法律英语证书LEC2018年11月真题试卷一8

71.An executive of an accounting firm was fired and told to executive went home, but she returned that night to retrieve her key no longer opened a door to the building, she forced the door open and went to her former office. To avoid attracting attention, she did not turn on any lights. In the dark, she knew that she was taking some items that were not hers; she planned to sort these out later and return them. Upon arriving home, she found that she had taken a record book and some financial papers that belonged to the firm. After thinking it over and becoming angrier over being fired. She burned the book and papers in her fireplace. The jurisdiction has expanded the crime of burglary to include all buildings. What crime(s) has the executive committed?（C）

A.Burglary and larceny.

B.Burglary, but not larceny.

C.Larceny, but not burglary.

D.Neither larceny nor burglary.

72.A woman and her sister took a trip to the Caribbean. When they passed through U.S. Customs inspection upon their return, the customs officials found liquid cocaine in several bottles each of them was carrying. They were arrested upon separate questioning by customs officers, the woman broke down and cried. "I told my sister there were too many officers at this airport." The sister did not give a statement. The woman and her sister were indicted for conspiracy to import cocaine. They were tried separately. At the woman's trial, after the government introduced evidence and rested its case, her lawyer moved for a judgment of acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence. Should the court grant the motion?（A）

A.No, because the evidence shows that both the woman and her sister agreed to import cocaine.

B.No, because the evidence shows that both the woman and her sister possessed cocaine.

C.Yes, because the evidence shows only that the woman possession.

D.Yes, because the evidence shows that the woman cooperated by giving a statement.

73.A man and his friend were watching a televised football game at the man's home. Upset by a penalty called by the referee, the friend threw a bottle of beer at the man's television, breaking the screen. Enraged, the man picked up a nearby hammer and hit the friend on the head with it. The friend died from the blow. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness. In a jurisdiction that follows common law principles, what is the most serious crime of which the man could properly be convicted?（A）

A.Murder.

B.Voluntary manslaughter.

C.Involuntary manslaughter.

D.Assault.

74.A man had spent the evening drinking at a local bar and was weaving down the street on his way home, singing. Suddenly, a person wearing a cartoon character mask jumped out from an alley, pointed his gun at the man, and snarled, "This is loaded, buddy, and I don't mind using it. Hand over your cash pronto." The man was so drunk that he failed to understand what was going on and started to howl with laughter at the sight of the cartoon mask. Surprised and rattled by the man's reaction, the masked gunman fled. The man soon recovered his composure and staggered home safely. The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness. What is the most serious crime of which the masked gunman may properly be charged and convicted?（A）

A.Attempted robbery.

B.Attempted battery.

C.Attempted larceny.

D.No crime.

75.A defendant was charged with battery, defined as at common law. At trail, an expert witness testified for the defense that the defendant, an athlete, was under the influence of a performance-enhancing drug at the time he committed the battery and that he would not have done so had he not been so had he not been do influenced. The defendant asked for an instruction to the effect that if the jury believed that he was influenced by the drug at the time of the crime and would not have committed it otherwise, it had to acquit him. Which of the following circumstances would most aid the defendant's argument in favor of such an instruction?（B）

A.Evidence that the defendant is addicted to this drug and has an overwhelming urge to consume it.

B.Evidence that the defendant's coach, who gave him the drug, told him it was only an aspirin.

C.Evidence that the victim of the assault taunted the defendant about his use of the drug immediately before the assault.

D.Expert testimony that a reasonable person, on consuming this drug, may experience uncontrollable rages.

76.A common law jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as any murder that is (1) committed by means of poison or (2) premeditated. All other murder is second-degree murder, and manslaughter is defined as at common law. An employee was angry with her boss for denying her raise. Intending to cause her boss discomfort, the employee secretly dropped into his coffee three over-the-counter laxative pills. The boss drank the coffee containing the pills. Although the pills would not have been dangerous to an ordinary person, because the boss was already taking other medication, he suffered a seizure and died. If the employee is charged with murder in the first degree, should she be convicted?（D）

A.Yes, only because she used poison.

B.Yes, only because she acted with premeditation.

C.Yes, both because she used poison and because she acted with premeditation.

D.No.

77.A man asked his girlfriend to lend him something he could use to break into his neighbor's padlocked storage shed in order to steal a lawn mower. She handed him a crowbar. He took the crowbar but then found a bolt cutter that the neighbor had left outside the shed. Using the bolt cutter, he cut the padlock on the shed and took the mower, which he then used to mow his girlfriend's lawn. She was surprised and pleased by this gesture. Burglary in the jurisdiction applies to any structure or building, and there is no nighttime element. The girlfriend has been charged as an accomplice to burglary and larceny. Of which crimes, if any, is she guilty?（A）

A.Burglary and larceny.

B.Burglary, but not larceny, because she intended to assist only in the breaking.

C.Larceny, but not burglary, because she provided no actual assistance to the breaking but received a benefit from the larceny.

D.Neither burglary nor larceny, because she provided no actual assistance.

78.A defendant was tried for armed robbery. The state introduced evidence that a man, identified by witnesses as the defendant, entered a convenience store at 11 p. m. on March 5, threatened the clerk with a gun, and took S75 from the cash register. The defendant did not test but his sister did. She testified that on March 5, at the time of the robbery, the defendant was with her in a city 300 miles away. On cross-examination, the sister admitted having given a statement to the police in which she had said that the defendant was not with her on March 5, but she claimed that the earlier statement was mistaken. The court instructed the jury that in order to convict the defendant, they had to find all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.（C）

As to the defendant's claim of alibi, which of the following additional instructions would be proper?

A.Alibi is a matter of defense and so must be established by the defendant; however, the burden of persuasion is by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

B.Before you may consider the defendant's claim of alibi, you must decide whether he has produced sufficient evidence to raise the issue.

C.If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the convenience store at about 11 p. m. on March 5, you must find him not guilty.

D.If the defendant's evidence has caused you to have a reasonable doubt as to whether he was the robber, you must find him not guilty.

79.A state statute provides: "Aggravated robbery of the elderly consists of robbery committed against a victim who is 65 years of age or older." Another state statute provides that when a criminal statute does not designate a necessary mental state, the mental state required is recklessness. A third state statute provides that a person acts recklessly if the person "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will result from the persons conduct." The evidence at a criminal trial showed that the defendant robbed a 66-year-old man outside a senior citizens center. The defendant testified truthfully that the robbery had occurred on a dark night, that she had no idea how old the victim was and had not cared how old the victim was. and that she had intended to rob whomever she encountered Could the defendant properly be convicted of aggravated robbery of the elderly?（D）

A.No, because the only evidence on the issue showed that the defendant did not know, nor could she reasonably have known, the victim's age.

B.No, because there was no evidence of a substantial risk that the victim was age 65 or older.

C.Yes, because the evidence was clear that the victim was 66 years old, and the statute is designed to protect the elderly.

D.Yes, because the jury could find that there was no justification for the defendant's conduct and that she was willing to take the risk that the victim was age 65 or elder.

80.While on their way home from a ball game, a driver and his passenger stopped at an all-night gas station. The passenger offered to pay for the gas. While the passenger pumped gas, he was surprised to see the driver enter the station, take money from the unattended cash drawer, and get back in the car. The passenger paid the attendant for the gas, and the driver drove off. The driver offered to reimburse the passenger for the gas, but the passenger declined. After discovering the missing cash, the gas station attendant called the police, and the driver was later stopped. The driver escaped with the stolen money, however, and was never prosecuted If the passenger is prosecuted for theft as an accomplice, should he be convicted?（A）

A.No, because he had no intent to promote the commission of the offense.

B.No, because the driver, the principal, was never prosecuted.

C.Yes, because he facilitated commission of the offense by failing to make any effort to stop it.

D.Yes, because he paid the attendant while he knew the driver was holding the stolen money.