California Bar Exam Questions and Correct
Answers (Verified Answers) Plus Rationale
2027 Q&A| Instant Download Pdf
1. A California resident enters into a written contract with a Nevada
corporation for the purchase of specialized equipment. The
contract contains a California choice-of-law provision. A dispute
later arises concerning the contract. Which law will a California
court most likely apply?
A. Nevada law because the corporation is incorporated there
B. Nevada law because the equipment was manufactured there
C. California law because the parties expressly selected California law
D. Federal law because the transaction involves interstate commerce
Rationale: California generally respects contractual choice-of-law
provisions when the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the
parties or transaction, or another reasonable basis exists, and
application of the chosen law does not violate a fundamental California
policy. An express California choice-of-law clause therefore strongly
supports application of California law.
, 2. A defendant is charged with burglary after entering a store at
night intending to steal merchandise. The defendant argues that
burglary cannot be established because he did not actually take
anything. Which statement is most accurate?
A. The prosecution must prove that property was actually stolen
B. The prosecution must prove that the defendant remained inside the
building for at least five minutes
C. The prosecution need only prove the required entry and intent; an
actual taking is unnecessary
D. Burglary requires proof that the defendant used force to enter
Rationale: Burglary is complete upon the requisite entry with the
required intent. The prosecution does not have to prove that the
defendant actually stole property. The absence of an actual taking may
prevent a theft conviction but does not necessarily defeat burglary.
3. A plaintiff brings a negligence action against a driver who ran a
red light and struck the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff suffered
physical injuries. Which element must the plaintiff establish to
prevail?
A. The defendant intended to cause the accident
B. The defendant breached a duty of reasonable care and caused
legally cognizable harm
,C. The defendant acted with malice
D. The defendant violated a criminal statute
Rationale: Negligence generally requires duty, breach, actual and
proximate causation, and damages. Intent to injure and malice are not
required. A traffic violation may constitute evidence of breach, but the
plaintiff still must establish the elements of negligence.
4. A witness testifies that she heard the defendant say, “I stole the
computer yesterday.” The prosecution offers the statement
against the defendant in a criminal trial. The defendant objects on
hearsay grounds. How should the court rule?
A. Sustain the objection because the statement was made outside court
B. Sustain the objection because the defendant was not under oath
C. Overrule the objection because the statement is an opposing-party
statement
D. Overrule the objection only if the defendant testifies
Rationale: A statement offered against a party and made by that party
is generally treated as an opposing-party statement and is not excluded
by the hearsay rule merely because it was made out of court. The
statement need not have been made under oath.
5. A plaintiff sues a defendant for negligence. The plaintiff seeks to
introduce evidence that, five years earlier, the defendant was
, involved in a completely unrelated automobile accident caused by
careless driving. The defendant objects. What is the strongest
basis for excluding the evidence?
A. The evidence is always privileged
B. The evidence violates the Confrontation Clause
C. The evidence may be excluded because it is being offered
improperly to show the defendant's character or propensity
D. Prior accidents are never admissible under any circumstances
Rationale: Evidence of a person's prior conduct generally cannot be
used simply to prove that the person acted similarly on the occasion in
question. Although prior conduct may sometimes be admissible for
another permissible purpose, such as notice or knowledge, the facts
indicate an improper propensity purpose.
6. A defendant is arrested without a warrant. The police have
probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a felony.
The defendant moves to suppress evidence discovered during the
arrest. Which statement is most accurate?
A. Any warrantless arrest is unconstitutional
B. A warrantless arrest is valid only for misdemeanors
C. Police generally may make a warrantless arrest when they have
Answers (Verified Answers) Plus Rationale
2027 Q&A| Instant Download Pdf
1. A California resident enters into a written contract with a Nevada
corporation for the purchase of specialized equipment. The
contract contains a California choice-of-law provision. A dispute
later arises concerning the contract. Which law will a California
court most likely apply?
A. Nevada law because the corporation is incorporated there
B. Nevada law because the equipment was manufactured there
C. California law because the parties expressly selected California law
D. Federal law because the transaction involves interstate commerce
Rationale: California generally respects contractual choice-of-law
provisions when the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the
parties or transaction, or another reasonable basis exists, and
application of the chosen law does not violate a fundamental California
policy. An express California choice-of-law clause therefore strongly
supports application of California law.
, 2. A defendant is charged with burglary after entering a store at
night intending to steal merchandise. The defendant argues that
burglary cannot be established because he did not actually take
anything. Which statement is most accurate?
A. The prosecution must prove that property was actually stolen
B. The prosecution must prove that the defendant remained inside the
building for at least five minutes
C. The prosecution need only prove the required entry and intent; an
actual taking is unnecessary
D. Burglary requires proof that the defendant used force to enter
Rationale: Burglary is complete upon the requisite entry with the
required intent. The prosecution does not have to prove that the
defendant actually stole property. The absence of an actual taking may
prevent a theft conviction but does not necessarily defeat burglary.
3. A plaintiff brings a negligence action against a driver who ran a
red light and struck the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff suffered
physical injuries. Which element must the plaintiff establish to
prevail?
A. The defendant intended to cause the accident
B. The defendant breached a duty of reasonable care and caused
legally cognizable harm
,C. The defendant acted with malice
D. The defendant violated a criminal statute
Rationale: Negligence generally requires duty, breach, actual and
proximate causation, and damages. Intent to injure and malice are not
required. A traffic violation may constitute evidence of breach, but the
plaintiff still must establish the elements of negligence.
4. A witness testifies that she heard the defendant say, “I stole the
computer yesterday.” The prosecution offers the statement
against the defendant in a criminal trial. The defendant objects on
hearsay grounds. How should the court rule?
A. Sustain the objection because the statement was made outside court
B. Sustain the objection because the defendant was not under oath
C. Overrule the objection because the statement is an opposing-party
statement
D. Overrule the objection only if the defendant testifies
Rationale: A statement offered against a party and made by that party
is generally treated as an opposing-party statement and is not excluded
by the hearsay rule merely because it was made out of court. The
statement need not have been made under oath.
5. A plaintiff sues a defendant for negligence. The plaintiff seeks to
introduce evidence that, five years earlier, the defendant was
, involved in a completely unrelated automobile accident caused by
careless driving. The defendant objects. What is the strongest
basis for excluding the evidence?
A. The evidence is always privileged
B. The evidence violates the Confrontation Clause
C. The evidence may be excluded because it is being offered
improperly to show the defendant's character or propensity
D. Prior accidents are never admissible under any circumstances
Rationale: Evidence of a person's prior conduct generally cannot be
used simply to prove that the person acted similarly on the occasion in
question. Although prior conduct may sometimes be admissible for
another permissible purpose, such as notice or knowledge, the facts
indicate an improper propensity purpose.
6. A defendant is arrested without a warrant. The police have
probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a felony.
The defendant moves to suppress evidence discovered during the
arrest. Which statement is most accurate?
A. Any warrantless arrest is unconstitutional
B. A warrantless arrest is valid only for misdemeanors
C. Police generally may make a warrantless arrest when they have
