Barbri MBE Questions 2025/2026 Exam
All Answers and Illustrations Given
1
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 - 🧠
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.
COPYRIGHT©PROFFKERRYMARTIN 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE.
PRIVACY STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
,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
2
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
COPYRIGHT©PROFFKERRYMARTIN 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE.
PRIVACY STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
,to be legitimately on the premises for that exception to apply. Thus, (C) is
correct; (A), (B), and (D) are incorrect.
3
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.
COPYRIGHT©PROFFKERRYMARTIN 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE.
PRIVACY STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
, D The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery, and the killing should
be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. - 🧠 ANSWER ✔✔B) murder =
4
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
COPYRIGHT©PROFFKERRYMARTIN 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE.
PRIVACY STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
All Answers and Illustrations Given
1
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 - 🧠
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.
COPYRIGHT©PROFFKERRYMARTIN 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE.
PRIVACY STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
,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
2
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
COPYRIGHT©PROFFKERRYMARTIN 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE.
PRIVACY STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
,to be legitimately on the premises for that exception to apply. Thus, (C) is
correct; (A), (B), and (D) are incorrect.
3
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.
COPYRIGHT©PROFFKERRYMARTIN 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE.
PRIVACY STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
, D The defendant should be acquitted of the robbery, and the killing should
be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. - 🧠 ANSWER ✔✔B) murder =
4
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
COPYRIGHT©PROFFKERRYMARTIN 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE.
PRIVACY STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
