Shift netural hope this help
Answer:
Under both statutes.
Explanation:
The meeting shown in the question above managed to violate two statutes, according to the statute developed to combat organized crime, in addition to violating the study that prohibits interstate drug transport. In that case, the convict must be tried for two infractions in different statutes and if convicted he must be convicted based on the guidelines of the two statutes.
Answer:
There are enough intent and action to commit a crime. By burglarizing the store and moving some goods to the rear door, Baker and his co-travellers have established specific intent to commit larceny.
Specific intent requires planning before the time and the predisposition to commit the act. They have even establish general intent by actually entering the store and cutting through the metal door with an acetylene torch.
Explanation:
Larceny is robbery. The intent to commit a crime by Baker and his co-travellers is established by their actions at the crime scene. They cannot be exonerated because they have not yet taken the goods away from the store. But, it can be established that the intent exists merely by their presence at the crime scene at such an hour of the morning.
Answer:
You are the trial judge at the sentencing hearing. If you wish, you can rely on the suppressed confession for a sentence enhancement, in effect imposing the same sentence Bertha would have received for second-degree murder. Should you do so? Why or why not?
b. If you were on the appellate court reviewing Bertha’s sentence imposed as described in (a), would you rule that this sentence is fair?
