1

Criminal Law

Student’s Name:

Institution Affiliation:

Course Number and Name:

Instructor’s Name:

Assignment Due Date:

 2

Question One

From the material facts of the case, it is evident that Darrell, David, and Deon

committed crimes, albeit in different ways. For Darrell, one of his crimes was conspiring with

David to steal Ms. Vincent’s televisions. The Federal Conspiracy laws state that a person is

guilty of a conspiracy if they agree with another person or persons to commit a crime.

Conspiracy is a crime listed under Chapter 19 of Part 1 of Title 18 of the U.S Code. After

conspiring to steal the televisions, Darrell committed another crime of burglary, whereby he,

together with David, broke into Ms. Vincent's house intending to steal television sets.

Additionally, Darrell and David fulfill all the elements needed to prove the offense of

burglary. Before breaking into the house, he had mens rea, the actual intention of committing

a felony in Ms. Vincent's house. He also had the actus rea of committing the felony, which is

demonstrated by breaking into the house (Borisovich, 2020). Lastly, it is evident that there

was causation that connected the two crucial elements that resulted into the crime of burglary.

Darrell also committed the crime of murder when he shot Ms. Vincent's nephew with

a gun. The elements of an act of murder include a criminal act, intent, causation, and the

actual action (Acker & Lanier, 2020). Darrell intended to kill Ms. Vincent's nephew by

pulling the gun, just in case he refused to let them go. On the other hand, David should be

charged with the manslaughter of killing Ms. Vincent. One of the most obvious elements of

manslaughter that is evident in this case study is that her actions with David caused the death

of Ms. Vincent (Negligence, 2021). Even though he had no mens rea, David committed an act

that was dangerous and unlawful and consequently caused the death of Ms. Vincent.

Even though he did not commit the actual crime of breaking into Ms. Vincent’s

house, Deon would be charged with committing the crime of being an accomplice. According

to United States law, an accomplice is any person who intentionally assists another in doing a
 3

crime by committing an act or preventing an individual from acting (Borisovich, 2020). The

elements of being an accomplice include the crime being done by another person and the

defendant assisting or encouraging another person to commit a felony.

Question 2

The possible crime that Lisa and Wendell can be charged with is statutory rape. In

common law, statutory rape refers to having sexual intercourse with someone who is below

the age of consent. This case study shows that Quincy and Yolanda were 16, which is below

the age of consent in their jurisdiction. Therefore, Lisa and Wendell will likely have to

answer charges relating to statutory rape because it is a strict liability crime whereby the

victim's consent is not taken into consideration at all. There are two elements that the courts

use to establish whether it is statutory rape or something else.

One of the elements that must be established for a court to decide that there was

statutory rape is if there was sexual intercourse. Using the material facts from the case study,

it is evident that both pairs had sexual intercourse on the night of the campus party. Another

element used to prove whether there was statutory rape or not is whether the sexual

intercourse was with a child below the age of consent (Olsen, 2018). Lisa, 19, had sex with

Quincy, 16, under the age of consent in their jurisdiction. Similarly, Wendell, 19, had sexual

intercourse with Yolanda, who was 16 and consequently under the age of consent, thus

making it a sexual offense.

However, they both have a defense that they can use to escape a sentence in a

criminal court. One of Lisa's defenses is the mistake of age defense. She could state that

Quincy told her he was from a neighboring college was enough to dupe her into believing

that he was over the age of consent. Wendell can also base her defense on the Romeo and

Juliet Laws. He can state that even though he had sex with a person under the age of consent,
 4

it was consensual and that the difference between their years is not wide apart. The laws of

the United States state that an individual can have sex with an individual under the age of

consent, provided the age between the two parties is not over four years (Olsen, 2018).

However, the victim must always be between 14 and 17 years for the defense to stand. In this

case, both the victims were 16 years, which falls under the age bracket outlined by the law.

Question 3

Even though Patrick and Wendy are charged with the crime of murder, their actions

do not establish all the elements needed for a murder charge to stand. For a person to be

convicted of the offense of murder, they must first fulfill the two major elements. One of

them is that the victim's death must have been caused by an action or omission of an

individual, and secondly, the defendant must have had malice before murdering the victim

(Acker & Lanier, 2020). In this case, both of them did not have any malice aforethought of

killing their son.

Patrick and Wendy have several defenses as to why they should not be sentenced for

the crime of murdering Joseph, one of their children. One of the defenses available to Patrick

and Wendy is that of necessity. They can state that they needed to wait till the faith of their

religion heals Joseph. The actions of Patrick and Wendy were meant to improve their health

situation of Joseph and avoid dire consequences. Another defense that the couple can use to

escape murder charges is that they both did not have malice aforethought for killing Joseph.

In murder charges, the prosecutor must prove that the defendants had the men's rea of killing

Joseph. In this particular case study, the spouses were innocently following the provisions of

the religious faith.

Question 4
 5

Miller v California is some of the landmark cases in the United States of America

regarding the distribution and publication of obscene materials. In that particular case, the

court declared that there could be an obscenity standard followed when publishing obscene

materials in public. The standard established in Miller v California states whether an average

person would find the published work lustful and if the work depicts uncomfortable sexual

conduct. Lastly, the materials should be looked at as a whole and determined whether it

contributes any artistry or political or scientific value to the society (Kusz, 2020). Ever since

this decision was reached decades ago, thief Miller v California obscenity standard test has

continued to be used to determine which materials to publish and which materials not to

publish. In giving their judgment, the supreme court of the United States held that obscene

materials were not protected by principles and provisions of the First Amendment.

Indeed, two different communities can apply the same standard to the same picture

and still draw different conclusions. This is because the two communities are getting different

conclusions using the same rule comes down to perception. In this case, the conservative

community views the picture as obscene and unworthy of being published. On the other hand,

the liberals, who are huge proponents of secularism, view the picture as decent and not lustful

to the average person. Therefore, different communities can use the same rule and come up

with different conclusions because they have different perceptions of contemporary society.

My prediction is that the Delaware State University Art Gallery jury will determine

the picture as obscene. The Court of Appeal of the United States decided in the case of

United States v One Book Entitled Ulysses that when looking at the obscenity of a picture,

the work must be looked at wholly and not only on the certain parts (Kusz, 2020).. In this

case, even though the artist tried to hide the genitals of the men in the picture, the rest of their

bodies were left naked, which could attract prurient interest from members of the public.
 6

Besides, when it is taken as a whole, the work lacks any serious artistic value that could be

used to pass across a piece of important information.

Question 5

Danny was not charged with the crime of murder or manslaughter because children

that age are deemed to be incapable of committing a crime. According to the federal

government laws of the United States, the minimum age that a person could be deemed to

commit a federal crime is 11 (Yaffe, 2018). Therefore, instead of being seen as perpetrators of

the crime, the children under the age of 11 are regarded as victims and are placed in a better

environment that prevents them from engaging in such life-ending activities. The general rule

is that society cannot purport to punish young children who commit crimes out of the

negligence of their parents and guardians.

Danny could not be charged because he is below the age of criminal responsibility.

Even though he killed his brother, the law assumes that Danny did not do what he was doing

and cannot hold him capable of that, even when he attains the age of criminal responsibility

later in life (Yaffe, 2018). At five years, Danny was still too young to comprehend the

magnitude of his actions.

Question 6

The Crime that Kim committed in this case study is fraud. Fraud is both a civil and

criminal activity intended to give the defendant some sought of personal gain at the end of the

operations. When selling the painting to the public, Kim managed to dupe the public into that

the product she was holding in her hands was authentic and not fake. Apart from knowing

that he was committing a crime, Kim managed to convince Kayla that the painting was worth

ten times its original price.

 7

The Laws of the United States provide that an individual shall be guilty of the crime

of fraud if they are caught gaining something by deceiving the public by giving them a false

representation of facts (Dinisman & Moroz, 2017). There are several elements that one needs

to prove before proving that an individual is guilty of the crime of fraud. One of the elements

is that there must be a material fact statement mentioned to deceive the public into believing

that, indeed, the statement is true. In this case, Kim convinced Kayla that the painting was an

original one and that she had to buy it.

Another element of fraud that is evident in the case scenario is a victim's reliance on

the information mentioned by the defendant. Before one is rendered guilty of the offense of

fraud, the plaintiff must prove that they depended on the Information told by the defendant

and that they relied on it before making the purchase (Homer, 2020). In this case study, it is

evident that Kayla depended on the information provided by Kim to know the extent of the

authenticity of the painting. The last element of fraud in this case study is damage. Damages

refer to the number of monetary funds lost during a fraudulent deal. In this case, damages are

the number of funds that Kayla paid ten times the worth of an authentic painting. Another

important element in criminal fraud cases is that fraudsters ought to intend to deceive the

alleged buyer (Homer, 2020). In this case, Kim had the intention of defrauding Kayla

intentionally and gaining unlawful proceeds by selling a fake painting disguised as an

original one.
 8

REFERENCES

Acker, J. R., & Lanier, C. S. (2020). The dimensions of capital murder. In The American

Court System (pp. 1-39). Routledge.

Borisovich, M. V. (2020). Participation in Crime in the Model Criminal Code. Journal of

Complementary Medicine Research, 11(2), 43-48.

Dinisman, T., & Moroz, A. (2017). Understanding victims of crime. London, UK: Victim

Support.

Homer, E. M. (2020). Testing the fraud triangle: a systematic review. Journal of Financial

Crime.

Kusz, J. (2020). How to Assess Obscenity: A Legal Realism Interpretation of the Legal

Standards for Obscenity. UBCL Rev., 53, 705.

Miller v. California, No. 2: 21-CV-0650-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2021).

Negligence, G. (2021). Manslaughter Revisited. The Journal of Criminal Law, 85(5), 409-

412.

Olsen, F. (2018). Statutory Rape: A Feminist Critique of Rights Analysis [1984]. In Feminist

Legal Theory (pp. 305-317). Routledge.

Yaffe, G. (2018). The age of culpability: Children and the nature of criminal responsibility.

Oxford University Press.