MBE BARBRI EXAM QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT ANSWERS LATEST UPDATE 2026/2027
The defendant robbed a bank and fled in a getaway car driven by an accomplice, not realizing
that one of the bundles of money he took had the serial numbers recorded and had a tiny
tracking device attached to the wrapper. The bank's security consultant obtained portable
tracking equipment and was able to trace the bundle of money to the defendant's house. The
police were notified and they arrived at the defendant's house a few hours after the robbery.
They knocked on the door, announced their presence, and saw someone matching the
description of the robber in the hallway. They entered and arrested the defendant, and then
conducted a protective sweep of the house for the accomplice, who they believed had a gun.
They did not find him, but while checking a closet, they discovered several of the bundles of
money from the bank and a gun the defendant had used in the robbery. The police also
discovered two clear plastic ba - Answers The court should suppress all of the evidence
because it was the fruit of an unconstitutional arrest. As a general rule, the police must have an
arrest warrant to effect an arrest of an individual in his own home. There is no general
"emergency" exception to the warrant requirement. While police officers in hot pursuit of a
fleeing felon or trying to prevent the destruction of evidence may sometimes make a
warrantless search and seizure, the burden is on the government to show that one of those
exceptions applies. Here, the police did not arrive at the defendant's house in hot pursuit of the
defendant, and there was no indication that the defendant might be destroying the money or
other evidence; i.e., there were no circumstances precluding them from keeping the house under
surveillance while they obtained a warrant. Hence, the arrest was unconstitutional. Because an
arrest constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule applies, and
evidence that is the fruit of the unconstitutional arrest may not be used against the defendant at
trial. Here, all of the evidence was seized without a warrant, and none of the other exceptions to
the warrant requirement are applicable. While the protective sweep that turned up the money
and gun probably would have been within the bounds of a search incident to an arrest because
the police had reason to believe an armed accomplice was present, the arrest in violation of the
Fourth Amendment makes the search unlawful. Similarly, while the bags of marijuana were
discovered in plain view, the police have to be legitimately on the premises for that exception to
apply. Thus, (C) is correct; (A), (B), and (D) are incorrect.
A gang member threatened to kill Δ unless he robbed a convenience store and gave the
proceeds to the gang member. The gang member also demanded at gunpoint that Δkill the
clerk to prevent identification. In abject fear of his life, Δdid everything that the gang member
requested.
If Δ is arrested and charged with murder and robbery in a common law jurisdiction, what result?
A The defendant should be convicted of murder and robbery.
, B The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery and convicted of murder.
C The defendant should be convicted of robbery, and the killing will be reduced to voluntary
manslaughter.
D The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery, and the killing should be reduced to
voluntary manslaughter. - Answers B) murder = unlawful killing with malice aforethought.
"Malice aforethought" exists if the defendant has any of the following states of mind: (i) the
intent to kill (express malice);or (iv) the intent to commit a felony. Here, could be found by (i)
(b/c the clerk was intentionally killed to prevent identification) or by (iv) (the killing committed
during robbery). Robbery =aggravated form of larceny and consists of the following elements: (i)
a taking; (ii) of the personal property of another; (iii) from the other's person or presence; (iv) by
force or intimidation; (v) with the intent to permanently deprive him of it.
Fact pattern also raises the defense of *duress*. Δ not guilty of an offense, other than
intentional homicide, if he performs an otherwise criminal act under the reasonable belief that
another will imminently inflict death or great bodily harm on him or an immediate family
member if he does not commit the criminal act.
An argument could be raised that the killing should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter from
murder, given that Δ was acting under the provocation of a threat of deadly force. At common
law, provocation would reduce a killing to voluntary manslaughter if (i) the provocation must
have been one that would arouse the sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary
person such as to cause him to lose self-control; (ii) Δ must have in fact been provoked; (iii)
there must not have been sufficient time to cool off; and (iv) Δ did not in fact cool off.
Provocation includes being subjected to a serious battery or a threat of deadly force.
*That said, the reduction to voluntary manslaughter occurs only as to the person who provoked
Δ* (or the killing of 3P under the transferred intent doctrine). Thus, had Δ killed the gang
member, he might have been able to claim "adequate provocation" to h
A brother and a sister held record title to a home as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The
brother moved out of the home shortly after conveying his interest in the home to his friend by
quitclaim deed. The friend did not record his deed. Several years later, the sister died, leaving
her adopted daughter as her sole heir. Shortly after the sister died, the brother asked his friend
to return his deed and give up his interest in the home. The friend agreed and returned the deed,
which the brother destroyed.
The defendant robbed a bank and fled in a getaway car driven by an accomplice, not realizing
that one of the bundles of money he took had the serial numbers recorded and had a tiny
tracking device attached to the wrapper. The bank's security consultant obtained portable
tracking equipment and was able to trace the bundle of money to the defendant's house. The
police were notified and they arrived at the defendant's house a few hours after the robbery.
They knocked on the door, announced their presence, and saw someone matching the
description of the robber in the hallway. They entered and arrested the defendant, and then
conducted a protective sweep of the house for the accomplice, who they believed had a gun.
They did not find him, but while checking a closet, they discovered several of the bundles of
money from the bank and a gun the defendant had used in the robbery. The police also
discovered two clear plastic ba - Answers The court should suppress all of the evidence
because it was the fruit of an unconstitutional arrest. As a general rule, the police must have an
arrest warrant to effect an arrest of an individual in his own home. There is no general
"emergency" exception to the warrant requirement. While police officers in hot pursuit of a
fleeing felon or trying to prevent the destruction of evidence may sometimes make a
warrantless search and seizure, the burden is on the government to show that one of those
exceptions applies. Here, the police did not arrive at the defendant's house in hot pursuit of the
defendant, and there was no indication that the defendant might be destroying the money or
other evidence; i.e., there were no circumstances precluding them from keeping the house under
surveillance while they obtained a warrant. Hence, the arrest was unconstitutional. Because an
arrest constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule applies, and
evidence that is the fruit of the unconstitutional arrest may not be used against the defendant at
trial. Here, all of the evidence was seized without a warrant, and none of the other exceptions to
the warrant requirement are applicable. While the protective sweep that turned up the money
and gun probably would have been within the bounds of a search incident to an arrest because
the police had reason to believe an armed accomplice was present, the arrest in violation of the
Fourth Amendment makes the search unlawful. Similarly, while the bags of marijuana were
discovered in plain view, the police have to be legitimately on the premises for that exception to
apply. Thus, (C) is correct; (A), (B), and (D) are incorrect.
A gang member threatened to kill Δ unless he robbed a convenience store and gave the
proceeds to the gang member. The gang member also demanded at gunpoint that Δkill the
clerk to prevent identification. In abject fear of his life, Δdid everything that the gang member
requested.
If Δ is arrested and charged with murder and robbery in a common law jurisdiction, what result?
A The defendant should be convicted of murder and robbery.
, B The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery and convicted of murder.
C The defendant should be convicted of robbery, and the killing will be reduced to voluntary
manslaughter.
D The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery, and the killing should be reduced to
voluntary manslaughter. - Answers B) murder = unlawful killing with malice aforethought.
"Malice aforethought" exists if the defendant has any of the following states of mind: (i) the
intent to kill (express malice);or (iv) the intent to commit a felony. Here, could be found by (i)
(b/c the clerk was intentionally killed to prevent identification) or by (iv) (the killing committed
during robbery). Robbery =aggravated form of larceny and consists of the following elements: (i)
a taking; (ii) of the personal property of another; (iii) from the other's person or presence; (iv) by
force or intimidation; (v) with the intent to permanently deprive him of it.
Fact pattern also raises the defense of *duress*. Δ not guilty of an offense, other than
intentional homicide, if he performs an otherwise criminal act under the reasonable belief that
another will imminently inflict death or great bodily harm on him or an immediate family
member if he does not commit the criminal act.
An argument could be raised that the killing should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter from
murder, given that Δ was acting under the provocation of a threat of deadly force. At common
law, provocation would reduce a killing to voluntary manslaughter if (i) the provocation must
have been one that would arouse the sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary
person such as to cause him to lose self-control; (ii) Δ must have in fact been provoked; (iii)
there must not have been sufficient time to cool off; and (iv) Δ did not in fact cool off.
Provocation includes being subjected to a serious battery or a threat of deadly force.
*That said, the reduction to voluntary manslaughter occurs only as to the person who provoked
Δ* (or the killing of 3P under the transferred intent doctrine). Thus, had Δ killed the gang
member, he might have been able to claim "adequate provocation" to h
A brother and a sister held record title to a home as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The
brother moved out of the home shortly after conveying his interest in the home to his friend by
quitclaim deed. The friend did not record his deed. Several years later, the sister died, leaving
her adopted daughter as her sole heir. Shortly after the sister died, the brother asked his friend
to return his deed and give up his interest in the home. The friend agreed and returned the deed,
which the brother destroyed.
