Respuesta :
The Right Answer Choice B.
To Find the Right Answer amongst all the option , we need to know about all the option in detailed.
Although murder is a malice crime that can be satisfied by an intent to do serious bodily harm, attempted murder is a specific-intent crime. Here, the loan shark had the intent to do serious bodily harm to the borrower by subjecting him to a shattered kneecap.
However, the loan shark did not possess the intent to kill the borrower. Therefore, even though the loan shark took a substantial step towards the murder of the borrower in directing his henchman to shatter the borrower's kneecaps, the loan shark is likely not guilty of attempted murder because attempt requires specific intent.
Answer choice A is incorrect. A mistake of fact can be a defense to a malice crime such as murder if the mistake is a reasonable one. A mistake of fact can also be a defense to a specific-intent crime such as attempted murder even if the mistake of fact is an unreasonable one. Mistaking the borrower's twin for the borrower is likely a reasonable mistake. More importantly, the mistake did not result in the death of the borrower or even an attempt being made on his life, but instead in the death of the borrower's twin brother.
Answer choice C is incorrect. Generally, vicarious-liability crimes are limited to regulatory crimes, and punishment is limited to fines. Instead, if the loan shark is liable for the actions of his henchman, it will be because the loan shark is an accomplice who is also responsible for the crime committed at his direction by his henchman.
Answer choice D is incorrect because the doctrine of transferred intent can make the loan shark and his henchman liable for the murder of the borrower's twin brother, but it is inapplicable with respect to the borrower himself. Further, attempt is a specific-intent crime.
I understand that the question you are looking for is:
A. No, because a mistake of fact is not a defense to a malice crime such as murder.
B. No, because the loan shark did not intend for the shattering of the borrower's kneecaps to result in his death.
C. Yes, because the loan shark is vicariously liable for the acts of his agent, the henchman.
D. Yes, under the doctrine of transferred intent.
Learn more about Guilty Of Attempting Murder on:
brainly.com/question/13023738
#SPJ4
