Model Panel Code

Model Panel Code

1

Joe is guilty of attempted Arson. There are two aspects that need to be considered. First is the intent of Joe. His conversation with his wife proves that he intends to set fire to his office. According to clause 5.01(1)(a), a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if he purposely engages in criminal conduct. Joe intends to set his office on fire. His actions had a design and purpose. Second is the presence of some overt act, through which the intent of this act becomes evident. The presence of gasoline can was a clear sign of his intentions. Although, the building had not actually caught fire, but his plans were sufficient proofs to arrest him for attempted arson. According to section 220.1(2)(b), a person is guilty of arson even if he places a building in danger of destruction. Joe did not set the building on fire, but his acts created this danger. The presence of gasoline can in his car is a substantial step towards commission of crime. It falls under section 5.01(2) clauses e and f. Joe had possession of materials to be used in arson and there was no lawful purpose of carrying this material.

2A

The allegations of the woman are only one side of the story. The opinion of the ex-husband is important in this case. He may or may not accept this allegation. If the husband lied in Divorce trial, the woman should have raised concerns on the spot. But she did not say anything at the time of Divorce Trial. Why the case has been taken up now is a question that is confusing and would need a definitive answer. It needs to be seen if there are any inconsistent statements in the trial. If the statement affected the outcome, it is material and perjury charges can be brought.

2B

Bill Franklin is guilty of perjury. His lying about the name affected the outcome of the case. Court had no criminal details of the fictitious name. He was eventually convicted. His conviction could have been more serious and for a longer duration, if he had stated what he believed to be true. Its act falls under perjury offense as defined under clause 1 of section 241.1.

2C

In this case, the officer denied the allegations. However five witnesses contradicted his statement. This is a problem of interpretation. The arresting officer might not have intentionally uttered racial slur, but police officers and other witnesses interpreted it this way. The arresting officer might have used the terms in a friendly atmosphere rather than with the intent of hatred or taunting. This a problem of communication. One person might say one thing and another person perceives it differently. If the arresting officer said what he believed to true, then he is not guilty of perjury under section 241.1(1).

3

Gus is guilty of robbery. He assisted in committing the theft. His actions aided in inflicting bodily injury and death to cashier. Charges against Al are both of robbery ...