Next installment of “Are You Smarter than a DeMarkgrader?”
(And hey, if you think THAT is copyright infringement, check out the page on this site entitled “Holy Copyright Infringement, Batman!”)
(I was hoping I’d get this one wrong so I could post it)
The criminal law of the state uses the common law elements to define the crime of burglary (ed. note: burglary = the breaking and entering of another’s dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony therein). The state also has a statute making “flashing” (exposing of sexual parts) a felony. One night, the defendant broke into the home of the victim, a young woman in the neighborhood. He entered her bedroom and opened his trenchcoat to “flash” her. The victim screamed and the defendant fled, taking nothing with him from her home. At the time of the “flashing,” the defendant was wearing long-john underwear, which was extremely difficult to remove and which he knew he wouldn’t have time to remove. Thus, he did not actually expose his sexual organs to the victim. The defendant knew about the “flashing” statute, but did not know that actual exposure of sexual organs is an element of the crime. Can he be convicted of burglary?
a) Yes, because he broke into the victim’s dwelling place in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony
b) Yes, because the defendant’s mistake as to the flashing law is not a defense
c) No, because the defendant did not commit a felony
d) No, because the defendant could not have committed the felony while still wearing concealing underwear.
(answer in the comments section; good luck!)