Criminal Law
Exam 9
Fact pattern
A salesperson and an office manager worked together in a large office building. They were also practical jokesters. However, their once-amiable feud had turned hostile. Each one began to stage elaborate pranks against the other, and each prank was more dangerous than the last.
One day, the salesperson decided to prank the office manager by blocking the exit to the manager’s office and flooding her office with tear gas. Having done some research on the effects of tear gas, the salesperson knew that tear gas could cause severe eye, respiratory, and skin irritation, as well as pain, vomiting, blindness, and (in very rare cases) death. The salesperson was also aware of the risk that the tear gas released in the manager’s office might seep through the walls and affect other coworkers in nearby offices. The salesperson believed that using tear gas in this way was illegal but did not want anyone to die because of the prank.
Alternative Scenario 1:
The plan went off without a hitch, except that, instead of filling with tear gas, the manager’s office filled with the sweet aroma of lavender and cherry blossoms. As it turns out, the manager had out-pranked the salesperson by switching out the tear-gas canister for another canister full of pressurized perfume. In this scenario, assume that using tear gas unlawfully, as the salesperson had attempted to do here, was subject to criminal sanctions.
Alternative Scenario 2:
The plan went off without a hitch: the manager’s office filled with tear gas, which leaked into several surrounding offices. As people nearby began suffering the effects of the tear gas, panic ensued, and several people were injured while fleeing the building. Mercifully, though, none died. The state had recently legalized “prank-related tear gassing, and all resulting consequences,” because the governor was a huge fan of extreme pranking.
In both scenarios, the salesperson was arrested and charged with multiple counts of attempted murder. Murder was defined as the “unlawful killing of a human being.” Assume the prosecution can prove the above facts at the salesperson’s trial.
Questions
Under the Model Penal Code, does the salesperson have the necessary mens rea for attempted murder under either scenario? Explain, but do not analyze actus reus, do not apply the common law, and do not analyze the salesperson’s liability for any other crime.
Under scenario 1, does the salesperson have a common-law impossibility defense against attempt liability? Explain, applying only the common law.
Under scenario 2, does the salesperson have a common-law impossibility defense against attempt liability? Explain, applying only the common law.