Question 1

Voluntary renunciation is a legal defense to charges of both criminal attempt and criminal conspiracy.

Accepted Answer

Voluntary renunciation occurs when a defendant voluntarily abandons their effort to commit a crime, or withdraws from their involvement in a criminal conspiracy. It is considered a legal defense, as it may show that the defendant lacked the intent to commit the crime or that they took affirmative actions to prevent the crime from occurring. This defense is generally only available if the defendant voluntarily and completely renounced their criminal efforts or involvement, and took steps to prevent the crime from occurring.

Question 2

Rachel asks her brother Carl,"Will you do something for me?" "Anything for you dear sister," Carl responds.Rachel says,"I want you to kill a co-worker of mine so I can take her job." "No way am I killing anybody!" Carl responds."In that case,I will find someone else to handle the job," says Rachel.Concerned that Rachel will indeed find someone to carry out her plan,Carl reports the conversation to the police.Rachel has committed:

Accepted Answer

Rachel has committed criminal solicitation, which is the act of inciting, counseling, urging, or commanding another person to commit a crime. Even though Carl rejected her request, her solicitation still qualifies as a criminal offense. The fact that murder is a felony of the first degree reinforces the classification of Rachel's solicitation as criminal.

Question 3

For a criminal attempt to occur,the suspect must engage in some act that amounts to more than mere preparation to commit the desired crime but fails to effect its commission.

Accepted Answer

This is the legal definition of criminal attempt. Mere preparation to commit a crime is not enough for an attempt charge, but there must be some overt act that shows the suspect was taking steps towards committing the crime, even if they ultimately failed to carry it out.

Question 4

John and Marsha are undergoing a bitter divorce.The process has been long and difficult and it appears to John that the divorce will never become final.He decides to hasten matters along.John contacts Bill,a previously convicted felon,and offers Bill $5,000 to kill Marsha.Bill agrees to kill Marsha.John pays him $2,500 as a down payment for the act.Unknown to John,Bill is an informant for the local sheriff's department and has absolutely no intention of killing Marsha.He immediately reports the entire incident to the sheriff's department.Which of the following statements is correct about this situation?

Accepted Answer

John is guilty of criminal solicitation because he requested Bill to commit capital murder. The fact that Bill was an informant and did not intend to carry out the murder does not affect John's guilt for soliciting the crime. The down payment also provides evidence of John's intent to carry out the murder, making him guilty of attempted capital murder as well.

Question 5

Under Texas law,a husband and wife team who commits a burglary can be convicted of burglary but cannot be convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary because a married couple is treated as one legal person in the eyes of the law.Thus,no conspiracy of two or more persons exists.

Accepted Answer

While Texas law does treat a married couple as one legal entity in some contexts, such as property ownership and liability, it does not mean that a husband and wife cannot be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime. The Texas Penal Code specifically states that a person can be charged with conspiracy if they "agree with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense..." Therefore, a husband and wife who plan and execute a burglary together could potentially be charged with both burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary.

Question 6

The legal principle known as Wharton's Rule states that an agreement to commit a particular crime cannot be prosecuted as a conspiracy when the crime is of such a nature as to necessarily require two persons for its commission.

Accepted Answer

This is the correct definition of Wharton's Rule. It applies to crimes that require a specific number of participants to be committed, such as bigamy or dueling. Conspiracy charges cannot be brought against two individuals who agree to commit the crime because the crime itself requires at least two people to be involved, and therefore does not meet the definition of a conspiracy.

Question 7

Under Texas law,an object does NOT fit the definition of a "criminal instrument" if:

Accepted Answer

According to Texas law, an object does not fit the definition of a "criminal instrument" if it has a legitimate use. Therefore, choice A is the best choice.

Question 8

A criminal attempt is distinguished from the actual commission of an offense intended by the lack of a mens rea requirement in proving criminal attempt.

Accepted Answer

A mens rea, or guilty mind, is still required to prove criminal attempt. The individual must have intended to commit the offense, even if they ultimately failed to do so.

Question 9

The Texas Penal Code does not contain a traditional statute outlawing the possession of burglar tools.Rather,the use of specialized tools for committing a burglary would be a violation of which of the following statutes?

Accepted Answer

The statute that outlaws the use of specialized tools for committing a burglary is the unlawful use of a criminal instrument. Therefore, Choice D is the best answer. Choices A and C are incorrect because they do not pertain to the use of burglar tools, while Choice B pertains to the possession of instruments of crime, not specifically burglar tools.

Question 10

Alice plans to murder Theodore.She buys a pistol and ammunition.At this point she has committed attempted murder regardless of whether she takes additional steps to cause Theodore's death.

Accepted Answer

Alice has not yet committed attempted murder as she has only purchased a weapon and not taken any action towards causing Theodore's death. Attempted murder requires a substantial step towards the commission of the crime, such as pointing the gun at Theodore or making a specific plan to kill him.

Question 11

The legal principle known as the Pinkerton Rule holds all members of a conspiracy legally accountable for the foreseeable criminal acts of the other members.

Accepted Answer

The Pinkerton Rule holds all members of a conspiracy criminally responsible for the foreseeable acts committed by other members of the conspiracy in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Question 12

Alvin,Theodore,and Raymond decide to rob a convenience store.They enter the store,demand money,and escape with their loot.They are subsequently identified and arrested.At trial,each of the three could be found guilty of robbery but cannot be found guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery because they successfully completed the intended crime.

Accepted Answer

The statement is false. Even if the crime was carried out successfully, the individuals can still be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery if it can be proven that they had planned and agreed to commit the crime beforehand.

Question 13

Under Texas law,a criminal conspiracy requires three or more persons to agree to commit a felony or Class A misdemeanor and at least one of them to commit an overt act in furtherance of that felony.

Accepted Answer

Under Texas law, a criminal conspiracy requires two or more persons to agree to commit a felony and at least one of them to perform an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.

Question 14

No matter how hard one tries,a person cannot conspire by oneself.

Accepted Answer

Conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or to accomplish a legal end by unlawful means, so one cannot conspire alone.

Question 15

Which of the following items constitutes a "criminal instrument" under Texas law?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following items constitutes a...

Question 16

Inherent impossibility is a defense to a charge of criminal attempt.

Accepted Answer

Inherent impossibility means that the defendant's intended crime is not possible to commit, regardless of the defendant's actions. In such cases, the defendant cannot be convicted of attempted crime because the crime was inherently impossible.

Question 17

Carlos decides to steal an expensive Italian sports car.He breaks into the vehicle but is unable to start the vehicle due to its high tech ignition disabling system.In fact,once the system initiates,the true owner cannot even start the vehicle with the key.Despite Carlos's efforts he is unable to steal the car.Carlos can NOT be convicted of attempted theft because it was physically impossible for him or anyone else to actually steal the automobile.

Accepted Answer

Carlos can be convicted of attempted theft because his intent and actions to commit the crime were present, even though the theft was not completed due to an external circumstance (the high tech ignition disabling system). The legal principle of attempt does not require the crime to be successful or even possible, just that the individual took a substantial step towards committing the crime with the intent to complete it.

Question 18

The plurality requirement renders it impossible to convict a person of criminal conspiracy if all other members of the alleged conspiracy previously have been found not guilty.

Accepted Answer

The plurality requirement states that a conspiracy requires at least two individuals to agree and work together towards a criminal goal. If all other members of the alleged conspiracy have been found not guilty, then there is no longer a conspiracy to hold the remaining individual accountable for. Therefore, it is impossible to convict a person of criminal conspiracy if all other members have been cleared.

Question 19

Under Texas law,the term "criminal combination" refers to two or more urban gangs conspiring to commit a felony.

Accepted Answer

The term "criminal combination" in Texas law refers more broadly to three or more persons collaborating in carrying on criminal activities, not limited to urban gangs or the specific intent to commit a felony.

Question 20

The legal principle known as the Pinkerton Rule bars a private detective from testifying at the criminal trial of another private detective.

Accepted Answer

The Pinkerton Rule, also known as the vicarious liability rule, holds a corporate entity responsible for the criminal acts of its agents or employees committed within the scope of their employment. It does not relate to private detectives testifying at each other's criminal trials.

Quiz 14: Preparatory Offenses and Organized Criminal Activity