benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / The owner of a meatpacking company was charged under a state criminal code…

Problem

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

question

The owner of a meatpacking company was charged under a state criminal code prohibiting the sale of contaminated meat. The state's highest court has construed the code as imposing strict and vicarious liability to the extent allowed by the federal Constitution. The evidence at trial established that the owner's company had sold contaminated meat that had sickened hundreds of consumers. It further showed, however, that the owner had been out of the country when the meat was sold and had had no reason to know that any of the meat was contaminated. The jury convicted the owner, and the court sentenced him to a large fine and probation. On appeal, the owner has challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence. Should the appellate court uphold the conviction?

choices

  1. No, because there was insufficient proof of the owner's actus reus.
  2. No, because there was insufficient proof of the owner's mens rea.
  3. Yes, because an appellate court cannot second-guess a jury's verdict.
  4. Yes, because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

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

Official source

initial import