A woman was planning a vacation in a faraway city. She was hoping to see a certain popular theatre performance while she was in town, but tickets for the show were sold in person at the theater’s box office. She feared that the show would be sold out if she waited to purchase tickets when she arrived in town, so on June 1, the woman mailed a letter to an old friend who lived in the city asking him if he would purchase the tickets for her in exchange for a $100 fee. The friend replied by letter on June 5th that he would do so. But on June 6th, he decided that he didn’t feel like waiting in line for the tickets after all so he sent a text to the woman telling her that her request was too much to ask of him and that he would not get the tickets for her. The woman received the friend’s text immediately. She was disappointed in her friend’s response and did not reply to his text. Still really wanting to see the show, she immediately purchased tickets from an online ticket broker for a $500 fee. On June 7, the woman received her friend’s letter. When the woman did not contact her friend again, he began to feel guilty. On June 8, the friend purchased tickets at the box office and then called the woman to let her know. The woman told her friend that the tickets were no longer needed, and she would not pay him the $100. Insulted, the friend angrily told the woman that he would sue her for breach of contract. Will the friend be successful in his breach of contract action?

A hotel employee who was a fan of police crime shows brought room service food to a room. As the employee was bringing the trays of food into the room, he happened to notice that one of the occupants of the room was in the bathroom surrounded by what appeared to be bundles of cash and was counting out more cash. The other occupant hurried the hotel employee out of the room, but on his way out, the hotel employee saw several duffel bags that he suspected from his TV viewing held drugs. The hotel employee reported his observations to the hotel manager. The manager reported this information to his wife who was a police officer. The wife, suspecting that the duffel bags and cash indicated the sale of illegal drugs, told her husband to inspect the room when the occupants were out, and if he found anything suspicious, to bring it to her. Later that day when the occupants were out, the manager took the master key and went into the room. He found a few duffel bags and, looking inside, saw bags of white powder, some of which he took to his wife. The narcotics division confirmed that the powder was contra- band. The wife told the manager to return the powder and swear out an affidavit. A search warrant was issued, and the police arrested the occupants and searched their room. A quantity of drugs was found, and the occupants were charged with possession of illegal drugs for sale. If the occupants move to prevent evidence of the drugs from being introduced at trial, what should the court do?

A con man and his girlfriend were traveling in the con man’s minivan when they were stopped by a state police officer who noticed that the minivan’s brake lights were not working. Unbeknownst to the girlfriend, the con man had stolen a wallet from a customer at the gas station convenience store that they had stopped at a few towns back. Before the officer came up to the car, the con man told his girlfriend, “Hold my wallet for me, will you?” The girlfriend put the wallet in her purse, saying, “O.K., but I don’t want to know why.” Before the officer even told the couple why he had stopped the minivan, the con man blurted out, “She’s the one who took the wallet,” pointing at his girlfriend. The officer searched the girlfriend’s purse and found the wallet belonging to the customer. The girlfriend was arrested, but the con man was not. Is the evidence found on the girlfriend admissible?

The defendant is on trial for embezzlement. He does not take the stand. Assuming all notice requirements have been met, which of the defendant’s previous convictions is most likely to be admitted into evidence against him?

As a young man was leaving his home, two police officers approached him and placed him under arrest for the robbery of a convenience store. As the young man was entering the squad car, he yelled to his girlfriend, “Call my lawyer and tell her what happened; I don’t want to sign anything without her.” The young man was given Miranda warnings on the way to the police station. Meanwhile, his lawyer called the station and told the desk sergeant that she was on her way and to have the young man call her as soon as he arrived. She told the sergeant not to allow questioning until she arrived, and the sergeant assured her that it would be several hours until the district attorney arrived and no questioning would take place until then. When the young man arrived at the station, the arresting officers immediately put him in an interrogation room and questioned him about a carjacking that had taken place two days ago. They did not inform him of the call from his lawyer, but he agreed to talk as long as he did not have to put anything in writing or sign anything without her okay. He made incriminating statements about the carjacking, and he was eventually indicted for that crime as well. Prior to trial on the convenience store robbery charge, the young man’s lawyer moved to suppress the arresting officers’ testimony about the young man’s statements. How should the court rule on the motion?

A defendant has been charged with embezzle- ment. At trial, the prosecutor seeks to cross- examine the defendant about his five-year-old conviction for misdemeanor forgery. Is the prosecutor’s proposed cross-examination proper?

The defendant was on trial for possession of methamphetamines. Charges against the drug dealer who sold the pills to the defendant were dropped in exchange for his testimony against the defendant. The defendant denied knowing that the pills he purchased were illegal drugs. At trial, the drug dealer testified that he told the defendant before the sale that the pills were illegal methamphetamines. The drug dealer died on the stand, prior to the defense counsel’s opportunity to cross-examine him. The defense counsel moved for admission of the drug dealer’s testimony at the defendant’s pretrial hearing that he told the defendant that the pills were not illegal. The prosecutor had an opportunity to cross-examine the drug dealer during the hearing. Should this testimony be admitted?

The defendant was pulled over for speeding. After a license plate check revealed that the car was recently reported as stolen, the defendant was arrested for car theft. At the police station, the defendant received Miranda warnings and agreed to answer questions regarding a local auto “chop-shop” network. During a break for lunch, the police interrogators noticed that the defendant, who was otherwise rather shabbily dressed, was wearing an obviously expensive watch. On their return to the interrogation room, without giving any new Miranda warnings, the officers began interrogating the defendant about a recent home invasion where a quantity of valuable jewelry was taken, including a watch similar to the one the defendant was wearing. The defendant confessed to the home invasion, and was indicted on that charge, a felony. If the defendant files an appropriate motion to prevent the confession from being admitted at his trial, is the defendant likely to succeed?

Pojedete na hory na jeden týden v lednu.

Screenshot_15-3-2025_183840_southplainscollege582-my.sharepoint.com.jpeg How many carbon atoms are in R-134a?