Barbri MBE Exam Questions With 100%
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 bags of what appeared to be
marijuana sitting on top of a dresser. They seized the money, the gun, and the two bags.
Later testing confirmed that the substance in the bags was marijuana.
The defendant was charged with the bank robbery and with possession of the marijuana.
At a preliminary hearing, he moves to suppress introduction of the money, gun, and
marijuana.
How should the court rule?
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.
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 have the killing
reduced to voluntary manslaughter (assuming that a straight self-defense issue could not have
been raised). However, as discussed above in terms of a duress defense, it would not justify the
killing of a third party.
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.
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.
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 bags of what appeared to be
marijuana sitting on top of a dresser. They seized the money, the gun, and the two bags.
Later testing confirmed that the substance in the bags was marijuana.
The defendant was charged with the bank robbery and with possession of the marijuana.
At a preliminary hearing, he moves to suppress introduction of the money, gun, and
marijuana.
How should the court rule?
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.
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 have the killing
reduced to voluntary manslaughter (assuming that a straight self-defense issue could not have
been raised). However, as discussed above in terms of a duress defense, it would not justify the
killing of a third party.
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.
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.
