1.

Assignment 14(c)(1), pages 101-102, using the IRAC format, analyze the
following fact situation:
Husband, while driving under the influence of alcohol, ran a stop sign, and his
vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Mr. Smith. The Husband’s spouse (Wife)
and two children were passengers in the car. The day after the wreck, Husband told
Wife that he knew that he ran the stop sign because he was drunk. Mr. Smith sues
Husband for negligence. Can Wife be compelled to testify concerning her
conversation with Husband? Why or why not?
Answer:
1. Can Wife be compelled to testify concerning her conversation with Husband? Why
or why not?
It is a no in this case as it does not include any specific exception related to the
regulations of order to warrant asking the spouse to speak.
We have a different privilege that protects talks happening within spouses from getting
disclosed in the court. If the spouse insists on keeping things private, then surely the
entire communications are kept purely confidential. For this rule to apply it is mandatory
for the spouses to be married legally while communications talk and in case of being
married at trial time will not be considered relevant. A power to protect others from
stating any kind of confidential data is present with both the spouses. Certainly, a clear
and frank conversation can be expected during marriage out of this privilege.
2. Can Wife voluntarily testify concerning the conversation? Why or why not?

The right to privilege is always available with the wife.

3. If Husband and Wife are legally separated, can Wife voluntarily testify concerning
the conversation? Why or why not?

In this case Yes, as there is no such privilege for the wife during a separation which
would stop the wife from speaking right in the court.
For most of the cases, it is not mandatory for the spouses to testify. This privilege is
basically relevant when two persons are married under the law during trial time although
they were married when the issue happened. It’s always a decision that the spouse makes
whether she would testify things or not. So we don’t see any state as such restricting
privileges to spouses for not testifying each other.

4. Is the conversation admissible if they are divorced at the time of the lawsuit? Why or
why not?
There exist no spousal privileges if they are divorced as they are currently not married
under the law.
For this rule to apply, it is mandatory for the spouses to be married legally while
communications talk and in case of being married at the trial time will not be considered
relevant as this certainly ensures a clear and frank conversation can be expected during
marriage out of this privilege.

5. Husband and Wife have lived together as husband and wife for the past 20 years.
They have never been formally married. Can Wife testify against Husband concerning
the conversation? Why or why not?
As stated earlier both are supposed to marry under the law for getting this privilege.
6. Is the conversation admissible in a divorce action between Husband and Wife? Why
or why not?

Certainly, no as the privilege doesn’t authorize the marriage after the divorce and there
exists no right for refusal to testify right against an accused ex-spouse. The restriction is
provided against testimony related to events that took place while marrying even though
few law bodies allowing application of testimony for events before marriage.

2. Rule 413, Federal Rules of Evidence states:

“In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court
may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault.”

Create an example where this rule would be used. DO NOT go into detail about the
sexual assault or the circumstances leading up to the assault; simply stating an
assault occurred suffices. Instead, make sure you include the type of case the
evidence is being admitted in, the parties, the court, the allegations, and who is
admitting the evidence.

Answer:

1. Allowed Uses: In any criminal case where we have a defendant being accused due to
a sexual cause, the court carries all rights to ask proof from the accused of the assault.
All relevant pieces of evidence will be taken into consideration if proved relevant.

2. Disclosure to the Accused: In case the prosecutor tends to provide the shreds of
evidence then it becomes mandatory for the prosecutor to disclose all relevant details
to the accused, considering all statements provided by the witness. This task needs to
be completed before 15 days of trial or in the future if the court allows doing so.

3. Impact on other regulations: There exists no rule limiting the admission of evidence
under any other regulation.

4. Meaning of sexual assault: Under regulations 415 the meaning of sexual assault
implies any crime under federal or state law bodies happening due to:
# Any kind of conduct that is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 109A

# Any kind of physical contact without prior consent in the accused body or by any
object and even considering the genitals or anus of the individual

# Any kind of physical contact without prior consent in the accused genitals or anus of
the individual

# Seeking sexual appeasement or any kind of satisfaction from a painful death, injury, or
unpleasant pain to a person.

3. Assignment 8, page 100, question a.

What are the required elements of arson?
(Hint: each element must be proven by a prosecutor for the crime to be proven.
Separate out the rule into each section that would have to be proven. Pay close
attention to categories and the word OR).
Answer:
Arson law basically considers cases with burning down of homes as well as businesses or
any property. Therefore, the crime of arson anticipates the American judicial system even
though legislators are seen modifying the components of the offense thereby extending
on various prospects of conducts that pass under arson.
Before the expansion of the penal codes, crimes like arson were stated by courts. Judges
were certainly restricted by the precedents and as time passed we saw this law system
creating components that were supposed to be met for an accused to get convicted.
At the common law level, arson was stated as being a disastrous burning of any
individuals dwelling. This can be further drilled down into further components. The first
component requires that the accused was enacted with the wrong intent. The next
components require the accused actions producing the burning. So, in this case, a burning
basically comprises of any small damage happening due to charring but at the same time
also causing smoke discoloration being insufficient.
Lastly, the common law arson requires the burned property as a dwelling. A dwelling
structure comes into play when people live nonetheless of the fact that whether was
captured during the fire. On a whole arson was stated as a common law reflecting efforts
taken by the court to reserve the crime for serious cases only.
The required components for proving arson are as follows:
# Proof of burning
#Criminal cases causing a fire.
# Motive not being an important component of arson but components stating the offense
of arson are punishable under law by states but with varying rules.
4. Assignment 8, page 100, question b.
Using the IRAC format, analyze the following situation. Tom breaks into a
neighbor's barn, sets off 20 sticks of dynamite, and blows up the barn. The barn
does not catch fire but it is blown to small bits and completely destroyed. Has Tom
committed arson? Why?
Answer:
Conditions to be taken into consideration:
1: Breaking into neighbor’s barn by Tom.
2: Setting 20 sticks of dynamite by Tom.
3: Blowing the barn by Tom.
4: Barn not catching fire.
5: Barn getting completely dismantled.

Subject:
Do we see Tom committing arson at the time of breaking into neighbor’s barn which led
to blowing up and complete destruction of the building?

Regulation:
Criminal Code Section 20-4-102. Arson.
An individual who intentionally sets fire and causes burns through the usage of any kind
of explosives leading to damage or even destruction of any subject including humans and
their properties.

Study:
We can see Tom broking into neighbor’s barn and then set 20 sticks of dynamite.
After that, he was seen igniting the dynamite and then finally blowing up the entire barn
space leading to complete destruction of the property. As per criminal code Section 20-4-
102 defiantly it’s a case of Arson being committed by an individual where he
intentionally destroyed another individual’s property through fire or through explosives
without any prior consent of the owner. For this, the model penal code justifies that any
individual acting intentionally with a material component of offense when:
1) the component includes the conduct through the attendant cases, then the individual is
quite aware that the conduct falls under certain circumstance and he/she will be penalized
for that
2) the component includes an outcome of his conduct when he is quite aware of the fact
that it gets too certain that the conduct will lead to the similar result
 Tom was surely aware of the circumstances that would take place when he went
ahead with setting the dynamite. He had clear intentions to destroy the barn and then
dismantle it, so he was acting intentionally. When Tom was setting the dynamite then the
building was not completing seen burning, but the explosion caused breaking of the
building into small pieces finally leading to complete destruction of the building.

Closure:
The study therefore states Tom was quite aware of what was going to happen and what
would be the circumstances proving that it was a clear case of Arson and he will be punishable
under all states of law for this act.