreement with the hit man, the intent to agree, and the intent to commit murder. Hiring the hit man and paying him also could constitute overt acts; if not, the hit man buying a gun, stalking the neighbor, and then actually shooting the neighbor certainly would qualify, and only one co-conspirator needs to complete the overt act. Although the woman could properly be convicted of conspiracy, that crime is not as serious as attempted murder.
D is incorrect. The woman promising to pay the hit man to kill her neighbor would qualify as a criminal solicitation, even if the hit man had refused, because she requested and encouraged him to commit the murder. Although the woman could properly be convicted of solicitation, that crime is not as serious as conspiracy, and because the elements of conspiracy are met, as discussed above, solicitation is not the most serious crime for which the woman could be convicted. Furthermore, solicitation merges with conspiracy, so if a defendant meets the requirements of both crimes, she can only be convicted of conspiracy. Solicitation is a less serious crime than conspiracy, and conspiracy is a less serious crime than attempted murder.