benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / Having just stolen a car, a defendant was operating the car within the posted…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

Having just stolen a car, a defendant was operating the car within the posted speed limit when the steering suddenly malfunctioned. The car swerved out of control, jumped the curb, and crashed into a home. The defendant was arrested and charged with the separate crimes of larceny and malicious destruction of property. During the trial the judge instructed the jury that the theft of the car was sufficient evidence to satisfS' the malice requirement for the malicious destruction of property charge. The defendant's attorney has filed a motion objecting to the judge's jury instruction. The judge's instruction was

choices

  1. correct, because malice can be inferred from the intent to steal.
  2. correct, because malicious destruction of property is a general intent crime.
  3. incorrect, because larceny is not a lesser included offense of malicious destruction of property.
  4. incorrect, because malice requires a showing of recklessness.

subject

professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

task_id
5fdaf752-1332-5b01-9b50-8c41a0e14951
task_key
all--test--5fdaf752-1332-5b01-9b50-8c41a0e14951
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import