Barbri MBE Questions and Answers Fully Solved

Barbri MBE Questions and Answers Fully Solved

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 - Answers 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. - Answers 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 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. - Answers 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.



B) As an accomplice to the crimes of burglary and larceny.