BARBRI MBE FINAL PAPER 2026 FULL
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS
GRADED A+
◉ 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. 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. 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. 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
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS
GRADED A+
◉ 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. 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. 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. 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
