Question

A. Are James and/or Kevin criminally liable for the death of the homeowner, Mabel? If so, with what crimes will they be charged and under what theory? What is the applicable mens rea? Does it matter that his death was partially caused by improper medical treatment? According to what you have learned from your book and modules, why or why not?

a) James and Kevin are not criminally liable for Mabel's death
b) James and Kevin are criminally liable for Mabel's death; charged with burglary and manslaughter
c) James is not criminally liable; only Kevin is responsible
d) James and Kevin are criminally liable for Mabel's death; charged with burglary and murder

b. Are James and/or Kevin liable for the death of the motorist, Franco, driving the vehicle James’s vehicle hit? If so, with what crimes will they be charged and under what theory? What is the applicable mens rea?

a) James and Kevin are not criminally liable for Franco's death
b) James and Kevin are criminally liable for Franco's death; charged with vehicular manslaughter
c) Only Kevin is criminally liable for Franco's death
d) James and Kevin are criminally liable for Franco's death; charged with reckless driving and manslaughter

c. Is Kevin criminally liable for the death of the motorist, Axel, who was beating James with what crimes will he be charged? Does he have any defenses to those charges? Assuming a jury believed that the motorist was not using deadly force on Doe but that Bobby, intending to cause great bodily harm, used deadly force on the motorist, for what crime would he be convicted?

a) Kevin is not criminally liable for Axel's death
b) Kevin is criminally liable for Axel's death; charged with manslaughter
c) Kevin has a valid self-defense claim for Axel's death
d) Kevin is criminally liable for Axel's death; charged with murder

Answer 1

James and Kevin are not criminally liable for Mabel's death. They are criminally liable for Franco's death due to reckless driving and manslaughter. Kevin is not criminally liable for Axel's death as he may have a valid self-defense claim.

Step-by-step explanation:

a) James and Kevin are not criminally liable for Mabel's death. The death of Mabel was partially caused by improper medical treatment, which would be considered a superseding cause. In order for someone to be held criminally liable, there must be a causal connection between their actions and the result. Since the death was not directly caused by their actions, they would not be charged with any crimes in relation to Mabel's death.

b) James and Kevin are criminally liable for Franco's death; charged with reckless driving and manslaughter. James's vehicle hit Franco, resulting in his death. Reckless driving refers to operating a vehicle without reasonable caution and is considered a criminal offense. Manslaughter refers to unintentionally causing someone's death due to recklessness or negligence. Both James and Kevin can be charged with these crimes.

c) Kevin is not criminally liable for Axel's death. Axel was beating James, and Kevin defended James by using deadly force. In this scenario, Kevin may have a valid self-defense claim since he was protecting another person from harm. He would not be charged with any crimes in relation to Axel's death.