You work for an appellate court judge. He gives you the trial record for an unusual criminal case and explains that he would like you to discuss specific questions that are below.

Specifically, one James Mayfield convinced Defendant that Mayfield was working for the Central Intelligence Agency and that the CIA was interested in recruiting Defendant as an agent. Mayfield convinced Defendant that he would be involved in a complicated CIA operation requiring Defendant to stage a robbery to establish his outlaw status so that he could infiltrate a drug cartel.

Mayfield told Defendant to rob a local grocery store, known to have a large amount of cash on hand, and not to wear a mask and to make sure the cameras in the store caught the robbery on tape so the drug cartel would know that Defendant robbed the store. Defendant believed the money taken from the robbery would be returned immediately to the store. He testified, "It wasn't a robbery. I never believed it was a robbery." Mayfield told Defendant to go to a motel in town afterwards, where Mayfield would meet Defendant. Mayfield told him that he would return the money to the store.

Defendant went into the store, armed with a handgun. He pointed the gun at the store manager and ordered him into the cash room, making sure the cameras could see the gun. Once Defendant entered the cash room, he took all of the money in the room.

As he left the store, Defendant forced the store manager to walk with him towards the exit in case anyone tried to intervene. Just as he was about to release the store manager, Defendant heard police sirens and realized that someone had called the police. Using the store manager as a shield, Defendant rushed to his car and sped off. During the chase that followed, Defendant's vehicle veered off the highway, seriously injuring the store manager. A stand-off ensued with Defendant trying to contact Mayfield to get him to intervene to explain to the police that he was acting under authorization of the CIA. Of course, Mayfield, a complete fraud, did nothing to help him. After two hours, police used tear gas and were able to overcome Defendant. When officers realized that the store manager was injured, they called for an ambulance. Once at the hospital, the store manager was rushed into surgery where he died on the operating table.

After police arrested Defendant and read him his Miranda rights, an officer told him that Mayfield had fled and that he was a fraud. Defendant sighed and said, "Oh, of course he was. I could see it coming with that line of bull."

The state charged Defendant with the murder of the store manager. The prosecutor relied on a felony murder theory to secure a conviction. Specifically, the prosecutor relied on robbery as the underlying felony. In this state, robbery, a felony, is defined as "the unauthorized forcible taking of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive such person of the property."

1. Defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury that he was not guilty of robbery if it believed his testimony and, therefore, that robbery could not be the basis of a felony murder conviction. Your boss asks you to discuss fully that contention.

2. On the assumption that Defendant prevails, the judge, an ex-prosecutor muses whether the prosecutor in this case would have been better off using a traditional homicide theory or using the following statute as the basis for a felony murder conviction:

"A person is guilty of kidnapping, a felony, if that person moves another person a substantial distance from the vicinity where he is found, with the following purpose: to hold the person for ransom, or as a shield or hostage

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer 1 Defendants contention regarding the robbery charge hinges on his belief and intent during the commission of the act He claims that he never believed the robbery to be real and that he was act... View the full answer