Model Penal Code Questions Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Model Penal Code Questions - Assignment Example Here, Joe’s conduct does not satisfy any of the two conditions. First, a substantial step in this case might involve gathering a significant number of materials that ought to be present in committing arson which is hugely deficient in this case. This is because both the gasoline and the book on â€Å"prosecution and defense of arson case† fail miserably to satisfy this condition. This is because Joe can argue that the gasoline is for his car that he normally carries, not to mention the fact that we are not even told that it had gasoline in it which further weakens the prosecution case for arson against Joe. He can also argue that the book was in his car for purposes of a case he is handling in arson and not necessarily meant to prepare him in advance of how to handle the consequences that will follow in case he make good his threat. Second, the activities revolving this whole scenario are not â€Å"strongly corroborative† of the proposition that he intended to bu rn down the firm. This is because as much as his wife and the colleague who overheard him issuing threat to the effect that he was going to ‘torch ‘the firm premises might testify to show intention, that in itself cannot be taken on face value if there is no more acts to corroborate. His going there at night cannot also be used against him because he can comfortably claim that it was part of his winding up that was expected of him as he prepared to quit in two months time. 2. A. The charge of perjury will only be entertained if only the woman can corroborate the allegation of falsehood on the side of his ex-husband. Otherwise it would not be possible to convince the trial judge that indeed the ex-husband lied if he is to get a perjury conviction against her husband. B. The question that we need to belabor in this case concerns the materiality, or lack of it, of this case. This is because a falsehood that does not meet the ‘material’ element cannot sustain a perjury conviction. This is because despite having a prior felony record nowhere does this state insinuate that he is likely to be inclined to either side in his testimony. This therefore shows that the false testimony does not affect the credibility of Franklin’s evidence as a witness and therefore not material, and therefore unable to sustain a perjury conviction against him. C. Once again, we are supposed to establish the materiality of the false testimony in the trial. First, the arresting officer’s racial bias has nothing to do with the crime that the Mexican faces unless it can be proved that he arrested the Mexican as an extension of his racial bias. Second, the racial bias against the Mexican will have no material element if it can be proved that indeed the Mexican committed whatever crime he is accused of committing. 3. Both Al and Gus can be charged with attempted armed robbery. This is because Gus uses a ‘deadly weapon’ to intimidate cashier int o surrendering money. It does not matter whether he was using a toy pistol to intimidate the cashier, all what matter is the fact that he made the cashier believe that he was in great danger of being shot if he did not agreed to surrender the money. Gus on the other hand would also face charges of attempted armed r