Question 1

The defense of age/infancy is available under the Texas Penal Code in a wide array of circumstances and with many exceptions.Neither the adult nor the juvenile justice system asserts jurisdiction over the otherwise criminal conduct of an individual if the individual is under:

Accepted Answer

According to the Texas Penal Code, the defense of age/infancy is available if the individual is under 10 years of age at the time of the offense. This means that neither the adult nor the juvenile justice system will assert jurisdiction over the individual's criminal conduct. The other choices are not correct as they are either related to other aspects of the law, such as trial or apprehension, or do not reflect the age limit for the defense of age/infancy.

Question 2

Jerry is charged with selling cocaine.At trial,Jerry and his attorney decide to use the entrapment defense.From Jerry's perspective,use of the entrapment defense in court is risky because:

Accepted Answer

If the entrapment defense is unsuccessful, Jerry has essentially confessed to committing the crime. This is because the defense admits to the crime but claims that it was initiated by law enforcement. Therefore, if the defense fails, Jerry has no other defense and is likely to be convicted. Additionally, while the other options may be true to some extent, they are not the main reason why the entrapment defense is risky for Jerry.

Question 3

Ed goes out to eat with his friend Ralph.During dinner Ed receives a telephone call that his dog has escaped from his fenced backyard.He tells Ralph that he needs to leave in order to tend to the dog.Ralph tells him to go ahead and he will finish his dinner and pay their check."You can settle up with me tomorrow," Ralph tells Ed.Ed departs.Ralph finishes his dinner and pays for his meal but not for Ed's.When the waitress appears with Ed's check,she learns he has left the restaurant.Since Ed is a regular customer,the waitress knows his identity.A theft of service complaint about Ed is filed with the police.Regarding this situation:

Accepted Answer

Ed believed Ralph would pay for his meal, indicating he did not intend to leave without paying, which is crucial for a theft of service charge.

Question 4

Phillip,a police officer,hears a rumor that Billy is dealing drugs.Phillip puts on a phony beard and goes to Billy's house.When Billy answers the doorbell,Phillip asks,"How about selling me a bag of marijuana?" Billy replies,"Are you a cop?" Phillip replies,"Hell no." Billy says,"That'll be ten dollars" and hands Phillip a baggie of marijuana.Phillip says,"That'll be six months in jail-you're under arrest." Billy is:

Accepted Answer

Entrapment typically requires law enforcement to induce someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. In this scenario, Phillip did not induce Billy to sell marijuana; he merely provided the opportunity, which Billy willingly took. Billy's lack of knowledge about Phillip's true identity or official title does not absolve him of guilt for willingly engaging in an illegal transaction.

Question 5

Jose,an undocumented foreign national,is arrested for aggravated assault after striking a co-worker with a hammer.At Jose's trial in District Court,his attorney conclusively proves that Jose was only 16 years old at the time of the incident.When the judge learns of this fact,the judge should:

Accepted Answer

Jose was only 16 years old at the time of the incident, which means that he would have been a minor and should have been tried in juvenile court rather than district court. As an undocumented foreign national, Jose may also be subject to deportation, but that is a separate issue and should be handled separately from the criminal case. As such, the court lacks jurisdiction over Jose, and the aggravated assault charge should be dismissed.

Question 6

John operates a small grocery store.Much of his business is selling beer and snacks to customers.Frequently he has underage individuals attempt to buy beer.John knows that it is illegal to sell to underage persons but he hates to turn away the business.He comes up with the idea of selling snack cakes to persons under 21 at an inflated price and giving them a free six-pack of beer.The inflated snack cake price more than covers the cost of both items and returns a tidy profit.John runs his scheme for about a week until a police officer arrests him for providing alcohol to a minor.John says,"I know it is illegal to sell to a minor but I did not know it was against the law to give alcohol to a minor." The police officer could correctly respond to John,"Your ignorance of the law regarding alcohol:

Accepted Answer

Ignorance of the law is not a defense to any charge. John's knowledge that it is illegal to sell alcohol to a minor further demonstrates that he knew what he was doing was wrong.

Question 7

Jane is a 15-year-old high school student.She runs with a bad crowd that frequently engages in petty criminal behavior.Assume Jane is apprehended after engaging in various misdemeanors.She may be prosecuted in the adult justice system without any involvement of the juvenile court system if the offenses in which she engaged are:

Accepted Answer

Fine only misdemeanors may be prosecuted in the adult justice system without involving the juvenile court system. Options A, B, and C are incorrect as they do not apply to all misdemeanors.

Question 8

Peter's mother thinks he is in college studying to be an engineer but he actually dropped out several semesters ago.Instead,Peter works as a busboy at a local restaurant.Paul,his roommate,tells Peter that unless each day he brings Paul food from the restaurant,Paul will tell Peter's mother that Peter is no longer in school.Fearful of his mother finding out about his circumstances,Peter agrees.Each evening Peter steals food from the restaurant and brings it to Paul.After about two weeks,Peter's boss discovers the thefts.He not only fires Peter but calls the police and files theft charges.If Peter goes to trial on the theft charges,the defense of duress:

Accepted Answer

The defense of duress applies when a person is forced to commit a crime due to a present and immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. In this case, Peter was not facing such a threat, and he voluntarily agreed to steal food from the restaurant to avoid his mother finding out about his situation. Therefore, the defense of duress does not apply, and it will do Peter no good.

Question 9

When a criminal defendant does not deny that he engaged in the conduct of which he is accused but argues that the offense charged is too severe for the facts of the case,the defendant is asserting the defensive strategy of:

Accepted Answer

The defensive strategy of arguing that the offense charged is too severe for the facts of the case is called mitigation. The defendant does not deny the conduct but seeks a lesser punishment due to mitigating factors. Confession and avoidance involves admitting to the conduct but arguing that it was justified or excused, while reduction ab initio and offense discounting are not recognized as defensive strategies in criminal law.

Question 10

Under Texas law,an individual can successfully use the insanity defense only if:

Accepted Answer

Under Texas law, the insanity defense can only be used if the defendant suffers from a severe mental disease or defect that prevents them from knowing that their conduct was wrong. This is known as the M'Naghten rule, which requires the defendant to prove that they did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the crime. The other options are not relevant to the criteria for using the insanity defense in Texas.

Question 11

Under Texas law,defenses take a variety of forms.A type of defense that the prosecutor must disprove in establishing the elements of the crime is known as an:

Accepted Answer

An exception is a type of defense that the prosecutor must disprove in establishing the elements of the crime. Exemptions are defenses that acknowledge the elements are present but that the defendant should be excused from liability due to some other factor. Exclusion and expulsion are not relevant defenses in this context.

Question 12

Ignorance of the existence of a law is NOT a legal defense for violating the law:

Accepted Answer

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it, regardless of the circumstances. It is the responsibility of individuals to educate themselves about the laws that apply to them. Exceptions such as A, B or C are not legally recognized.

Question 13

Sheila is charged with the manufacture of a controlled substance.At trial,her defense attorney convinces the judge that Sheila was entrapped into the endeavor.The judge agrees that the conduct of the police in the case was so outrageous that their behavior constituted entrapment.Because the judge ruled that Sheila was entrapped:

Accepted Answer

Entrapment is a defense that argues the defendant was induced by the police to commit a criminal act they otherwise would not have committed. If a judge agrees that entrapment occurred, it negates the defendant's guilt, leading to a verdict of not guilty.

Question 14

Jose is one bad boy.Although only 13 years old,he has a long history of delinquent conduct.Late one evening,Jose enters Raul's home for the purpose of stealing Raul's television set.While Jose is in the house,Raul hears a noise.Raul grabs a baseball bat and goes to investigate.Raul confronts Jose and a fight breaks out.Jose disarms Raul and then strikes Raul several times with the bat.Raul is seriously injured.Jose flees the scene.The next day the police take Jose into custody.In order to charge Jose with attempted murder and try him as an adult,the state will:

Accepted Answer

The answer of Jose is one bad boy.Although only 13...

Question 15

Suzy is a police officer assigned to the vice squad.On Friday and Saturday nights she dresses in sexy clothing and stands on a street corner where prostitutes are known to congregate.Sam approaches her and offers her $25 to engage in a sex act.She tells Sam to meet her in 15 minutes at a motel room around the corner.Sam says,"You aren't a cop are you?" Suzy just laughs at the question.When Sam gets to the motel room,he is arrested by other vice officers and charged with violating the prostitution statute.Suzy's conduct:

Accepted Answer

Suzy's conduct does not constitute entrapment as she did not coerce or induce Sam to commit the offense. She merely provided him with the opportunity to commit a crime by offering him the chance to engage in sexual activity for money. Additionally, she did not misrepresent her identity or use any deceptive tactics to manipulate Sam into committing the offense. Therefore, Sam's arrest and charge for violating the prostitution statute are valid.

Question 16

Raphael is charged with arson after burning down several buildings.At trial,several psychiatrists testify that Raphael suffers from severe delusions; he believes he is the right-hand man of the devil.The jury finds Raphael not guilty by reason of insanity.With this finding:

Accepted Answer

A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is a final judgment, and the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy prevents the state from retrying an individual for the same crime once acquitted, regardless of the reason for the acquittal.

Question 17

The defense of mistake of fact may be used only if the mistake negates:

Accepted Answer

The defense of mistake of fact may only be used if the mistake negates the culpable mental state of the offense. This means that the defendant must have had an honest and reasonable belief that their actions were legal and lacked criminal intent. Mistakes pertaining to the actus reus (physical act) or attendant circumstances (facts surrounding the crime) are not typically valid defenses.

Question 18

Patty is abducted by a band of domestic terrorists.As a fundraising effort the terrorists decide to rob a bank.They compel Patty to join them by keeping a pistol pointed at her.Fearing for her life,Patty assists the terrorists by collecting the money from the bank tellers.Unknown to Patty,the pistol is actually a toy.Patty is:

Accepted Answer

Patty acted under duress, as she believed the pistol was real and that her life was in danger. In such circumstances, she lacked free will in assisting the terrorists, and thus, she cannot be held criminally liable for the robbery.

Question 19

Several statutory excuses that an accused might use to gain an acquittal at trial appear in the Texas Penal Code.Some of these excuses,such as insanity and duress,place the burden on the defendant to not only raise the issue at trial but to establish the excuse by the preponderance of the evidence.These excuses are known as:

Accepted Answer

The term "affirmative defenses" refers to the defenses that shift the burden of proof to the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence. Insanity and duress are examples of affirmative defenses in Texas.

Question 20

Jack and Jennifer are married.Jack is a career criminal who lives primarily off the proceeds of various thefts.Two months after their wedding,Jack tells Jennifer that they need money.He states that he intends to rob a liquor store and needs Jennifer to drive the getaway car.Jennifer says she is afraid of being caught and going to jail if she participates in the crime.Jack tells her,"Don't worry.If we get caught,tell the police your husband ordered you to help him and according to the Bible and Texas law,the wife must do as the husband says,even if it involves violating the law.In other words,you can't be prosecuted for crimes I order you to commit." Jennifer agrees to assist in the robbery.However,the pair do indeed get apprehended after the robbery.Jennifer tells the prosecutor that Jack commanded her to assist him.The prosecutor could correctly tell Jennifer that:

Accepted Answer

The concept of spousal immunity (where one spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other) does exist in some states, but it does not apply to the situation described in the scenario. Jack's statement that Jennifer cannot be prosecuted for crimes he orders her to commit is not accurate, and the prosecutor could still charge her for her role in the robbery. Therefore, the only correct answer is D, which states that Jack's statement is incorrect and that being ordered by one's spouse to commit a crime is not a defense in Texas.

Quiz 15: General Defenses and Justification