Reference no: EM133286248
Case #1 College Fraternity
Is Scott entitled to the defense of involuntary intoxication? Why or why not?
Scott Murphy is a freshman in college and recently decided to pledge a fraternity, Chi Gamma Omega. As a "pledge" of the fraternity, Scott is forced to participate in a number of initiation activities in order to become a brother of Chi Gamma Omega. Specifically, one night Scott was held down on the ground while other brothers poured shots of vodka into his mouth. Severely intoxicated by the initiation ritual, later that evening Scott broke into a female student's dorm room and sexually assaulted her. Scott is claiming that he mistakenly believed he was entering the room of his girlfriend. Is Scott entitled to the defense of involuntary intoxication? Why or why not?
Case #2 Local Pharmacist
Is Jack entitled to the defense of entrapment? Why or why it is not entrapment? Would he be successful under both the objective and subjective tests?
Jack Oberman is a pharmacist at a local drug store and has never engaged in any form of illegal activity. Local police officers received reports that the drug store was filling illegal prescriptions for OxyContin, a strong painkiller often sold on the streets. An undercover officer approached Jack on five separate occasions, claiming that he had a daughter suffering from a terminal illness who was in severe pain and discomfort. The undercover officer claimed he could not afford medical treatment and asked Jack to illegally provide him with OxyContin for his daughter. Jack refused on the first four occasions, but he finally consented after hearing the horrific stories of the young girl's suffering. Jack handed the undercover officer 10 OxyContin pills and was subsequently arrested. Is he entitled to the defense of entrapment? Would he be successful under both the objective and subjective tests?
Why the defense of involuntary intoxication is or is not appropriate. It could be argued that the defendant put himself in the situation and it was his decision to join the fraternity in the first place. However, the defendant could argue that they were coerced to ingest the intoxicant and that he did not have mens rea or intent to commit sexual assault.
Why or why it is not entrapment. An entrapment is an excuse defense that is applicable if the government is found to have manufactured or initiated a crime that would not have otherwise occurred. Entrapment is an affirmative defense, which means it can be raised at trial easily. Subjective or objective inquiry? If entrapment is it based on the offender's predisposition or the government's conduct. When an entrapment decision is based on the offender's predisposition, this is known as a subjective inquiry. By contrast, a focus on the government conduct presumably responsible for someone's decision to commit a crime is known as an objective inquiry.