LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

                                                                 LAW CENTER

 

                                                         FINAL EXAMINATION

 

 

 

Criminal Law, Section 3                                                                                      December 1, 2004

Mr. Green                                                                                                                1:30 - 4:30 p.m.

 

 

                                                                INSTRUCTIONS

 

1.  This is an open book exam.   You may consult any written materials that you have with you at the beginning of the exam.

 

2. The examination period will last three hours.  It is recommended that, before writing anything, you read the questions carefully, determine exactly what they are asking, note issues that you wish to discuss, and plan your answer.  Answers that are concise and well-organized will receive higher scores than those that are rambling and long-winded.  Points will be deducted for answers containing incorrect or irrelevant statements. 

 

3. You are encouraged to use subheadings when they help to clarify your analysis and organization.

 

4. If the same analysis would apply to the resolution of more than one issue on the exam, there is no need to repeat it.  Instead, you should incorporate it by reference.

 

5. You must answer both questions on the exam.  Please note that the questions are weighted unequally for grading purposes.  To help you budget your time, I have indicated the approximate amount of time that each question should take to answer.

 

6.  If you write by hand, please answer the first question on a separate pad of paper.  Please answer the second question in the space provided in the exam packet.  Please write legibly.  You will receive no credit for answers that cannot be read. 

 

7.  Whether you write by hand or by word processor, please make sure that you observe the usual rules of English prose.  Use proper punctuation and capitalization, and write in full sentences.  Please do not use abbreviations unless it is clear what they refer to.

 

8. Write your confidential exam number on your copy of the exam and on the front of your legal pad.  Do not write your name or otherwise identify yourself anywhere on either the exam or your answers.

 

9. If there are ambiguities in the facts, or additional facts you would need to resolve a particular issue, you should state any assumptions that you make, and how they affect your response.  Be careful not to “assume away” key issues that need to be addressed.

 

10. At the end of the examination period, please return this copy of the examination (labeled as indicated above) along with your answers.

 

11.  Good luck and Happy Holidays!

 

 

PLEASE DO NOT TURN TO THE QUESTIONS THAT FOLLOW UNTIL YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DO SO.


 


Question 1 – “On False River”

 

                                       (75 percent; approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes)

 

            In November 2004, Pete and Lucy Scotterson had what appeared to be the perfect life.  The blandly handsome Pete was a successful fertilizer salesman for Manure Du Jour, one of the largest suppliers of agricultural supplies in the South.  The pretty and vivacious Lucy, then four months pregnant with their first child, was a popular substitute teacher at Our Lady of Perpetual Misery Grammar School in downtown Baton Rouge.  With a baby on the way, and a recent move to a spacious new house in the Chateau Façade subdivision adjacent to False River, in Point Coupee Parish, Louisiana, Pete and Lucy seemed the picture of domestic bliss.

 

            But appearances can be deceiving.  In fact, Pete, bored with Lucy and dreading the prospect of being tied down with a new baby, had, for several months now, been having an affair with Amber Wave, a thirty-something divorcée who worked in his office. 

 

            On the evening of Thursday, November 25 (Thanksgiving, as it happened), Pete and Amber spoke by telephone.  They agreed that at 11:00 a.m. the next morning they would meet at Pete’s dock on False River, and then ride around for an hour or two on his boat.  Prior to that, Pete would be out fishing by himself on False River, while Amber would be at the False River Mall doing some shopping. 

 

            On Friday morning, the 26th, as planned, Amber headed to the mall.  A compulsive shopper who had been arrested for shoplifting while in high school (the charges were ultimately dropped), Amber walked into her favorite store, Timpani Jewels.  After browsing among the display cabinets for a few minutes, Amber noticed a door marked “Employees Only.”  Curious as to what might be behind the door, Amber entered. Inside, she found a room, empty at the moment of any people, which was obviously used for jewelry repairs.  Lying on a work table in front her was a sparkling necklace made of what Amber believed were real diamonds, but which were actually cheap rhinestones.  The necklace retailed for $299, although Amber believed that it was worth far more than that.

 

            Amber grabbed the necklace from the table.  While trying to find some place to hide it, she accidentally dropped her purse, which contained the pistol she was licensed to carry.  The gun accidentally discharged.  A bullet flew out of the barrel and through a small, open window, located just under the ceiling above the work table. 

 

            Directly outside the window was a sidewalk that led to the mall’s parking lot.  At the very moment that Amber’s gun fired, a wealthy, childless widower named Nathan Zuckerman was being pushed down that sidewalk in his wheelchair by his private nurse, Brenda Patimkin.  Nathan was in the late stages of Parkinson’s Disease, of which he was likely to die within the next year.  One of the symptoms of Parkinson’s is memory loss and confusion, and in fact Nathan had mistakenly told Brenda that he was 65, when in fact he was only 64. 

 

            Nathan and Brenda were also accompanied on this day by Brenda’s boyfriend, Coleman Silk. 

 

            Unbeknownst to Amber, the bullet from her gun struck Nathan in the shoulder, causing him to lose consciousness and begin bleeding profusely.  Patimkin did nothing to help him.  After a moment or two, Coleman said, “Don’t you think we ought to do something to help the old man?” 

 

            Brenda answered, “Oh, Coleman, you know I stand to inherit a nice chunk of change when Nathan finally croaks.  With the disease he’s got, he wasn’t likely to last more than a few more months anyway.  Is there any reason to go to all the trouble of taking him to the hospital now?  If we wait just a few minutes, he’ll be dead from loss of blood.”

 

            Coleman then responded, “Whatever you say, baby.  You’re his nurse.” 

 

            For the next fifteen minutes, Brenda and Coleman stood by as Nathan bled to death.  They talked about what they would do with the money that Brenda expected to receive from Nathan’s estate.  Finally, Brenda tested Nathan’s pulse and determined that he was dead.  [Subsequent expert testimony indicated that if Nathan had received immediate medical assistance, there was a seventy percent probability that he would have lived for at least a few more months.] 

 

*                 *                *

 

            Meanwhile, Pete was out on his motor boat fishing.  Also out on False River that day was ten-year old Charles Ray, who was trying out the new kayak he had just received for his birthday the day before.

 

            Lucy Scotterson, who had overheard part of the telephone conversation Pete and Amber had had the night before, and suspected that at 11:00 a.m. her husband would be meeting a woman with whom he was having an affair, had also come down to False River to investigate. 

 

            At about 10:45 a.m., just as Lucy arrived at Pete’s dock, young Charles Ray reached the middle of the river, and Pete came riding by in his boat. 

 

            Although it was being operated in a lawful manner, the wake from Pete’s boat caused Charles’ kayak to capsize and be swept out of Charles’ reach.  Pete cut his motor to see what was happening.  Charles, who was not a particularly strong swimmer and was not wearing a lifejacket, lunged in panic towards Pete’s boat, grabbing the gunwale, and trying to climb in. 

 

            “What are you doing?,” Pete shouted at Charles.  “Get the [expletive] off my boat.” 

 

            “Gee, Mister, I’m practically drowning here.  Can’t you please give me a ride back to shore?,” responded Ray.

 

            “I said, get the [expletive] off my boat.  Didn’t you hear me the [expletive] first time?”

 

            Charles, totally panicked, continued trying to climb onto Pete’s boat. 

 

            At this point, Pete picked up the heavy metal tackle box he had in the boat and threw it at Charles’s head, rendering him unconscious, and causing him to slip below the surface of the water and drown.

 

            Lucy, observing all of this from the river bank, was appalled at what she had just seen.  Although four months pregnant, she ran down to the dock where she began screaming obscenities at Pete, accusing him of being a criminal. 

 

            Pete was so angered by what Lucy was shouting at him that he took his boat and drove it directly into the dock where Lucy was standing.  As a result, Lucy suffered serious, though non-fatal, injuries.  She also spontaneously miscarried.  To her surprise, and Pete’s, it turned out that Lucy had been carrying twins -- both of whom, unfortunately, died as a result of injuries sustained when struck by Pete’s boat. 

 

 

*               *               *

 

Please discuss all of the offenses a Louisiana prosecutor should consider in deciding whether and how to charge Amber Wave, Brenda Patimkin, Coleman Silk, and Pete Scotterson.  Your discussion should be limited to the Louisiana law we have discussed in class, including the elements of each offense, any weaknesses in the State’s case with respect to such offenses, and any applicable defenses.  In analyzing the facts of the case, you may refer to any relevant authorities discussed in class (including non-Louisiana authority, such as that found in the Dressler casebook and the Model Penal Code), provided that such authority is helpful in analyzing the problem under Louisiana law.

 

 

 

                                                       Question 2 – “On the Dole”

 

                                                 (25 percent; approximately 45 minutes)

 

La. Crim. Code Art. 68.2 provides, in part, as follows:

 

A. As used in this Section the following terms have the following meanings:

 

(1) "Food stamp coupon" means any coupon, stamp, or type of certificate issued pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Food Stamp Act, 7 USC § 2011 et seq.

 

*     *    *

 

B. The unauthorized use of food stamp coupons, food stamp authorization cards, or food stamp access devices is:

 

(1) To knowingly use, transfer, acquire, alter, or possess food stamp coupons, food stamp authorization cards, or food stamp access devices contrary to the provisions of the Federal Food Stamp Act or the federal or state regulations issued pursuant thereto.

 

*     *      *

 

C. (1) Whoever commits the crime of unauthorized use of food stamp coupons, food stamp authorization cards, or food stamp access devices when the coupons, authorization cards, or access devices amount to a value of five hundred dollars or more shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than ten years, or may be fined not more than three thousand dollars, or both.

 

(2) When the coupons, authorization cards, or access devices amount to a value of one hundred dollars or more, but less than five hundred dollars, the offender shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than two years, or may be fined not more than two thousand dollars, or both.

 

(3) When the coupons, authorization cards, or access devices amount to less than a value of one hundred dollars, the offender shall be imprisoned for not more than six months, or may be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or both.

 

*     *     *

 

Defendant used food stamp coupons without authorization to buy food for her family, and is being prosecuted under this statute.  For each of the following five hypotheticals, identify and briefly explain the defenses that she would have available to her (1) under Louisiana law, and (2) under the Model Penal Code:

 

A.        Defendant's children were suffering from malnutrition and would starve without the food that defendant bought with the coupons.  Defendant was too proud to ask her relatives for money, although they would gladly have given it to her if she had done so.

 

B.         Relying in good faith on a written opinion from the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, defendant believed, incorrectly, that her use of the food stamp coupons was authorized.

 

C.        Defendant believed, mistakenly, that the coupons were actually lottery tickets and that she was obtaining the food through bartering with the cashier in the grocery store.

 

D.        At the time defendant used the food stamps, she was extremely intoxicated, having just consumed numerous glasses of vodka.

 

E.         Defendant’s teenaged son threatened to harm her baby daughter unless defendant used the food stamps without proper authorization.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________