It is widely acknowledged that unless there is a specific duty to act, an omission ordinarily does not satisfy the actus reus requirement in criminal law. Which of the following is NOT one of the explanations for this “no duty” rule?

Which of the following statements about the insanity defense is least accurate?

D wounded V in a fight. V went to the hospital for treatment for the wound, which was serious, but not mortal. As a result of the physician’s gross medical malpractice, V died. Under the common law, D’s best argument to avoid criminal homicide liability is:

Derek had a severe drinking problem that caused him to miss work frequently. When Derek was fired from work due to his absences, he headed to the bar for a drink. As the day progressed, Derek became more an1 more inebriated. After several hours of drinking, Derek staggered out of the bar, bought a bottle of vodka at a nearby liquor store, and went home to continue drinking.After drinking vodka for a few more hours, Derek called his ex-girlfriend, Victoria, at her apartment. When a male voice ar1swered the phone, Derek hung up. Enraged at the thought of Victoria dating another man, Derek took a cab to her apartment. When Derek knocked on the door, Victoria’s friend, Albert, opened it. Derek immediately attacked him. After wrestling around for several minutes, Derek pushed Albert away. Albert fell backward awkwardly, hitting his head on a large, iron doorknob, and fracturing his skull. During this entire course of events, Derek was so inebriated that he subsequently had no recollection of anything that happened after he left the bar. Derek is charged with aggravated battery, a crime which requires that the defendant “make physical contact with another person with intent to inflict great bodily harm.” Which statement most accurately describes the role of Derek’ s intoxication in his defense?

QUESTION THREE (40 minutes) Darla Defendant was waiting at home for her spouse, Sam, to return from a bike ride. Suddenly, she heard from down the street the sound of screeching automobile tires, followed immediately by a loud metallic crash. She ran out and down the street to see what happened, arriving moments later to find Sam’s mangled bicycle next to a car that had apparently struck it, then jumped the curb and crashed into a tree. Sam, having been struck by the car, lay dead nearby. She then saw, emerging unsteadily from the car, a noticeably intoxicated man. Darla realized immediately that this was Ned Neighbor, who lived down at the other end of the street, and that the car smashed against the tree was one that she had often seen driven by Ned. Looking back at Sam, lying dead on the ground, and then at the bleary, drunken Ned, Darla screamed, “I’ll kill you!” She launched herself at Ned, knocking him to the ground. With her knees on Ned’s chest and one hand on his throat, she grabbed a nearby rock and smashed him repeatedly in the head. In a few seconds, it was all over – Ned was dead. A. Using the substantive provisions of Anhedonia law, and in light of the background principles of the common law, of what form of homicide, if any, is Defendant guilty? The manslaughter provisions of Anhedonia appeared in connection with Question 2A. In addition to those provisions, § 100 of the Anhedonia Criminal Code may be relevant to your analysis. It states: MURDER (10 A. S. A. § 100)Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder is murder in the first degree; all other murder is murder in the second degree. (12.5) B. How, if at all, would your analysis of Defendant’s homicide liability change if, instead of the Anhedonia provisions, Defendant’s charges were subject to the substantive homicide provisions of the Model Penal Code? Explain. (12.5) C. Assume the applicability of the same facts used in this Question, except that subsequent investigation revealed that Ned was merely a passenger in the car that struck Sam. Ned was asleep (passed out) in the passenger seat at the time of the crash. Although Defendant didn’t know this at the time, the car had actually been driven by Ned’s wife, Wanda, at the time of the accident. How, if at all, does this affect your analysis set out in Part A of this Question? How, if at all does it affect your analysis of Part B (under the Model Penal Code)? Putting aside the doctrinal content of the applicable legal rules, should this factual variation change the analysis of Defendant’s homicide liability? Explain. (15)

The nurse is caring for clients on a cardiac surgical unit.  Which of the following tasks is most appropriate to delegate to the nursing assistant?

____________ is drained by subclavian vein

Tiny hair/projections called fimbriae keep mucus and dirt out of your lungs.

What structure is #1 referring to?   

The urinary system