Crime
Flinn operated a loan brokering business without a license. Flinn was prosecuted for violating the statute required that persons engaged in the business of brokering loans obtain a license from the state. Flinn's defense was that he was unaware of the statute and therefore lacked criminal intent. Where criminal intent is not a specific element of the crime, a party's intent is irrelevant to a determination of guilt or innocence. Furthermore, ignorance of the law is not a defense. Because criminal intent is not a necessary element in the charge of violating a licensing statute, Flinn's defense that he lacked criminal intent will be unsuccessful.
Jennings, a courier, used money that belonged to his clients to make investments, but always delivered the money to his clients on time. Jennings kept the profits from the investments and was prosecuted for embezzlement. Embezzlement involves the fraudulent conversion of property that is lawfully in the hands of the embezzler. Jennings was guilty of embezzlement. When he used his clients' money, he was converting the money to his own use. The fact that he later returned the money did not change the fact that he converted client property to his own use. Such use of the money was outside of the parties' contract and was therefore embezzlement.
11.
Chaysee sold franchises to people, authorizing the sale of a product that did not exist. Chaysee was charged with a pattern of racketeering under the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act. Chaysee pleaded not guilty on the grounds that there was no pattern of racketeering because he only engaged in one fraudulent scheme. A pattern of racketeering activity involves at least two acts of racketeering activity within a certain period of time. To constitute a pattern of racketeering activity, it is not necessary...
Each time Chayssee sold the fraudulent franchises, he engaged in an act of racketeering, therefore he was guilty under the Colorado Crime Control Act.
Chapter 9- Torts
1.
Boytera and Langley were involved in a collision on the curved portion of a two-lane road. Langley claimed that Boytera was driving in her lane and hit her head-on. Boytera claimed that Langley was driving at an excessive speed. Boyter and his employer, Concrete Specialties defended Boytera's negligence lawsuit on the grounds of contributory negligence. A contributory negligence defense requires that the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the harm. Langley was not guilty of contributory negligence because even if she had been traveling at the legal speed Boytera would have hit her if he was traveling in her lane. If it is found that Langley was guilty of contributory negligence, she could only recover for that part of the damages caused by Boytera's negligence.
5.
The city of Chicago failed to remove an abandoned van in an alleyway. The van's gas tank exploded, injuring James Ortiz. Ortiz brought suit against the city, seeking damages for his injuries. In order for the city to be liable, the city must have had a duty to remove the van, and the breach of that duty must have caused the harm that resulted in Ortiz's damages. Finally, the damages had to be foreseeable. The city had a duty to remove abandoned vehicles. Failure to remove the van resulted in its parts being stripped, which caused the gas tank to explode, injuring Ortiz. The fact that the van belonged to the owner did not prevent the city from being liable for the injuries because the city's duty to remove abandoned vehicles existed independently of the owner's duty not to…
