MBE 10 – 2026 – Practice Questions and Study Guide
A defendant is on trial for murder. The only evidence linking the defendant to the crime is some
blood found at the scene. The lead detective testifies that an officer took a vial containing a
blood sample that had been retrieved by a crime scene technician and drove off with it. The
officer is now dead. Next, the prosecution presents as a witness a crime lab chemist. The
chemist will testify that he took a vial of blood that contained a label identifying it as having
been retrieved from the subject crime scene, and that he performed tests that established a
match between that blood and a blood sample taken from the defendant.
Is the testimony of the chemist admissible?
A. Yes, because there has been proper authentication.
B. Yes, because the chemist qualifies as an expert witness.
C. No, because there is insufficient evidence of chain of custody.
D. No, because he did not take the original blood sample at the sc - ANS✔✔ The testimony is
inadmissible because it has not been shown what happened to the blood between the time the
officer took it and the time the chemist examined it. Real evidence presents an object in issue
directly to the trier of fact. One of the general requirements for admissibility of real evidence is
that it be authenticated; i.e., that it be identified as being what its proponent claims it is. If the
evidence is of a type that is likely to be confused or can be easily tampered with, the proponent
of the object must present evidence of chain of custody. The proponent must show that the
object has been held in a substantially unbroken chain of possession. It is not necessary to
negate all possibilities of substitution or tampering; rather, what is required is to show
adherence to some system of identification and custody. Here, the proponent of the blood
sample (the prosecution) has not shown what the officer did with it after leaving the crime
scene. There is no showing that the vial was placed directly in a properly secured area so as to
diminish the possibility of tampering. In short, it has not been demonstrated that there was
adherence to some defined system of identification and custody. In the absence of a
substantially unbroken chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissible for lack of proper
,authentication, and (A) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect. Although it may be true that the chemist
qualifies as an expert witness (i.e., he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates),
the fact remains that his testimony is inadmissible, as explained above. (D) is incorrect because
the chemist would be permitted to testify to the results of the blood comparisons if there were
proper authentication of the blood taken f
A tourist and his friend visited an amusement park located in State A. One of the rides
malfunctioned, injuring the tourist. The friend, who witnessed the accident, sued the
amusement park for negligent infliction of emotional distress in the federal court for State A,
properly invoking diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The friend's complaint alleges that he and
the tourist were lifelong friends and that the friend suffered severe emotional distress from
witnessing the tourist's injuries.
The highest court of State A has held that bystanders may not recover for emotional distress
from witnessing another's injuries unless the bystander and the injured person are related by
blood or marriage.
Which of the following motions would best achieve the amusement park's goal of expeditiously
disposing of the action?
A. A pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
B. A motio - ANS✔✔ (A) The amusement park's most expeditious course of action would be to
file a pre-answer motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. A pre-answer motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim
addresses the adequacy of the pleadings. The allegations of the complaint are deemed true for
purposes of the motion. Here, the complaint alleges that the bystander was a lifelong friend of
the victim, which is insufficient as a matter of law because State A requires bystanders to be
related by blood or marriage to the victim. (B) is incorrect because a party moving for summary
judgment submits evidence (typically affidavits and discovery materials) to establish that there
are no issues of material fact. Here, the amusement park need not gather or submit evidence
because the pleading's allegations are in themselves insufficient to support the bystander's
claim. (C) is incorrect because a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) can be
made only after the pleadings are closed (i.e., after the defendant files its answer). Thus, the
amusement park could more efficiently dispose of the case by making a pre-answer motion to
, dismiss, rather than filing an answer and then making a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
(D) is incorrect because the tourist is not a necessary party to the action. A party is necessary if
complete relief cannot be accorded among the parties in the lawsuit. Here, the bystander's
claim against the amusement park for emotional distress can be resolved without making the
tourist a party.
A cyclist was riding on a sidewalk when someone in a parked car suddenly opened the door of
the car into her path. She swerved to avoid the car door and rode onto a landowner's property,
damaging some plastic lawn ornaments of waterfowl placed in his front yard.
In a suit by the landowner against the cyclist for the damage to his lawn ornaments, what is the
likely result?
A. The cyclist is liable because she had no privilege to enter onto the landowner's property.
B. Whether the cyclist is liable depends on whether she was exercising due care.
C. The cyclist is liable for the damage to the lawn ornaments even though her entry was
privileged.
D. The cyclist is not liable for the damage to the lawn ornaments because her entry was
privileged. - ANS✔✔ The cyclist is liable for damage to the lawn ornaments even though she
had a privilege to enter the landowner's yard. Pursuant to the privilege of necessity, a person
may interfere with property of another where it is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid
threatened injury from a natural or other force and where the threatened injury is substantially
more serious than the invasion that seeks to avert it. In cases of private necessity (where the act
is solely to benefit a limited number of people rather than the public as a whole) the defense is
qualified, so that the actor must pay for any injury she causes. The cyclist was faced with serious
injury from being struck by the car door opening. Apparently the only way to avoid this injury
was to swerve onto the landowner's yard. The threatened injury to the cyclist was substantially
more serious than the cyclist's entry onto the landowner's yard. Thus, the cyclist was privileged
to enter the yard. However, because this is a private necessity situation, she will be required to
pay for the damage she caused to the lawn ornaments. (A) correctly states that the cyclist is
liable for the damage, but incorrectly states that she was not privileged to enter upon the
A defendant is on trial for murder. The only evidence linking the defendant to the crime is some
blood found at the scene. The lead detective testifies that an officer took a vial containing a
blood sample that had been retrieved by a crime scene technician and drove off with it. The
officer is now dead. Next, the prosecution presents as a witness a crime lab chemist. The
chemist will testify that he took a vial of blood that contained a label identifying it as having
been retrieved from the subject crime scene, and that he performed tests that established a
match between that blood and a blood sample taken from the defendant.
Is the testimony of the chemist admissible?
A. Yes, because there has been proper authentication.
B. Yes, because the chemist qualifies as an expert witness.
C. No, because there is insufficient evidence of chain of custody.
D. No, because he did not take the original blood sample at the sc - ANS✔✔ The testimony is
inadmissible because it has not been shown what happened to the blood between the time the
officer took it and the time the chemist examined it. Real evidence presents an object in issue
directly to the trier of fact. One of the general requirements for admissibility of real evidence is
that it be authenticated; i.e., that it be identified as being what its proponent claims it is. If the
evidence is of a type that is likely to be confused or can be easily tampered with, the proponent
of the object must present evidence of chain of custody. The proponent must show that the
object has been held in a substantially unbroken chain of possession. It is not necessary to
negate all possibilities of substitution or tampering; rather, what is required is to show
adherence to some system of identification and custody. Here, the proponent of the blood
sample (the prosecution) has not shown what the officer did with it after leaving the crime
scene. There is no showing that the vial was placed directly in a properly secured area so as to
diminish the possibility of tampering. In short, it has not been demonstrated that there was
adherence to some defined system of identification and custody. In the absence of a
substantially unbroken chain of custody, the evidence is inadmissible for lack of proper
,authentication, and (A) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect. Although it may be true that the chemist
qualifies as an expert witness (i.e., he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates),
the fact remains that his testimony is inadmissible, as explained above. (D) is incorrect because
the chemist would be permitted to testify to the results of the blood comparisons if there were
proper authentication of the blood taken f
A tourist and his friend visited an amusement park located in State A. One of the rides
malfunctioned, injuring the tourist. The friend, who witnessed the accident, sued the
amusement park for negligent infliction of emotional distress in the federal court for State A,
properly invoking diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The friend's complaint alleges that he and
the tourist were lifelong friends and that the friend suffered severe emotional distress from
witnessing the tourist's injuries.
The highest court of State A has held that bystanders may not recover for emotional distress
from witnessing another's injuries unless the bystander and the injured person are related by
blood or marriage.
Which of the following motions would best achieve the amusement park's goal of expeditiously
disposing of the action?
A. A pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
B. A motio - ANS✔✔ (A) The amusement park's most expeditious course of action would be to
file a pre-answer motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. A pre-answer motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim
addresses the adequacy of the pleadings. The allegations of the complaint are deemed true for
purposes of the motion. Here, the complaint alleges that the bystander was a lifelong friend of
the victim, which is insufficient as a matter of law because State A requires bystanders to be
related by blood or marriage to the victim. (B) is incorrect because a party moving for summary
judgment submits evidence (typically affidavits and discovery materials) to establish that there
are no issues of material fact. Here, the amusement park need not gather or submit evidence
because the pleading's allegations are in themselves insufficient to support the bystander's
claim. (C) is incorrect because a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) can be
made only after the pleadings are closed (i.e., after the defendant files its answer). Thus, the
amusement park could more efficiently dispose of the case by making a pre-answer motion to
, dismiss, rather than filing an answer and then making a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
(D) is incorrect because the tourist is not a necessary party to the action. A party is necessary if
complete relief cannot be accorded among the parties in the lawsuit. Here, the bystander's
claim against the amusement park for emotional distress can be resolved without making the
tourist a party.
A cyclist was riding on a sidewalk when someone in a parked car suddenly opened the door of
the car into her path. She swerved to avoid the car door and rode onto a landowner's property,
damaging some plastic lawn ornaments of waterfowl placed in his front yard.
In a suit by the landowner against the cyclist for the damage to his lawn ornaments, what is the
likely result?
A. The cyclist is liable because she had no privilege to enter onto the landowner's property.
B. Whether the cyclist is liable depends on whether she was exercising due care.
C. The cyclist is liable for the damage to the lawn ornaments even though her entry was
privileged.
D. The cyclist is not liable for the damage to the lawn ornaments because her entry was
privileged. - ANS✔✔ The cyclist is liable for damage to the lawn ornaments even though she
had a privilege to enter the landowner's yard. Pursuant to the privilege of necessity, a person
may interfere with property of another where it is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid
threatened injury from a natural or other force and where the threatened injury is substantially
more serious than the invasion that seeks to avert it. In cases of private necessity (where the act
is solely to benefit a limited number of people rather than the public as a whole) the defense is
qualified, so that the actor must pay for any injury she causes. The cyclist was faced with serious
injury from being struck by the car door opening. Apparently the only way to avoid this injury
was to swerve onto the landowner's yard. The threatened injury to the cyclist was substantially
more serious than the cyclist's entry onto the landowner's yard. Thus, the cyclist was privileged
to enter the yard. However, because this is a private necessity situation, she will be required to
pay for the damage she caused to the lawn ornaments. (A) correctly states that the cyclist is
liable for the damage, but incorrectly states that she was not privileged to enter upon the
