Christopher is a terrorist. He wants to blow up a bank in order to make a political statement about the impact of “overblown capitalism.” He does not actually want people to die, but he realizes people will almost certainly die if he blows the bank up during a work day. But he thinks it is worth the loss of lives to make a big statement. If he tries to set off a bomb at a bank at 10:30 a.m. on a Tuesday, but the bomb doesn’t go off, is Christopher guilty of attempted murder under the Model Penal Code? (See MPC § 5.01.)

Michael has been convicted of the homicide of “felony child abuse resulting in death.” The evidence presented at trial establishes that on May 2, 2024, while Michael was at work, his three-year-old son, Camden, fell down a set of stairs, resulting in a large bruise on the front of his head. The evidence also establishes that on May 3, 2024, Michael lost his temper with Camden and shoved him hard from behind, causing Camden to fall and again hit the front of his head. Camden died of a brain bleed on May 4, 2024. At trial, the medical examiner testified that either incident could have caused the brain bleed resulting in Camden’s death or that the combined effect of the two incidents could have caused the brain bleed, but that it was impossible to state, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, which event(s) caused Camden’s brain bleed. *Michael asserts on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for “felony child abuse resulting in death.” How should the appellate court rule and why? (Assume that shoving Camden and thereby causing him to hit his head constitutes “felony child abuse.”) (2-3 sentences)

Teresa stole Jerry’s new cell phone with the incorrect belief that it had a value of $600, when it actually had a value of $800. The law of Teresa’s MPC jurisdiction defines misdemeanor theft to include “purposely or knowingly depriving another of property having a value less than $750,” whereas felony theft is defined to include “purposely or knowingly depriving another of property having a value of $750 or more.” Under the MPC, if Teresa can convince the jury (at her trial) that she sincerely believed that Jerry’s new phone had a value of $600, which crime should she be convicted of? (See MPC § 2.04.)

In September of 2024, John and Matt got into a huge argument about the upcoming presidential election. John got so frustrated that he shoved Matt. Matt (who had been drinking) lost his balance, fell backward, and hit his head on a granite countertop. Matt developed a brain bleed that led to his death. If John is prosecuted for homicide in a traditional common law jurisdiction, which crime(s) could he potentially be convicted of?

What is the “rule of lenity” (also known as, “the lenity doctrine”)? Summarize this rule and explain the context in which it applies. (1-2 sentences)

Albert is the leader of a local gang. The gang earns money by selling drugs, and all of its members agree to help in this regard. Brad and Carl are members of the gang, and both get caught selling drugs (after Albert tells them to sell at particular places). Dennis, who is also a member of the gang, is instructed by Albert to threaten a witness, who is expected to testify against Brad and Carl, that she had better not testify. Dennis does so. Brad and Carl did not request this threat and only learn about it later. Of what crime(s) can the four men lawfully be convicted under the traditional common law approach? Pick the best answer.

Allen has recently become friends with Cade and Jake. Allen isn’t comfortable with their involvement in criminal activities, but he thinks that they are cool and values being friends with them. When Cade and Jake tell Allen that they are going to do an armed robbery of a jewelry store and need his help, Allen reluctantly agrees. Allen’s job is to walk in and hand the storeowner a note stating, “If you don’t do anything stupid, we will let you live.” Then the other two will come in and complete the robbery. Just before Allen is supposed to enter the store, he changes his mind and tells Cade and Jake that he is “out” and won’t do it. Cade then holds a gun to Allen’s head and says, “You better read that note yourself.” Still shaking, Allen enters the jewelry store and hands the store owner the note. As Cade and Jake rush in, however, the burglar alarm goes off. All three run out, but they are soon apprehended. Does Allen have a valid defense of duress (to a charge of attempted armed robbery) under the Model Penal Code (MPC § 2.09)?

Kendall was hiking in the Colorado mountains in April when an unexpected snowstorm developed. Kendall did not have adequate clothing with him and was 7 miles from his car when the storm came in. He took shelter in Stacey’s cabin in the woods. (Stacey lives in Denver, two hours away.) If he is prosecuted for trespass, what traditional common law defense(s) could Kendall plausibly establish? Pick the best answer.

Tim is an overnight security guard at a mall. Tim’s friend, Steve, works at a “Stepping Out” shoe store in the mall. Steve notices that the shoe store owner often forgets to lock the door that exits to the parking lot at the end of the day. It is Tim’s job to double-check that all mall doors that exit to the parking lot have been properly locked each night. Steve mentions to Tim that it would be easy for him to rip off Stepping Out, “as long as the mall cop stayed away.” One Tuesday night, Steve texts Tim: “This would be a good night to forget to check the door.” Tim sees the message. He does not respond, but he also doesn’t check the shoe store door. When Steve checks the door later that night, he finds it still open, goes in, and steals merchandise. Under the common law, is Tim guilty of theft (stealing)? Be sure to fully explain your answer (addressing both mens rea and actus reus). (4-5 sentences)

It is late at night, and Lea is walking to her car alone when she hears someone behind her. It is a man, and he seems to be following her. Lea starts walking faster, but so does he. She starts to run, and the man begins to run after her. When Lea looks back, she sees that he is holding a knife. Fortunately, Lea makes it to her car, jumps in, and locks the doors just before the man reaches her car. He tries to open her passenger-side front door and begins pounding on the window of that door, still holding the knife. Lea gets a small pistol out of her glove box. She realizes that she could safely drive away, but she is convinced that she is justified in shooting this dangerous man, and she lives in a state that takes a “stand your ground” approach to self-defense. So, Lea prepares herself, opens her driver-side front door, stands up, and shoots the man (who is still next to her passenger-side front door). He dies. Does Lea have a valid self-defense claim under state law (i.e., “stand your ground”)? What about self-defense under the traditional common law?