Barbri MBE Questions and Verified Answers
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 Correct Answer: 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 ∆ unless he robbed a convenience store and gave the proceeds to the
gang member. The gang member also demanded at gunpoint that ∆kill the clerk to prevent
identification. In abject fear of his life, ∆did everything that the gang member requested.
If ∆ 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. Correct Answer: 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. ∆ 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 ∆ 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) ∆ must have in fact been provoked; (iii) there must not have been sufficient time to cool
off; and (iv) ∆ 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 ∆ (or the
killing of 3P under the transferred intent doctrine). Thus, had ∆ 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.
Who has title to the home?
A The friend and the daughter as co-tenants.
B The brother and the daughter as co-tenants.
C The brother as sole owner.
D The friend as sole owner. Correct Answer: C) An inter vivos conveyance by one joint tenant of his
undivided interest destroys the JT so that the transferee takes the interest as a tenant in common and not
, as JT. Here, when the brother conveyed his interest to the friend, JT b/t bro and sister was severed. At
that point, the friend and the sister held title to the home as TIC. The adopted daughter then inherited
the sister's interest upon the sister's death. Because delivery of a deed cannot be canceled, the friend's
return and subsequent destruction of his deed has no effect. Thus, (A) is correct and (C) is incorrect. (B)
is incorrect because the brother has transferred his interest to the friend. As stated above, the destruction
of the friend's deed has no effect on his interest. For the brother to have his interest back, the friend
would have to reconvey by deed to him.
An officer on routine patrol noticed a flashlight moving within a darkened house and stopped to
investigate. The suspect, who had broken into the home to steal valuables, caught sight of the patrol car,
dropped the bag of valuables as he was about to carry them out of the house, and tried to sneak out the
back way. The officer saw him sneaking out and seized him. The suspect, who had a lock-picking device
in his possession, pulled out two $100 bills from his wallet, stating that he did not take anything and
would like to forget the whole thing. The officer took the money, stating that she would give him a
break this time around, and let the suspect go.
How may the officer be charged in this situation?
A) As an accessory after the fact to burglary and larceny.
B) As an accomplice to the crimes of burglary and larceny.
C) As an accessory after the fact to burglary only. Correct Answer: (C) Accessory after the fact is one who
receives, relieves, comforts, or assists another, knowing that he has committed a felony, in order to help
the felon escape arrest, trial, or conviction. The crime committed by principal must have been completed
@ aid is rendered. Here, O had a duty to arrest ∆ and failed to do so, instead letting him go. Her failure to
act under these circumstances constituted sufficient assistance to the suspect to make her liable as an
accessory after the fact. O almost certainly knew that ∆ had committed the felony of burglary, as she saw
him w/flashlight in the darkened house & caught ∆ sneaking out the back way with a lock-picking
device
(A)= incorrect. Facts do not indicate that O knew that ∆ had committed larceny when she let him go.
She had stopped him outside of the house, and because he apparently had none of the home's valuables
in his possession, she had no reason to doubt his claim that he had not gotten anything from the house.
Although she probably surmised that he had broken in with the intent to commit larceny, she had no
way of knowing that he had completed the crime of larceny by carrying the bag of valuables almost out
of the house.
(B) = incorrect b/c accomplice is one who, with the intent that the crime be committed, aids, counsels, or
encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime. Because ∆ already completed his
crimes when O stopped him, her only liability will be as an accessory after the fact.
After picking up a load of hazardous chemical waste, a truck driver for a waste management company set
out on the road to his next stop. However, he had failed to secure the latch on the back panel of the
truck. Consequently, the panel opened while the truck was on the road, and a metal canister full of
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 Correct Answer: 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 ∆ unless he robbed a convenience store and gave the proceeds to the
gang member. The gang member also demanded at gunpoint that ∆kill the clerk to prevent
identification. In abject fear of his life, ∆did everything that the gang member requested.
If ∆ 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. Correct Answer: 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. ∆ 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 ∆ 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) ∆ must have in fact been provoked; (iii) there must not have been sufficient time to cool
off; and (iv) ∆ 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 ∆ (or the
killing of 3P under the transferred intent doctrine). Thus, had ∆ 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.
Who has title to the home?
A The friend and the daughter as co-tenants.
B The brother and the daughter as co-tenants.
C The brother as sole owner.
D The friend as sole owner. Correct Answer: C) An inter vivos conveyance by one joint tenant of his
undivided interest destroys the JT so that the transferee takes the interest as a tenant in common and not
, as JT. Here, when the brother conveyed his interest to the friend, JT b/t bro and sister was severed. At
that point, the friend and the sister held title to the home as TIC. The adopted daughter then inherited
the sister's interest upon the sister's death. Because delivery of a deed cannot be canceled, the friend's
return and subsequent destruction of his deed has no effect. Thus, (A) is correct and (C) is incorrect. (B)
is incorrect because the brother has transferred his interest to the friend. As stated above, the destruction
of the friend's deed has no effect on his interest. For the brother to have his interest back, the friend
would have to reconvey by deed to him.
An officer on routine patrol noticed a flashlight moving within a darkened house and stopped to
investigate. The suspect, who had broken into the home to steal valuables, caught sight of the patrol car,
dropped the bag of valuables as he was about to carry them out of the house, and tried to sneak out the
back way. The officer saw him sneaking out and seized him. The suspect, who had a lock-picking device
in his possession, pulled out two $100 bills from his wallet, stating that he did not take anything and
would like to forget the whole thing. The officer took the money, stating that she would give him a
break this time around, and let the suspect go.
How may the officer be charged in this situation?
A) As an accessory after the fact to burglary and larceny.
B) As an accomplice to the crimes of burglary and larceny.
C) As an accessory after the fact to burglary only. Correct Answer: (C) Accessory after the fact is one who
receives, relieves, comforts, or assists another, knowing that he has committed a felony, in order to help
the felon escape arrest, trial, or conviction. The crime committed by principal must have been completed
@ aid is rendered. Here, O had a duty to arrest ∆ and failed to do so, instead letting him go. Her failure to
act under these circumstances constituted sufficient assistance to the suspect to make her liable as an
accessory after the fact. O almost certainly knew that ∆ had committed the felony of burglary, as she saw
him w/flashlight in the darkened house & caught ∆ sneaking out the back way with a lock-picking
device
(A)= incorrect. Facts do not indicate that O knew that ∆ had committed larceny when she let him go.
She had stopped him outside of the house, and because he apparently had none of the home's valuables
in his possession, she had no reason to doubt his claim that he had not gotten anything from the house.
Although she probably surmised that he had broken in with the intent to commit larceny, she had no
way of knowing that he had completed the crime of larceny by carrying the bag of valuables almost out
of the house.
(B) = incorrect b/c accomplice is one who, with the intent that the crime be committed, aids, counsels, or
encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime. Because ∆ already completed his
crimes when O stopped him, her only liability will be as an accessory after the fact.
After picking up a load of hazardous chemical waste, a truck driver for a waste management company set
out on the road to his next stop. However, he had failed to secure the latch on the back panel of the
truck. Consequently, the panel opened while the truck was on the road, and a metal canister full of
