Barbri MBE Questions 2025 EXAM QUESTIONS
AND VERIFIED SOLUTIONS |ELABORATED
&DETAILED ANSWERS!!
Save
Terms in this set (40)
,The defendant robbed a The court should suppress all of the evidence
bank and fled in a getaway because it was the fruit of an unconstitutional arrest.
car driven by an As a general rule, the police must have an arrest
accomplice, not realizing warrant to effect an arrest of an individual in his own
that one of the bundles of home. There is no general "emergency" exception to
money he took had the the warrant requirement. While police officers in hot
serial numbers recorded pursuit of a fleeing felon or trying to prevent the
and had a tiny tracking destruction of evidence may sometimes make a
device attached to the warrantless search and seizure, the burden is on the
wrapper. The bank's government to show that one of those exceptions
security consultant applies. Here, the police did not arrive at the
obtained portable defendant's house in hot pursuit of the defendant, and
tracking equipment and there was no indication that the defendant might be
was able to trace the destroying the money or other evidence; i.e., there
bundle of money to the were no circumstances precluding them from keeping
defendant's house. The the house under surveillance while they obtained a
police were notified and warrant. Hence, the arrest was unconstitutional.
they arrived at the Because an arrest constitutes a seizure under the
defendant's house a few Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule applies, and
hours after the robbery. evidence that is the fruit of the unconstitutional arrest
They knocked on the may not be used against the defendant at trial. Here,
door, announced their all of the evidence was seized without a warrant, and
presence, and saw none of the other exceptions to the warrant
someone matching the requirement are applicable. While the protective
description of the robber sweep that turned up the money and gun probably
in the hallway. They would have been within the bounds of a search
entered and arrested the incident to an arrest because the police had reason to
defendant, and then believe an armed accomplice was present, the arrest
conducted a protective in violation of the Fourth Amendment makes the
sweep of the house for search unlawful. Similarly, while the bags of marijuana
the accomplice, who they were discovered in plain view, the police have to be
believed had a gun. They legitimately on the premises for that exception to
did not find him, but while apply. Thus, (C) is correct; (A), (B), and (D) are
checking a closet, they incorrect.
discovered several of the
bundles of money from
the bank and a gun the
, g
defendant had used in the
robbery. The police also
discovered two clear
plastic ba
, A gang member B) murder = unlawful killing with malice aforethought.
threatened to kill ∆ unless "Malice aforethought" exists if the defendant has any
he robbed a convenience of the following states of mind: (i) the intent to kill
store and gave the (express malice);or (iv) the intent to commit a felony.
proceeds to the gang Here, could be found by (i) (b/c the clerk was
member. The gang intentionally killed to prevent identification) or by (iv)
member also demanded (the killing committed during robbery). Robbery
at gunpoint that ∆kill the =aggravated form of larceny and consists of the
clerk to prevent following elements: (i) a taking; (ii) of the personal
identification. In abject property of another; (iii) from the other's person or
fear of his life, ∆did presence; (iv) by force or intimidation; (v) with the
everything that the gang intent to permanently deprive him of it.
member requested. Fact pattern also raises the defense of duress. ∆ not
guilty of an offense, other than intentional homicide, if
If ∆ is arrested and he performs an otherwise criminal act under the
charged with murder and reasonable belief that another will imminently inflict
robbery in a common law death or great bodily harm on him or an immediate
jurisdiction, what result? family member if he does not commit the criminal act.
An argument could be raised that the killing should
A The defendant should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter from murder,
be convicted of murder given that ∆ was acting under the provocation of a
and robbery. threat of deadly force. At common law, provocation
would reduce a killing to voluntary manslaughter if (i)
B The defendant should the provocation must have been one that would
be acquitted of the arouse the sudden and intense passion in the mind of
robbery and convicted of an ordinary person such as to cause him to lose self-
murder. control; (ii) ∆ must have in fact been provoked; (iii)
there must not have been sufficient time to cool off;
C The defendant should and (iv) ∆ did not in fact cool off. Provocation
be convicted of robbery, includes being subjected to a serious battery or a
and the killing will be threat of deadly force.
reduced to voluntary That said, the reduction to voluntary manslaughter
manslaughter. occurs only as to the person who provoked ∆ (or the
killing of 3P under the transferred intent doctrine).
D The defendant should Thus, had ∆ killed the gang member, he might have
be acquitted of the been able to claim "adequate provocation" to h
robbery, and the killing
AND VERIFIED SOLUTIONS |ELABORATED
&DETAILED ANSWERS!!
Save
Terms in this set (40)
,The defendant robbed a The court should suppress all of the evidence
bank and fled in a getaway because it was the fruit of an unconstitutional arrest.
car driven by an As a general rule, the police must have an arrest
accomplice, not realizing warrant to effect an arrest of an individual in his own
that one of the bundles of home. There is no general "emergency" exception to
money he took had the the warrant requirement. While police officers in hot
serial numbers recorded pursuit of a fleeing felon or trying to prevent the
and had a tiny tracking destruction of evidence may sometimes make a
device attached to the warrantless search and seizure, the burden is on the
wrapper. The bank's government to show that one of those exceptions
security consultant applies. Here, the police did not arrive at the
obtained portable defendant's house in hot pursuit of the defendant, and
tracking equipment and there was no indication that the defendant might be
was able to trace the destroying the money or other evidence; i.e., there
bundle of money to the were no circumstances precluding them from keeping
defendant's house. The the house under surveillance while they obtained a
police were notified and warrant. Hence, the arrest was unconstitutional.
they arrived at the Because an arrest constitutes a seizure under the
defendant's house a few Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule applies, and
hours after the robbery. evidence that is the fruit of the unconstitutional arrest
They knocked on the may not be used against the defendant at trial. Here,
door, announced their all of the evidence was seized without a warrant, and
presence, and saw none of the other exceptions to the warrant
someone matching the requirement are applicable. While the protective
description of the robber sweep that turned up the money and gun probably
in the hallway. They would have been within the bounds of a search
entered and arrested the incident to an arrest because the police had reason to
defendant, and then believe an armed accomplice was present, the arrest
conducted a protective in violation of the Fourth Amendment makes the
sweep of the house for search unlawful. Similarly, while the bags of marijuana
the accomplice, who they were discovered in plain view, the police have to be
believed had a gun. They legitimately on the premises for that exception to
did not find him, but while apply. Thus, (C) is correct; (A), (B), and (D) are
checking a closet, they incorrect.
discovered several of the
bundles of money from
the bank and a gun the
, g
defendant had used in the
robbery. The police also
discovered two clear
plastic ba
, A gang member B) murder = unlawful killing with malice aforethought.
threatened to kill ∆ unless "Malice aforethought" exists if the defendant has any
he robbed a convenience of the following states of mind: (i) the intent to kill
store and gave the (express malice);or (iv) the intent to commit a felony.
proceeds to the gang Here, could be found by (i) (b/c the clerk was
member. The gang intentionally killed to prevent identification) or by (iv)
member also demanded (the killing committed during robbery). Robbery
at gunpoint that ∆kill the =aggravated form of larceny and consists of the
clerk to prevent following elements: (i) a taking; (ii) of the personal
identification. In abject property of another; (iii) from the other's person or
fear of his life, ∆did presence; (iv) by force or intimidation; (v) with the
everything that the gang intent to permanently deprive him of it.
member requested. Fact pattern also raises the defense of duress. ∆ not
guilty of an offense, other than intentional homicide, if
If ∆ is arrested and he performs an otherwise criminal act under the
charged with murder and reasonable belief that another will imminently inflict
robbery in a common law death or great bodily harm on him or an immediate
jurisdiction, what result? family member if he does not commit the criminal act.
An argument could be raised that the killing should
A The defendant should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter from murder,
be convicted of murder given that ∆ was acting under the provocation of a
and robbery. threat of deadly force. At common law, provocation
would reduce a killing to voluntary manslaughter if (i)
B The defendant should the provocation must have been one that would
be acquitted of the arouse the sudden and intense passion in the mind of
robbery and convicted of an ordinary person such as to cause him to lose self-
murder. control; (ii) ∆ must have in fact been provoked; (iii)
there must not have been sufficient time to cool off;
C The defendant should and (iv) ∆ did not in fact cool off. Provocation
be convicted of robbery, includes being subjected to a serious battery or a
and the killing will be threat of deadly force.
reduced to voluntary That said, the reduction to voluntary manslaughter
manslaughter. occurs only as to the person who provoked ∆ (or the
killing of 3P under the transferred intent doctrine).
D The defendant should Thus, had ∆ killed the gang member, he might have
be acquitted of the been able to claim "adequate provocation" to h
robbery, and the killing
