By Sara Marshman, Kristen Ward and Nicole Best (2Ls at The George Washington University Law School) with special thanks to Alex Hastings and Chris Broz

See R. v. Bunny & Peephens, 1 Peeps Law 2d, 11, 11 (2010) (finding defendants guilty of murder when three peep castaways fed on the marshmallow goodness of their fellow peep because hunger is no defense to peepabalism).*

• For those who found their criminal law class to be a reckless abyss of confusing mens rea doctrines, this is a marshmallowy re-enactment of the Regina v. Dudley & Stephens case, in which the court found that necessity is not a defense to the crime of murder.