Reading U.S. Cases 4.5: Parts of a Case Assessment
Quiz Summary
0 of 15 Questions completed
Questions:
Information
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You must first complete the following:
Results
Results
0 of 15 Questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 point(s), (0)
Earned Point(s): 0 of 0, (0)
0 Essay(s) Pending (Possible Point(s): 0)
Categories
- Not categorized 0%
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Current
- Review
- Answered
- Correct
- Incorrect
- Question 1 of 15
1. Question
Which of the following is most accurate based on the caption above?
CorrectIncorrect - Question 2 of 15
2. Question
Which choice best identifies what part of case this is:
In this case we are called upon to decide whether an individual’s teeth can constitute a “dangerous instrument” within the meaning of Penal Law Section 10.00(13)
CorrectIncorrect - Question 3 of 15
3. Question
Which choice best identifies which section of the case this is?
While the use of an object to produce injury is an appropriate analytical vehicle to determine whether an object is dangerous, the statute’s ordinary meaning, its legislative history and our jurisprudence persuade us that an individual’s body part does not constitute an instrument under the statute.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 4 of 15
4. Question
Which choice best identifies which section of the case this is?
We therefore reverse the order of the Appellate Division.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 5 of 15
5. Question
Which of the following choices best identifies what part of the case this is?
Defendant Maxwell Owusu is charged in a 13- count indictment with burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [use or threatened use of a dangerous instrument during the burglary of a dwelling]); four counts of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[b] [causing physical injury during burglary]; § 140.25[c] [use or threatened use of a dangerous instrument during burglary]; § 140.25 [burglary of a dwelling]); assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10); [causing serious physical injury with a dangerous instrument]); two counts of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [intentionally causing serious physical injury]; § 120.10 [intentionally causing physical injury with a dangerous instrument]); and two counts of
assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [intentionally causing physical injury]; § 120.00 [injury with a dangerous instrument through criminal negligence]). Four counts of the indictment contain the aggravating factor that defendant used or threatened to use a dangerous instrument.
These charges stem from an incident in which defendant forced his way into his estranged wife’s apartment and became embroiled in a fight with another man. During the fight, defendant bit the victim’s finger so severely that nerves were severed.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 6 of 15
6. Question
Which of the following choices best identifies what part of the case this is?
Supreme Court dismissed three of the counts (burglary first [dangerous weapon used or threatened in a dwelling], assault first [intentional serious physical injury caused by a dangerous instrument] and assault second [physical injury caused by a dangerous instrument]), and reduced one count of burglary second (threat or use of a dangerous instrument) to burglary third. The court reasoned that defendant’s teeth could not constitute a dangerous instrument. The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, reversed. Citing People v. Carter ( 53 N.Y.2d 113), the Appellate Division applied a “use-oriented approach” and determined that teeth can be a dangerous instrument. A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 7 of 15
7. Question
Which of the following choices best identifies what section of the case this is?
In People v. Carter ( 53 N.Y.2d 113), we stated that “`any instrument, article or substance,’ no matter how innocuous it may appear to be when used for its legitimate purpose, becomes a dangerous instrument when it is used in a manner which renders it readily capable of causing serious physical injury.”
CorrectIncorrect - Question 8 of 15
8. Question
Which choice best identifies the section of the case this part is?
The People point to Carter and the recodification of the Penal Law in 1967 as clear indications that the meaning of “dangerous instrument” should be subject to case- by-case functional inquiries into the use of instruments, articles or substances (see, Penal Law § 10.00)
CorrectIncorrect - Question 9 of 15
9. Question
Which of the following choices best identifies which section of the case this is?
It is readily apparent, and the People do not argue to the contrary, that a part of one’s body is not encompassed by the terms “article” or “substance” as used in the statute.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 10 of 15
10. Question
Which of the following choices best identifies which part of the case this is?
But what of the term “instrument?”
CorrectIncorrect - Question 11 of 15
11. Question
Which of the following choices best identifies which part of the case this is?
The starting point of statutory interpretation is, of course, plain meaning (Council of the City of New York v. Giuliani, 93 N.Y.2d 60, 68-69, 1999 WL 02634, *3).
CorrectIncorrect - Question 12 of 15
12. Question
Which of the following choices best identifies the section of the case that this is?
In our view, the plain meaning of instrument in this context is a device or object which is capable of causing harm as defined by the statute. One’s hands, teeth and other body parts are not, in common parlance, “instruments.”
CorrectIncorrect - Question 13 of 15
13. Question
The Penal Law and our jurisprudence have long recognized that how an object is used determines if it is “dangerous.” Neither the Legislature nor the courts, however, have classified a person’s hands, teeth or other body part as a weapon or instrument. Contrary to the People’s position, the definition of a dangerous weapon under former law parallels the current definition of a dangerous instrument. The prior statute included any “other instrument or thing likely to produce grievous bodily harm * * *” (former Penal Law § 242[4]; see also, former Penal Law § 1897).
CorrectIncorrect - Question 14 of 15
14. Question
Which of the following choices best identifies the part of the case that this is?
Our decision does not plow new ground — the interpretation and application of the statute is firmly rooted both in the efforts of the Legislature and in our jurisprudence. Indeed, the dissenter concedes that in 1949 this Court unanimously ruled that a man’s hands — even though they killed another — were not dangerous instruments.
CorrectIncorrect - Question 15 of 15
15. Question
Which of following choices best identifies which part of the case this is?
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the order of Supreme Court reinstated.
CorrectIncorrect