Question
A) The Prosecution:
Marcus is 14 years old. He grew up in a broken home. He had no parents who cared for him and no grandparents alive to support him. The only so-called "friends" he hung out with were local gang members who once threatened to harm him if he did not join their street gang called the History Hoodz. On Saturday night, Marcus began his final act of initiation to join the History Hoodz of Memphis. To be an official member, he had to kill someone. Marcus did not want to kill anyone, but he was afraid the gang would end up killing him if he refused to participate. Marcus drove around that night looking for potential victims with three other gang members in the car to ensure he did the deed. Finally, Marcus saw a Cadillac Escalade pull into the driveway of a home. Marcus parked the car, ran up to the driver got out of the car, and shot the driver, killing them. He ran back into the car and drove away.
The police porch camera recorded the incident and witnesses nearby helped police determine that Marcus committed the murder.
Which of the following answer choices can the defense counsel argue against the defendant? Choose all that are correct.
a
Accomplice liability- Marcus was an accomplice to the murder because he drove the car
b
Actus reus- the shooting and killing of the driver
c
Mens rea- Marcus “knowingly” & “purposefully” murdered another person
d
Mala in se- the commission of murder
Question 19 (5 points)
A) The Defense:
Marcus is 14 years old. He grew up in a broken home. He had no parents who cared for him and no grandparents alive to support him. The only so-called "friends" he hung out with were local gang members who once threatened to harm him if he did not join their street gang called the History Hoodz. On Saturday night, Marcus began his final act of initiation to join the History Hoodz of Memphis. To be an official member, he had to kill someone. Marcus did not want to kill anyone, but he was afraid the gang would end up killing him if he refused to participate. Marcus drove around that night looking for potential victims with three other gang members in the car to ensure he did the deed. Finally, Marcus saw a Cadillac Escalade pull into the driveway of a home. Marcus parked the car, ran up to the driver got out of the car, and shot the driver, killing them. He ran back into the car and drove away.
The police porch camera recorded the incident and witnesses nearby helped police determine that Marcus committed the murder.
Which of the following answer choices can the defense counsel argue on behalf of the defendant? Choose all that are correct.
a
Insanity- Marcus is clearly insane for wanting to join a gang by killing innocent people.
b
Duress- Marcus was threatened with immediate, serious harm if he did not successfully pass the gang initiation by murdering someone.
c
Self-defense- Marcus was threatened by the gang if he did not murder someone, so he decided to murder the innocent driver arriving at their home in self-defense.
d
Infancy- Marcus is 14 years old and could not fully understand the consequences of his actions.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
### The Prosecution:
In this scenario, the prosecution would likely focus on the facts of the case to establish that Marcus is responsible for the murder he committed. Here are the relevant elements they might use:
- **a) Accomplice liability - Marcus was an accomplice to the murder because he drove the car**: This statement is not applicable to the prosecution's argument regarding Marcus being the principal actor in the murder. The prosecution would argue that Marcus is the principal, not merely an accomplice.
- **b) Actus reus - the shooting and killing of the driver**: Correct. The prosecution would argue that Marcus's act of shooting and killing the driver constitutes the actus reus of the crime.
- **c) Mens rea - Marcus "knowingly" & "purposefully" murdered another person**: Correct. The prosecution would argue that Marcus had the requisite mens rea, as he knowingly and purposefully carried out the act of murder.
- **d) Mala in se - the commission of murder**: Correct. The prosecution can argue that murder is considered mala in se, which means it is inherently wrong or evil.
### The Defense:
In this scenario, the defense counsel would likely argue various legal defenses based on Marcus’s circumstances and actions. Here are the relevant options:
- **a) Insanity - Marcus is clearly insane for wanting to join a gang by killing innocent people**: This argument is weak. Seeking to join a gang doesn't necessarily equate to legal insanity.
- **b) Duress - Marcus was threatened with immediate, serious harm if he did not successfully pass the gang initiation by murdering someone**: Correct. The defense could argue that Marcus acted under duress, fearing for his life if he did not comply with the gang's demands.
- **c) Self-defense - Marcus was threatened by the gang if he did not murder someone, so he decided to murder the innocent driver arriving at their home in self-defense**: This is not a valid argument in this context. Self-defense typically applies to situations where one is defending oneself against an immediate threat, not where one is compelled to commit a crime.
- **d) Infancy - Marcus is 14 years old and could not fully understand the consequences of his actions**: Correct. The defense could argue that due to his age, Marcus may not have fully understood the consequences of his actions, which is a classic defense for minors.
### Answers Summary
**Prosecution:**
- b
- c
- d
**Defense:**
- b
- d
In this scenario, the prosecution would likely focus on the facts of the case to establish that Marcus is responsible for the murder he committed. Here are the relevant elements they might use:
- **a) Accomplice liability - Marcus was an accomplice to the murder because he drove the car**: This statement is not applicable to the prosecution's argument regarding Marcus being the principal actor in the murder. The prosecution would argue that Marcus is the principal, not merely an accomplice.
- **b) Actus reus - the shooting and killing of the driver**: Correct. The prosecution would argue that Marcus's act of shooting and killing the driver constitutes the actus reus of the crime.
- **c) Mens rea - Marcus "knowingly" & "purposefully" murdered another person**: Correct. The prosecution would argue that Marcus had the requisite mens rea, as he knowingly and purposefully carried out the act of murder.
- **d) Mala in se - the commission of murder**: Correct. The prosecution can argue that murder is considered mala in se, which means it is inherently wrong or evil.
### The Defense:
In this scenario, the defense counsel would likely argue various legal defenses based on Marcus’s circumstances and actions. Here are the relevant options:
- **a) Insanity - Marcus is clearly insane for wanting to join a gang by killing innocent people**: This argument is weak. Seeking to join a gang doesn't necessarily equate to legal insanity.
- **b) Duress - Marcus was threatened with immediate, serious harm if he did not successfully pass the gang initiation by murdering someone**: Correct. The defense could argue that Marcus acted under duress, fearing for his life if he did not comply with the gang's demands.
- **c) Self-defense - Marcus was threatened by the gang if he did not murder someone, so he decided to murder the innocent driver arriving at their home in self-defense**: This is not a valid argument in this context. Self-defense typically applies to situations where one is defending oneself against an immediate threat, not where one is compelled to commit a crime.
- **d) Infancy - Marcus is 14 years old and could not fully understand the consequences of his actions**: Correct. The defense could argue that due to his age, Marcus may not have fully understood the consequences of his actions, which is a classic defense for minors.
### Answers Summary
**Prosecution:**
- b
- c
- d
**Defense:**
- b
- d