Sandeep Wander 04/13/2014 Criminal Law 1 Professor Barreto Drill Question 5 A: Dave Guilty of Burglary: The breaking and

entering of the dwelling home of another at nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein is the common law definition of Burglary. Here Dave, who may or may not be in duress, which is discussed infra, breaks in through the screen of the window and enters Vs house. Is intent is to steal jewelry which he knows is stored in a safe, which satisfies the mens rea. It was at night when Dave knew Lucy would be at work since she worked the night shift and this was Lucys house not Daves so therefore all the elements of burglary are satisfied and Dave is guilty of burglary. In modern law, the definition of burglary is expanded to include structures not dwelling homes and also eliminates the nighttime element so Dave would also be guilty in modern law. Defense: Dave would bring duress, as a defense since if he did not find the money, within a days time he would face serious bodily injury from Arts boys or gang members. This should be a valid defense however, it is reasonable to believe that Dave knew this would happen when he got the loan from Art who is associated with organized crime and the prosecution will surely challenge this defense. Dave was not told to burglarize Lucys home or face serious bodily harm, he was simply told to find the money he owed to Art and this fact will surely alter the understanding of his defense as to duress. Dave guilty of Arson: Arson is defined as the malicious burning of anothers dwelling home. Dave, while attempting to burglarize Lucys home, brought with him a welder, with whom he had conspired (discussed infra), who started to torch the safe in which they believed were Lucys jewelry. It is common sense for a reasonable person to know that torching a safe inside a home without safety equipment may result in a fire from the fiery offshoot of the torch. Here, both Dave and the welder knowingly took that risk to achieve their purpose of stealing the jewelry and so because they knowingly committed the actus reus Dave is guilty of Arson.

Sandeep Wander 04/13/2014 Criminal Law 1 Professor Barreto Dave guilty of Conspiracy: An agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act is conspiracy. Dave solicits Carl, a welder, to burglarize Lucys home and that solicitation merged into conspiracy when Carl agreed to join in the crime. Unlike solicitation, conspiracy does not merge into any crime, therefore this charge will be a separate and independent one from the others. The conspiracy was completed by the overt act by Carl to break and enter into Lucys home with the intent to commit a felony therein. Carl Guilty of Conspiracy: Defined supra. Carl agreed to Daves request to join him in the burglary and therefore he is guilty of conspiracy. Carl Guilty of Burglary: Here, Carl was an accomplice to the crime of burglary and in common law would be a principle in the second degree. In modern times, however, almost all juridictions have done away with the categories of principal in the second degree, accessory before the fact and accessory after the fact. Carl would be charged with burglary and is guilty of it as discussed in Daves analysis supra. Carl Guilty of Asron: Defined Supra. Here, just as in the burglary charge, Carl is guilty as discussed with Daves analysis of the same charge. Carl knowingly set the torch ablaze and tried to cut the safe, which resulted in the burning down of the house. George Guilty of 1st Degree Murder The unlawful premeditated and deliberate killing of another with malice aforethought. Here George is awake while his wife is sleeping when the fire starts to consume his home. George has a legal duty to act since he is Annes husband and his not doing so resulted in the death of his wife. He was not in the heat of passion and since no time is too short, George looked at the fire and then at his wife finally leaving her inside

Sandeep Wander 04/13/2014 Criminal Law 1 Professor Barreto with the intent that she die because he was mad about the recent divorce request. Georges failure to act here was not only one of recklessness, but of purposeful as he deliberated the situation and willfully left his wife there. Carl and George Guilty of Murder FMR The felony murder rule is effective when a person dies because of the felony (inherently dangerous) being committed and also it must be in furtherance of the felony. Here Carl and George are guilty of arson as discussed supra, and since arson is an inherently dangerous felony, FMR is a valid charge to alleviate the prosecutions burden of proving a mens rea. Here we need not the help of the FMR to prosecute Carl and George since their knowingly state of mind is enough to prove malice aforethought. Any reasonable person would know that torching a safe in a house is likely to cause fire. Further it is obvious that said fire would spread to the house around it since Carl and George disarmed the alarm, help would not come very quickly. Anne who is next door died as a result of this arson and because this was not premeditated, Carl and George would be guilty of 2nd Degree murder not 1st Degree murder.