The phrase “willful, deliberate, and premeditated” in a first-degree murder statute necessarily means that the defendant must have carefully and thoughtfully formed a specific intent to kill. 

Allison was a mentally incompetent patient who was a ward of the state at the State Psychiatric Facility.  While there, Allison fell and sustained injuries that required her be transferred from the state facility to the Carter Convalescent Center (“CCC”), a private rehabilitation center.  Allison received extensive therapy for the back and leg injuries suffered during the fall at the state mental hospital.  When Allison’s rehabilitation was nearly complete, she became entitled to compensation for the injuries she had sustained while in state custody.  The state had been applying these payments to Allison’s bill at CCC.  Around the same time, Dana—a distant relative of Allison’s—was appointed to be Allison’s guardian and conservator.  Dana sought to remove Allison from CCC, even though Allison had never voiced any desire to leave.  Carter, the director of CCC, was aware that if Allison was removed from the facility, the state payments would no longer be able to be directly applied to Allison’s rehabilitation bill at CCC.  Carter consulted CCC’s attorney who erroneously advised Carter that case law had established his right to keep Allison at CCC until the bill was paid.  Therefore, when Dana tried to remove Allison from CCC, Carter refused.  If Carter is arrested and tried for the false imprisonment of Allison, should he be convicted?

Both at common law and today under the modern law of most U.S. jurisdictions, there is a rebuttable presumption that a child under the age of seven is not capable of forming criminal intent, and therefore cannot be convicted of a crime.

Johnny lived with his wife and three kids.  He had an erratic temper and sometimes beat his wife and children.  Lately, he had been having problems at work and had taken to stopping at the neighborhood pub before coming home.  On many of these nights, Johnny had attacked his family members while in a drunken state.  Three days after a particularly savage beating of his 17-year-old son, Garry, Johnny came home late from work in another drunken state.  Johnny’s wife was not home, and Garry was taking care of his younger siblings.  Johnny asked where his dinner was, knowing that his wife usually left him a plate of good if he missed the family meal.  Garry told his father than he had given the good to the family dog.  Angered by his son’s statement, Johnny said, “I’ll have to teach you to have some respect for your father,” but feeling a little unsteady, he added, “after a little nap.”  Johnny then collapsed on the couch.  Garry knew that there would be trouble when his father came to, so he took the children to a neighbor’s house and asked the neighbor to mind them for a while.  Garry then returned home and looked for his father’s shotgun, but could not find it.  After thinking for a while, he got a large knife from the kitchen drawer and waited near the couch for his father to awaken.  When Johnny awoke to find his son holding a knife, he said in a worried voice, “Garry, my son, what are you doing?”  Garry said, “You won’t hurt us anymore.”  And then he tried to jab the knife into his father’s chest.   Assume, for the purposes of this question only, that Johnny managed to wrestle the knife away from his son and then stabbed Garry with it during the struggle.  If Garry dies from the stab wound, the most correct outcome of Johnny’s trial for Garry’s death is which of the following?

NEW FACT PATTERN (Next 3 questions)Fred and his wife, Louise, are dining at the celebrated Italian restaurant, The Italian Scallion. Fred and Louise drink several bottles of wine. A singer, Luigi Clamsauce, comes to the table to serenade them.  Fred, in his drunken state, mistakes Luigi’s expansive arm movements for threats; as a result, Fred slugs Luigi and breaks his jaw.  In his drunken condition, Fred’s belief of imminent harm may have seemed reasonable, but if he had been sober, it would have been patently absurd.  Due to his intoxication, Fred should be acquitted of assault.

Fred and his wife, Louise, are dining at the celebrated Italian restaurant, The Italian Scallion. Fred and Louise drink several bottles of wine. A singer, Luigi Clamsauce, comes to the table to serenade them.  Fred, in his drunken state, mistakes Luigi’s expansive arm movements for threats; as a result, Fred slugs Luigi and breaks his jaw.  In his drunken condition, Fred’s belief of imminent harm may have seemed reasonable, but if he had been sober, it would have been patently absurd.  Due to his intoxication, Fred should be acquitted of battery.

Johnny lived with his wife and three kids.  He had an erratic temper and sometimes beat his wife and children.  Lately, he had been having problems at work and had taken to stopping at the neighborhood pub before coming home.  On many of these nights, Johnny had attacked his family members while in a drunken state.  Three days after a particularly savage beating of his 17-year-old son, Garry, Johnny came home late from work in another drunken state.  Johnny’s wife was not home, and Garry was taking care of his younger siblings.  Johnny asked where his dinner was, knowing that his wife usually left him a plate of good if he missed the family meal.  Garry told his father than he had given the good to the family dog.  Angered by his son’s statement, Johnny said, “I’ll have to teach you to have some respect for your father,” but feeling a little unsteady, he added, “after a little nap.”  Johnny then collapsed on the couch.  Garry knew that there would be trouble when his father came to, so he took the children to a neighbor’s house and asked the neighbor to mind them for a while.  Garry then returned home and looked for his father’s shotgun, but could not find it.  After thinking for a while, he got a large knife from the kitchen drawer and waited near the couch for his father to awaken.  When Johnny awoke to find his son holding a knife, he said in a worried voice, “Garry, my son, what are you doing?”  Garry said, “You won’t hurt us anymore.”  And then he jabbed the knife into his father’s chest.  Johnny died nearly instantly.  Garry was brought to trial as an adult for the killing of his father. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Garry’s lawyer introduced an insanity defense.  If the jurisdiction follows the Model Penal Code, and psychiatric testimony is introduced showing that Garry suffered from a qualifying mental disease or defect, which of the following, if proven, would be the best reason why Garry should be acquitted?

Defendant, intending to harm (but not kill) Victim by shooting Victim in the arm with a small caliber gun, shoots and accidentally strikes Victim between the eyes with a bullet, killing Victim.  Defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree.

At common law, one who broke and entered the dwelling of another at night with the intent to admire the art work on the walls of the dwelling, but, once inside, decided to steal a piece of the art would be guilty of both larceny and burglary.

The mother of a child diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) says to her nurse, “I have three kids in grade school and I never know what any of them are doing. They have their lives and I have mine.” What type of family boundaries are described by this comment?