(1) (a) In the 2011 case Adams v. State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia noted that “the crime of enticing a child for indecent purposes in violation of OCGA § 16-6-5 requires the showing of” what?; (b) The Court also noted that “a conviction under OCGA § 16-6-5 need not be based upon evidence” of what?
(2) (a) In the 1981 case Howell v. State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia indicated that “an attempt to commit a crime consists of three elements.” What are these three elements?; (b) The Court went on to state that “in order to constitute the offense of attempt to commit a crime, the accused must do some act towards its commission” and that “mere acts of preparation, not proximately leading to the consummation of the intended crime, will not” do what?; (c) The Court also noted that “it is not necessary that the contemplated murder be factually possible,” but that “it is sufficient if it was” what?; (d) The Court pointed out that “the ‘substantial step’ language in our Criminal Code was adopted from the Model Penal Code,” and that “it is intended that the requirement of a substantial step will result in the imposition of attempt liability only in those instances in which” what?
(3) (a) According to O.C.G.A. § 16-4-2, can a person be e convicted of both the criminal attempt of a crime and the completed crime?; (b) According to O.C.G.A. § 16-4-4, “it is no defense to a charge of criminal attempt that the crime the accused is charged with attempting was, under the attendant circumstances,” what?
(4) (c) In the 1997 case McTaggart v. State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia noted that “OCGA § 16-4-7(a) states that “a person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he” does what?; (b) The Court stated that only what “will bring a defendant within the statute”?; (c) The Court further stated that “the statute only embraces language which creates” what?
(5) (a) In the 2009 case Williamson v. State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia noted that “a person commits the offense of conspiracy to commit a crime when” what?; (b) The Court further stated that “to prove conspiracy, two elements must be shown.” What are these two elements?; (c) The Court also noted that an express agreement between co-conspirators is not necessary, and that “the conspiracy may be inferred from” what?
(6) (a) In the 2012 case Bailey v. State, the Supreme Court of Georgia noted that “an initial coconspirator can avoid the effects of the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime if that person withdraws from the agreement to commit a crime prior to” what?; (b) As further stated by the Court, “it is an affirmative defense to a charge of criminal attempt to commit a crime when the individual abandons his effort to commit the crime or” does what?; (c) According to O.C.G.A. § 16-4-5, “a renunciation of criminal purpose is not voluntary and complete if it results from” what?
(7) (a) In the 1999 case Green v. State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia stated that “under Georgia law, offenses merge and multiple punishment is prohibited if” what?; (b) According to the Court, do a conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary and a conviction for possession of tools for commission of a crime merge as a matter of law?; (c) In the Green case, did the criminal convictions merge as a matter of fact?
(8) (a) In the 2012 case Dukes v. State, the Supreme Court of Georgia indicated that “malice aforethought exists where the person doing the act which causes death has an intention to cause death,” and that “premeditation, as the term is usually used, means a prior determination or plan to commit an act.” What does the Court say about whether premeditation is an element of the offense of murder?; (b) In the 2010 case State v. Jackson, the Supreme Court of Georgia stated recognized that Georgia’s “felony murder statute provides that ‘a person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he’” does what?; (c) In the Jackson case, the Court noted that “proximate cause is the standard for homicide cases in general,” and the Court described a “test for determining causation in homicide cases” that it had previously developed. As further noted by the Court, “where one inflicts an unlawful injury, such injury is to be accounted as the efficient, proximate cause of death, whenever it shall be made to appear, either” of what three thing