This is a sample question that tests your knowledge on the first four weeks or so of class.  It was developed by Leslie Harris at University of Oregon and modified by me.  It serves as excellent practice.
 

The following events occurred in a common law jurisdiction. City Park is a sunny public park where college students from Model State U hang out. Shadyvale Retreat House, a private organization with large, shady grounds, is across the street. For many years students spilled over from the park onto the grounds as if they were part of the park without objection from the owners of the Retreat House. Two months ago the new owners began a campaign to keep everyone but guests of the Retreat House off the grounds.

Last weekend Andy and Betty, two Model State U students, and Betty's friend Carla, who was visiting from out of town, went to City Park to play Frisbee. After a couple of hours, Andy and Betty realized that Carla wasn't feeling well, and they decided to carry her across the street to the cool, shady Retreat House grounds. As they walked up the Retreat House driveway, Andy and Betty both saw a "Private Property--Keep Out" sign.

Andy believed that they were entitled to go on the grounds because he had read a newspaper story which described the Retreat House's new policy and mistakenly reported that the City had bought the grounds and added them to the park. In fact, the sale was pending and later fell through.

Betty, a law student, knew about the new policy, but thought that students could still use the grounds because she had read a trial court opinion which said that the Retreat House's prior tolerance of students gave them an irrevocable license to use the grounds. However, the appellate court has held that this opinion is erroneous.

Carla, who was so woozy that she had to be carried onto the Retreat House grounds, didn't notice anything, including the sign. The doctor says that Carla had heatstroke. She has fully recovered.

Andy, Betty and Carla have been charged with violating the following statute:

 

Whoever enters upon any privately owned real property without the permission of the owner is guilty of a petty misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail.

Please analyze the potential criminal liability of each of the three defendants. For purposes of this exam, please don't discuss the argument that it was necessary to take Carla onto the Retreat House's property in order to protect her health. We'll talk about the necessity defense later this semester, but you aren't responsible for it now.
 
 

I.Liability of Andy--effect of mistaken belief that the Retreat House grounds were public property, a mistake of fact which is a defense if it negates the mens rea for the element "privately owned"

A.Does the statute impose strict liability for this element? (a question of law for the judge)

1.Generally statutes should not be construed as imposing strict liability unless

a. They are violations, which this is not because a prison sentence is authorized , or

b. A legislative purpose to impose strict liability plainly appears. On the face of the statute no such purpose appears. Should check legislative history.

2.If statute imposes strict liability, Andy's mistake is irrelevant.

B.If statute doesn't impose strict liability, what is the mens rea for this element and what is the effect of Andy's mistake?

1.Statute has no mens rea term. Gap-filler is recklessness. (another question of law for the judge)

 

2.Did Andy consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk, etc.  that the grounds were still privately owned? A argues that a law-abiding person in A's position would rely on the newspaper story; prosecutor would argue that A must have been conscious of a risk when he saw the sign, etc. (a jury question)

A.Is this a mistake of governing or non-governing law? (question of law for the judge)

1. Prosecutor argues that it's a mistake of governing law because B knew that she did not have the permission of the owner; she just didn't realize it was against the law to go onto the property.

 

2. B responds that this is a mistake of non-governing law because, while she knows that it's generally against the law to go onto private property without the permission of the owner, she mistakenly believed that under the law of property she had a license (permission) to go onto the property.

 

3. This is really a mistake of non-governing law

B.If this is mistake of nongoverning law it is a defense if it negates the mens rea for the element "without the permission of the owner." What is the mens rea for this element? (another question of law for the judge)

1.Analysis similar to that in I above. Probably this is not a strict liability element for the reasons discussed there, and, if not, the gap filler is recklessness. . If it is strict liability, B has no defense under this section.

2.Did Betty disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk, etc. that she did not have permission (or its alternative)? Prosecutor argues that a law abiding person wouldn't rely on a trial court opinion, especially in the face of the new sign. Betty argues . . . (a jury question.)

C.If the judge ruled (erroneously) that it was a mistake of governing law, would B have a defense based on her reliance on the opinion of the trial court? Jury question whether her reliance on this "judicial decision, opinion, or judgment" was reasonable

A.Claim of no voluntary act because

1.She was physically carried onto the grounds, and

2.If she walked, she was unconscious from heatstroke. Note possibly need medical testimony as well as testimony from A and B about what shape she was in

3.Factors that will go into the analysis

a.Did she or should she have foreseen the risk of becoming incapacitated and thus of being carried onto private property when she was playing to exhaustion?

b.Is this the kind of risk that the law she's charged with violating was intended to deter?

c.Any inappropriate government involvement/overreaching?

4.This is a jury question, looks likely to be successful B.If C's "no act" defense fails, she should also argue lack of mens rea, making the same the statutory construction arguments that A and B make. In applying the facts (assuming statute has a mens rea requirement), C will argue that she was not even aware of a risk that she was going onto private property, much less did she disregard it. She's arguing that the law abiding person in D's situation" is the law abiding heatstroke victim. Prosecutor will argue that the law assumes a person of normal capacities and does not take into account this idiosyncracy.