Forming the intent to commit a crime satisfies the mens rea for the crime of attempt, but does not constitute a "substantial step," which speaks to the actus reus. The rest are recognized by the MPC as indicating a strong possibility that a substantial step has been taken.
Forming the intent to commit the crime.
Enticing the intended victim to go to the place contemplated for commission of the crime.
Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime.
Searching for or following the intended victim.
while the other answers could all supply the mental state for the crime of murder, the intent to kill is the only mental state that will suffice for attempted murder.
The intent to kill.
A depraved heart.
All of these.
The intent to seriously injure.
Attempt is a specific intent crime in that one must intend to achieve the target offense.
a general intent crime.
a specific intent crime.
a recklessness crime.
a strict liability crime.
Inchoate crimes mean actions that are criminally proscribed even though a completed crime has not yet happened. Since involuntary manslaughter is a completed crime, it therefore cannot be an inchoate crime.
The requisite mental state for attempted murder is the intent to kill. The only person Darius intended to kill was Arthur, so he is the only one for which Darius would be guilty of attempted murder. Since Betty died as a result of being shot, Darius would be guilty of the murder of Betty, not attempted murder. As for Carl, Darius would be guilty of the battery of Carl, but not attempted murder, since Darius did not intend to kill Carl.
Arthur, Betty, and Carl.
Arthur and Carl.
legal impossibility is a defense to all crimes, but factual impossibility is a defense to specific intent crimes only.
legal impossibility is a situation where the defendant did everything he intended to do but yet had not committed a crime because the act was not criminal, whereas factual impossibility is that in which the defendant is unable to accomplish what he intends because of some facts unknown to him.
only factual impossibility is inherently unlikely to result or culminate in the commission of a crime.
legal impossibility is not a defense to a charge of attempt, but factual impossibility is a defense.
is the same as the usual statement of abandonment employed by jurisdictions.
is that a renunciation is voluntary if motivated only in part by circumstances that increase the probability of detection or apprehension.
is narrower than the usual statement that there must be no outside cause.
requires that a defendant's abandonment occurs under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.
As pointed out in the Hornbook, some jurisdictions provide that the penalty for attempt is the same as for the completed crime.
The punishment for attempt may never be the same as the punishment for the completed crime.
Some codes establish categories according to the severity of the penalty for the completed crime and specify a range of penalties for attempts to commit crimes within each category.
Modern recodifications of the law of attempt commonly declare the attempt to be a crime one degree below the object crime.
A defendant may be convicted of the attempt even if the completed crime is proved.
As stated in the Hornbook, "Conversion for embezzlement purposes is not different from conversion for tort purposes. A conversion of property requires a serious act of interference with the owner's rights." Moving property a short distance will not suffice for embezzlement, (although it would for larceny), and one is not a converter unless his acts are intentional (as distinguished from merely negligent.
It requires a serious act of interference with the property owner's right.
One whose act is merely negligent is a converter for embezzlement purposes.
The mere act of moving the property, even slightly, is sufficient.
It is significantly different than that which is required for conversion in tort.
The fraudulent conversion of personal property of another by means of false representations.
The trespassory conversion of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive, and after obtaining possession by means of written or oral lies and/or promises.
The fraudulent misrepresentation of information that leads to the passing of title to another.
A false representation of a material present or past fact that causes the victim to pass title to his property to the wrongdoer who knows his representation to be false and intends thereby to defraud the victim.
Under modern law, there must be asportation of property.
No state allows false pretenses to apply to real property.
No state allows false pretenses to apply to services.
Under original English Law, property had to be tangible personal property or money.
One who has the right of possession of an apartment for 3 years is guilty of false pretenses if he subleases the apartment by falsely stating that he has the right of possession for 2 years, and he intended to defraud.
One who borrows money intending to pay it back is still guilty of false pretenses if he later intentionally absconds with the money in order not to repay.
It must be in writing.
If one states as fact that a stone is high grade gold, believing that it is "fools" gold, he is not guilty of false representations if the stone turns out to be high grade gold.
Receiving stolen property, knowing the property is stolen, with the intent to deprive the owner of the property and to reap financial gain through sale of the property.
Receiving stolen property, knowing the property is stolen, with the intent to deprive the owner of the property.
Receiving stolen property, regardless of whether the recipient knows the property is stolen.
Receiving stolen property, knowing the property is stolen.
According to the Hornbook, "In most jurisdictions, the punishment for receiving stolen property is the same as for larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses."
Receiving stolen property is usually punished less harshly than other theft crimes.
There is no set pattern that can be established on how most jurisdictions punish the various theft crimes.
Receiving stolen property is usually punished more harshly than other theft crimes.
It is generally the same as the punishment for other theft crimes.
選擇要在Apple App Store上查看的Topgrade應用程序。