BARBRI MBE EXAM QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS GRADED A+ 2025/2026
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 - ANS 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
1 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
,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. - ANS 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.
2 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
,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. - ANS 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
3 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
, 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. - ANS (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 principal
must have been completed @ aid is rendered. Here, O had a duty to arrest ∆ and failed to do so,
instead letting him go. Her failure to act under these circumstances constituted sufficient
assistance to the suspect to make her liable as an accessory after the fact. O almost certainly
knew that ∆ had committed the felony of burglary, as she saw him w/flashlight in the darkened
house & caught ∆ sneaking out the back way with a lock-picking device
(A)= incorrect. Facts do not indicate that O knew that ∆ had committed larceny when she let
him go. She had stopped him outside of the house, and because he apparently had none of the
home's valuables in his possession, she had no reason to doubt his claim that he had not gotten
anything from the house. Although she probably surmised that he had broken in with the intent
4 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
ANSWERS GRADED A+ 2025/2026
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 - ANS 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
1 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
,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. - ANS 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.
2 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
,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. - ANS 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
3 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
, 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. - ANS (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 principal
must have been completed @ aid is rendered. Here, O had a duty to arrest ∆ and failed to do so,
instead letting him go. Her failure to act under these circumstances constituted sufficient
assistance to the suspect to make her liable as an accessory after the fact. O almost certainly
knew that ∆ had committed the felony of burglary, as she saw him w/flashlight in the darkened
house & caught ∆ sneaking out the back way with a lock-picking device
(A)= incorrect. Facts do not indicate that O knew that ∆ had committed larceny when she let
him go. She had stopped him outside of the house, and because he apparently had none of the
home's valuables in his possession, she had no reason to doubt his claim that he had not gotten
anything from the house. Although she probably surmised that he had broken in with the intent
4 @COPYRIGHT 2025/2026 ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
