No Intent To Kill Means No Murder
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 2 active questions. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- CRIMINAL1
- Criminal Law1
Example wrong choices
14664_bible_study_gas_station · CRIMINAL_LAW · Choice Bconvicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of arson.
Why it's attractive
Dominant original trap. Student sees no stated intent to kill and downgrades to involuntary manslaughter; also misses arson.
Why it's wrong
Undercalls both columns: involuntary manslaughter instead of murder, and no arson despite a dwelling-burning fire.
Spot it next time
Ask: did the defendant deliberately create a deadly fire risk and burn a dwelling?
14664_bible_study_gas_station · CRIMINAL_LAW · Choice Cconvicted of arson and involuntary manslaughter.
Why it's attractive
Student sees the fire crime but undercalls the death as manslaughter.
Why it's wrong
Gets arson but undercalls homicide as involuntary manslaughter.
Spot it next time
Upgrade the homicide column when the act is a deliberate gas-pump explosion into an occupied building.
14664_bible_study_gas_station · CRIMINAL_LAW · Choice Dconvicted of murder and acquitted of arson.
Why it's attractive
Student sees murder-level risk but forgets the separate arson charge.
Why it's wrong
Gets murder but wrongly acquits arson after a malicious fire burned a dwelling.
Spot it next time
Check whether a dwelling burned because of the defendant's malicious act.
16063_fishing_death · CRIMINAL · Choice ALydia put a strong emetic in a rival merchant's drink at a market, intending only to make him publicly embarrassed and sick. The rival drank it and had a fatal reaction.
Why it's attractive
No intent to kill, but forcing someone to ingest a strong emetic shows conscious disregard of lethal risk — that's depraved-heart malice
Why it's wrong
No intent to kill, but forcing someone to ingest a strong emetic shows conscious disregard of lethal risk — that's depraved-heart malice
16063_fishing_death · CRIMINAL · Choice BAndrew's wife had terminal cancer and was in constant, screaming pain. At her repeated request, Andrew gave her a fatal overdose of her prescription pain medication.
Why it's attractive
Sympathetic facts don't negate intent. Andrew intentionally caused death. Courts don't recognize mercy as a defense to murder.
Why it's wrong
Sympathetic facts don't negate intent. Andrew intentionally caused death. Courts don't recognize mercy as a defense to murder.
16063_fishing_death · CRIMINAL · Choice CPaul discovered that his business partner had embezzled their entire church-building fund. The following day, Paul waited outside the partner's house and killed him with a crossbow.
Why it's attractive
Embezzlement is provocation, but 'following day' = cooling time. Heat-of-passion defense requires no reasonable opportunity to cool off.
Why it's wrong
Embezzlement is provocation, but 'following day' = cooling time. Heat-of-passion defense requires no reasonable opportunity to cool off.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →