CHAPTER 6
QUESTIONS
1. Sam said to Carol, “Kim is going to sell me a good used car next Monday; then I’ll deliver it to you in exchange for your microcomputer, but I’d like to have the computer now.” Relying on this statement, Carol delivered the computer to Sam. Sam knew Kim had no car, and would have none in the future, and he had no such arrangement with her. The appointed time of exchange passed and Sam failed to deliver the car to Carol. Has a crime been committed? Discuss.
2. Sara, a lawyer, drew a deed for Robert by which Robert was to convey land to Rick. The deed was correct in every detail. Robert examined and verbally approved it but did not sign it. Sara erased Rick’s name and substituted her own. Robert signed the deed with all required legal formalities without noticing the change. Was Sara guilty of forgery? Discuss.
3. Ann took Bonnie’s watch before Bonnie was aware of the theft. Bonnie discovered her loss immediately and pursued Ann. Ann pointed a loaded pistol at Bonnie, who, in fear of being shot, allowed Ann to escape. Was Ann guilty of robbery? Of any other crime?
4. Jones and Wilson were on trial, separately, for larceny of a $10,000 bearer bond (payable to the holder of the bond, not a named individual) issued by Brown, Inc.
The Commonwealth’s evidence showed that the owner of the bond had dropped it accidentally in the street enclosed in an envelope bearing his name and address; that Jones found the envelope with the bond in it; that Jones could neither read nor write; that Jones presented the envelope and bond to Wilson, an educated man, and asked Wilson what he should do with it; that Wilson told Jones that the finder of lost property becomes the owner of it; that Wilson told Jones that the bond was worth $1,000 but that the money could only be collected at the issuer’s home office; that Jones then handed the bond to Wilson, who redeemed it at the corporation’s home office and received $10,000; and that Wilson gave Jones $1,000 of the proceeds. What rulings?
5. Truck drivers for a hauling company, while loading a desk, found a $100 bill that had fallen out of the desk.
They agreed to get it exchanged for small bills and divide the proceeds. En route to a bank, one of them changed his mind and refused to proceed with the scheme, where- upon the other pulled a knife and demanded the bill. A police officer intervened. It turned out that the bill was counterfeit money. What crimes have been committed?
6. Peter, an undercover police agent, was trying to locate a laboratory where it was believed that methamphetamine, or “speed”—a controlled substance—was being manufactured illegally. Peter went to Mary’s home and said that he represented a large organization that was interested in obtaining methamphetamine. Peter offered to supply a necessary ingredient for the manufacture of the drug, which was very difficult to obtain, in return for one-half of the drug produced. Mary agreed and processed the chemical given to her by Peter in Peter’s presence. Later, Peter returned with a search war- rant and arrested Mary. Charged with various narcotics law violations, Mary asserted the defense of entrapment. Should Mary prevail? Why or why not?
7. The police obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit that contained the following allegations: (a) Donald was seen crossing a State line on four occasions during a five-day period and going to a particular apartment, (b) telephone records disclosed that the apartment had two telephones, (c) Donald had a reputation as a bookmaker and as an associate of gamblers, and (d) the Federal Bureau of Investigation was informed by a “confidential reliable informant” that Donald was conducting gam- bling operations. When a search was made based on the warrant, evidence was obtained that resulted in Donald’s conviction of violating certain gambling laws. Donald challenged the constitutionality of the search warrant. Were Donald’s constitutional rights violated? Explain your answer.
8. A national bank was robbed by a man with a small strip of tape on each side of his face. An indictment was returned against David. David was then arrested, and counsel was appointed to represent him. Two weeks later, without notice to David’s lawyer, an FBI agent arranged to have the two bank employees observe a lineup, including David and five or six other prisoners.
Each person in the lineup wore strips of tape, as had the robber, and each was directed to repeat the words “Put the money in the bag,” as had the robber. Both of the bank employees identified David as the robber. At David’s trial, he was again identified by the two, in the courtroom, and the prior lineup identification was elicited on cross-examination by David’s counsel. David’s counsel moved the court to grant a judgment of acquittal or alternatively to strike the courtroom identifications on the grounds that the lineup had violated David’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Decision?
C A S E P R O B L E M S
9. Waronek owned and operated a trucking rig, transporting goods for L.T.L. Perishables, Inc., of St. Paul, Minnesota.
He accepted an offer to haul a trailer load of beef from Illini Beef Packers, Inc., in Joslin, Illinois, to Midtown Packing Company in New York City. After his truck was loaded with ninety-five forequarters and ninety-five hind-quarters of beef in Joslin, Waronek drove north to his home in Watertown, Wisconsin, rather than east to New York. While in Watertown, he asked employees of the Royal Meat Company to butcher and prepare four hind- quarters of beef—two for himself and two for his friends.
He also offered to sell ten hindquarters to one employee of the company at an alarmingly reduced rate. The suspicious employee contacted the authorities, who told him to proceed with the deal. When Waronek arrived in New York with his load short nineteen hindquarters, Waronek telephoned L.T.L. Perishables in St. Paul. He notified them “that he was short nineteen hindquarters, that he knew where the beef went, and that he would make good on it out of future settlements.” L.T.L. told him to contact the New York police, but he failed to do so. Shortly there- after, he was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and indicted for the embezzlement of goods moving in interstate commerce. Explain whether Waronek was guilty of the crime of embezzlement.
10. Four separate cases involving similar fact situations were consolidated as they presented the same constitutional question. In each case, police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys took a defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station to obtain a confession. In none of these cases did the officials fully and effectively advise the defendant of his rights at the outset of the interrogation. Police interrogations produced oral admissions of guilt from each defendant, as well as signed statements from three of them, which were used to convict them at their trials. The defendants appeal, arguing that the officials should have warned them of their constitutional rights and the consequences of waiving them before the questionings began. It was contended that to permit any statements obtained without such a warning violated their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Were the defendants’ constitutional rights violated? Discuss.
11. Officer Cyril Rombach of the Burbank Police Department, an experienced and well-trained narcotics officer, applied for a warrant to search several residences and automobiles for cocaine, methaqualone, and other narcotics. Rombach supported his application with information given to another police officer by a confidential informant of unproven reliability. He also based the warrant application on his own observations made during an extensive investigation: known drug offenders visiting the residences and leaving with small packages, as well as a suspicious trip to Miami by two of the suspects.
A State superior court judge issued a search warrant to Rombach based on this information. Rombach’s searches netted large quantities of drugs and other evidence, which produced indictments of several suspects on charges of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. The defendants moved to exclude the evidence on the grounds that the search warrant was defective in that Rombach had failed to establish the informant’s credibility and that the information provided by the informant about the suspect’s criminal activity was fatally stale. Explain whether the evidence should be excluded.
12. Raymond Johnson snatched a purse that had been left in an unattended car at a gas station. The purse contained both money and a firearm. Johnson was convicted for the crimes of grand theft of property (cash and payroll check) and grand theft of a firearm. Johnson appealed, arguing that this conviction is a double jeopardy violation in that it constitutes multiple convictions for a single act. Should he be convicted of two separate crimes for stealing the purse? Why or why not?
13. On February 10, Kelm secured a loan for $6,000 from Ms. Joan Williams. Kelm told Williams that the loan was to finance a real estate transaction. Five days later, Ms. Williams received a check drawn by Kelm in the amount of $6,000 from Kelm’s attorney. Although the check was dated February 15, Kelm claims that she delivered the check to her attorney on February 10. The following week, Ms. Williams learned the check was uncollectible.
Subsequently, Williams received assurances from Kelm but was unsuccessful in her efforts to obtain money from the drawee’s bank. When Williams deposited the check, it was returned with a notation that it should not be presented again and that no account was on file. Bank records show that the account was closed on March 8 and that it had negative balances since February 10. Did Kelm illegally issue a bad check? Explain.
T A K I N G S I D E S
Olivo was in the hardware area of a department store. A security guard saw him look around, take a set of wrenches, and conceal it in his clothing. Olivo looked around once more and proceeded toward an exit, passing several cash registers. The guard stopped him short of the exit.
a. What argument would support the prosecutor in finding Olivo guilty of larceny?
b. What argument would you make as Olivio’s defense counsel for finding him not guilty of larceny?
c. Which side’s argument do you find most convincing? Explain.
