13. Assume you are in a jurisdiction where statutory rape is defined as a strict liability offense. Ron, who is twenty years old, meets Lisa, who is seventeen years old, through social media. Lisa had been able to modify her account so that it looked like she was eighteen years old, and she told Ron she was eighteen. They started dating and engaged in sexual intercourse. Lisa's family found out and was quite upset as they strongly believed that sex before marriage was a sin. Lisa's family demanded that Ron be prosecuted for statutory rape under the state's statute, which read: "An individual who engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is under the age of eighteen is guilty of statutory rape." At trial, Ron's attorney argues that Ron made an honest and reasonable mistake that Lisa was in fact eighteen years old, and was therefore not a minor. What is the most likely outcome of this case? A. Ron will likely be found not guilty of statutory rape because his mistake was honest and reasonable based on the fact that Lisa told him she was eighteen and had modified her social media profile to appear that she was eighteen years old. B. Ron will likely be found not guilty because the prosecution will not be able to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. C. Ron will likely be convicted of statutory rape because the prosecution will be able to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. D. Ron will likely be found not guilty because his mistake was honest and it does not need to be reasonable because this is a specific intent crime. 14. A carpenter was using a nail gun in the construction of a small outdoor deck on a house. The carpenter knew that the nail gun could fire a nail with sufficient force to kill a human being at close range. Aware of the presence of three other carpenters on the other side of the nearly finished deck, one of whom the carpenter disliked, the carpenter fired the nail gun twice at a table located between himself and the other three carpenters. The first nail from the gun struck the table but the second nail, ricocheting off the table, struck and killed the disliked carpenter. At trial, a jury, based on this evidence, found the carpenter guilty of murder. If the carpenter appeals his conviction on the grounds that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction, how should the appellate court rule? A. Affirm the conviction, because the evidence is sufficient to establish that the carpenter acted with criminal negligence. B. Affirm the conviction, because the evidence is sufficient to establish that the carpenter acted with malice. C. Overturn the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but can support an involuntary manslaughter conviction. D. Overturn the conviction and remand for a new trial, because the evidence is not sufficient for murder but can support a voluntary manslaughter conviction. 15. A car was parked in front of a man's house for a week without being moved. The man honestly but unreasonably believed that the car had been abandoned. He found a spare key attached to the underside of the car and, using that key, drove the car into his driveway, intending to make it his own. Several days later, the car's owner returned. Seeing his car in the man's driveway, the owner notified the police. The man was charged with larceny. Taking abandoned property is not a crime under the laws of the jurisdiction. Should the man be convicted of larceny? A. No, because taking abandoned property is not a crime. B. No, because the man's mistake was honestly made. C. Yes, because an honest mistake of law does not negate the man's mens rea. D. Yes, because the man's mistake was unreasonable. 16. A homeowner was selling illegal drugs out of his house, which was located in a well-heeled suburban neighborhood. A customer, knowing that the homeowner likely had a large amount of cash from selling drugs, knocked on the homeowner's door. When the homeowner opened the door upon recognizing the customer, the customer pulled out a toy pistol that looked like a real gun and demanded money. The customer followed the homeowner inside and over to a table in the entryway with a drawer in which the homeowner told the customer there was money. The homeowner instead pulled a gun out of the drawer and shot and killed the customer. The homeowner is arrested and charged with murder. The jurisdiction does not follow the "duty to retreat doctrine." Should the homeowner be convicted of the customer's murder? A. No, because it was reasonable for the homeowner to believe that his life was at risk. B. No, because he honestly believed that his life was at risk. C. Yes, because the customer was not armed with a deadly weapon. D. Yes, because the homeowner was committing a crime by selling the drugs and therefore was not privileged to use self-defense. 17. A man placed an advertisement on an internet website offering to sell a rare coin in return for $50,000. A woman responded to the advertisement, met the man, inspected the coin, and offered to buy it. The man told her that others had expressed an interest in the coin, but that she could have it if she paid a $15,000 cash deposit within one day, with the balance paid by the end of the week. The woman came back the next day and gave the $15,000 to the man, who promised to give her the coin later that week in return for the balance of the purchase price. The man took the $15,000 and promptly flew out of state with the coin, which he never intended to sell in the first place. With which of the following crimes can the man properly be charged? A. Larceny by trick B. Embezzlement C. False pretenses D. None of the above 18. A runner was in the midst of his morning run when the defendant jumped out from behind a bush and tripped the runner, intending to steal the runner's wallet. The runner was not carrying a wallet, however. Frustrated, the defendant tore off the runner's hat. The runner tried to grab the hat back from the defendant, but the defendant pulled it away and ran off. The struggle caused the defendant to lose his balance, and he dropped the hat a few feet from the runner. The runner then picked up his hat and completed his run. What is the most serious crime for which the defendant may be convicted? FYI, the crimes below are listed in order from least serious (A) to most serious (D). A. Attempted larceny B. Larceny C. Battery D. Robbery 19. One night, a man, having "cased" a residence and watched the occupants of the residence leave, broke a window and climbed inside the residence in order to steal whatever easily portable items of value he could find inside. After gathering a number of such items, including a loaded gun, the man was preparing to leave when a resident unexpectedly returned. The man, in his haste to get away, dropped the gun just as the resident entered the room where the man was. The resident was struck and killed by a bullet when the gun fired upon hitting the floor. Can the man properly be convicted of felony murder? A. No, because the resident's death was accidental. B. No, because the man did not have the intent to kill the resident at the time he entered the residence. C. Yes, because the killing occurred during the commission of a burglary. D. Yes, because the commission of the burglary was premeditated. 20. The owner of a new car ridiculed his neighbor who owned an older car that had a lot of mechanical problems. One night, the neighbor, aware that the owner's spouse was out-of-town for the week and that her car was available for the owner to use, took the new car from the owner's driveway when the owner had gone to sleep and hid the car in the neighbor's garage. The neighbor intended to return the car when the owner's spouse returned. The next morning, the owner, suspecting his neighbor took the new car, called the police, who found the new car in the neighbor's garage. Can the neighbor properly be convicted of larceny? A. No, because the neighbor intended to return the new car. B. No, because the neighbor did not take the new car from the owner's driveway in the owner's presence. C. Yes, because the neighbor removed the new car from the owner's driveway without the owner's permission. D. Yes, because the neighbor acted intentionally, even though the owner did not suffer harm from the loss of his car