Question 1:
Mel suffers from a mental disorder that gives rise to a subconscious desire to commit homicide. Under the influence of the mental disorder, Mel formulated a plan to kill Herb by breaking into Herb’s house and shooting him to death while he was asleep.
Brent, who had never met or communicated with Mel, learned of Mel’s plan. Brent knew when and where Mel intended to kill Herb, and he desired to assist Mel in the crime.
On the night Mel intended to kill Herb, unbeknownst to Mel, Brent forced open the front door to Herb’s house so as to effectuate Mel’s entry and facilitate his killing of Herb. Mel arrived at Herb’s house. He discovered the front door open and entered the house. Mel tiptoed to the bedroom and sprayed bullets into Herb’s body. Unbeknownst to either Mel or Brent, Herb had died of a heart attack an hour before Mel fired the bullets.
1. Are Mel and/or Brent guilty of:
a. Murder? Discuss.
In this particular scenario, I would not find it plausible to charge Mel with murder since Herb died from a heart attack prior to being shot by Mel. If Herb was still alive at the time, then Mel should be charged with homicide.
b. Attempted murder? Discuss.
Mel and Brent should be charged with attempted murder. Despite Mel having a mental disorder, his attempt to murder Herb was pre-meditated; he formulated a plan to kill Herb. Brent should also be charged with attempted murder because he wanted to be a part of killing Herb, even if it was unbeknownst to Mel.
c. Conspiracy to commit murder? Discuss.
Mel should not be charged with a conspiracy to commit murder because he had no knowledge of Brent being part of his plan to kill Herb. Brent however, should be charged with a conspiracy to commit murder because he was fully aware of the situation, and wanted to help aid Mel to kill Herb.
2. Does Mel have a defense of insanity? Discuss.
Mel does not have the defense of insanity because his attempt to kill Herb was pre-meditated and planned. Other mental disorders such as individuals killing when being awaken while sleep walking is not pre-meditated and can have a defense of insanity.
Question 2:
Victoria lived in a house with her roommates Ben and Carl. One night, Albert entered the house through an unlocked, but closed, back door and went into Victoria’s bedroom. Albert removed a partially full bottle of whiskey and a knife from his pockets, and threatened to harm Victoria if she screamed.
At that point, Ben and Carl discovered Albert in Victoria’s room. Catching sight of Ben and Carl, Albert took off running. Ben said to Carl, “Let’s get him!” Ben and Carl chased Albert out of the house and down the front stairs. Albert got into a vehicle and drove away. Ben and Carl jumped into a neighbor’s vehicle, which had its keys in the ignition, and sped after Albert.
Ben and Carl caught up with Albert in a deserted shopping center. Ben drove into the passenger side of Albert’s vehicle and pushed it until its driver’s side came to rest against the wall of a building, trapping Albert inside. No one was injured. At that time, the police arrived and arrested Albert, Ben, and Carl.
1. What crimes, if any, might Albert reasonably be charged with, and what defenses, if any, might he reasonably assert? Discuss.
Albert may be charged with unlawful entry since he entered the house through an unlocked door and could be charged with criminal threat since he threatened Victoria with a bottle of whiskey and a knife. For a possible reasonable defense, Albert might say that Ben and Carl wanted to hurt him.

2. What crimes, if any, might Ben and Carl reasonably be charged with, and what defenses, if any, might they reasonably assert? Discuss.
For Ben and Carl, they would be charged with taking and damaging their neighbor’s vehicle. They may also be charged with reckless driving and endangerment to others. Ben and Carl can reasonably assert that they were trying to stop Albert because he unlawfully broke into their home and attempted to/threatened to hurt Victoria.

Question 3:
Van is short and small. One day, as he was walking down a street near his office, he was suddenly grabbed by Abe and Bob, who were each much taller and larger than he, and was dragged into an alley. Abe and Bob beat Van severely with brass knuckles and took several items from him, including a ring. Charles had been standing nearby watching the attack. After the attack, Abe and Bob gave Charles the ring they had taken from Van.
Van was traumatized by the attack, and decided to carry a knife for protection.
Not long after the attack, Van was walking down the street near his office when he saw Abe walking toward him. He suddenly felt fear and rage. He quickly pulled out his knife and held it behind his back. Not noticing Van, Abe put his hands into his pocket. Van believed Abe was reaching for his brass knuckles. Van immediately stabbed Abe, killing him instantly. In fact, Abe had been reaching for a bus pass, not brass knuckles.
1. With what crimes, if any, can Bob reasonably be charged and what defenses, if any, can he reasonably raise? Discuss.
Bob would be charged with assault and theft for beating Van and taking his personal belongings. In this scenario, there is no reasonably defenses that Bob can raise as he was the attacker.

2. With what crimes, if any, can Charles reasonably be charged and what defenses, if any, can he reasonably raise? Discuss.
Charles can be reasonably charged with assisting an assault since he did not actively engage in assaulting Van, but he was part of the assault nonetheless. A possible defense that Charles can raise is that he was not part of the plan and simply stumbled across them when he walked by (wrong place wrong time).

3. With what crimes, if any, can Van reasonably be charged and what defenses, if any, can he reasonably raise? Discuss.
Van can be charged with involuntary manslaughter since he did not purposely tried to kill Bob; he killed Bob because he thought he was about to be attacked. A defense that Van can reasonably raise is that he was acting out of self-defense because he thought Bob was going to pull out his brass knuckles and beat Van.
TATOO PARLOR AND FREE SPEECH
Background
This case involved the intersection of municipal zoning regulations and the right of tattoo artists to ply their trade. After the City denied Plaintiffs a permit to operate a tattoo parlor, Plaintiffs filed this action alleging violations of their rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection. The superior court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
City requires some businesses, including pawn shops, tattoo parlors, and body piercing salons, to obtain a Council Use Permit ("Permit") before operating in a commercially zoned area within the City.
In July 2008, the Plaintiffs initiated the preliminary review process for obtaining a Permit and formally applied for the Permit the following January. The Board's staff reviewed the application, found the Plaintiffs in compliance with Permit requirements imposed by the City Code, and recommended issuance of a Permit with conditions. The Board reviewed the Plaintiffs' application and staff recommendations at a February 2009 meeting and ultimately voted 3-2 to urge denial of the application, voicing concerns that a tattoo parlor was not "appropriate" for the neighborhood.
The Plaintiffs sued the City in March 2010, alleging violations of their civil rights guaranteed under the state and federal constitutions and seeking declaratory and mandamus relief as well as monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they are entitled to relief because the City violated their state and federal constitutional rights to engage in free speech, receive equal protection under the law, and be afforded substantive due process.
Discussion
To determine whether the Plaintiffs state a sufficient claim against the City for violating their free-speech rights, we initially must decide whether engaging in the act and business of applying tattoos is such a right guaranteed by the state or federal constitutions.
Assignment
Please identify the arguments the City would have to support its claim that denial of the permit does not violate Plaintiffs’ free speech rights.
To support the City’s claim that the denial of the permit does not violate the Plaintiff’s free speech rights, the city would argue that the Plaintiff had the opportunity to present its business when they submitted an application for a permit and that the permit was denied via vote.