BAR EXAM - Crim Law & Crim Pro Missed Questions

An employee was up for a promotion but was passed over by his boss for a female colleague with more experience. After learning he had not received the promotion, he became angry with his boss and convinced himself that the colleague and the boss, who was married, were involved in a relationship. He therefore contacted the boss's wife and convinced her to shoot the boss. They stated that they would not harm the colleague, as it might make their involvement too obvious. The employee provided her with a gun. The next day, the boss's wife approached the colleague and the boss in their office parking lot. The wife, who was not an experienced shooter, shot the colleague in the arm, and then panicked and ran off. An onlooker rushed the colleague to the hospital. Although the injury was not life threatening, she contracted an infection during surgery and died the following week. A later investigation revealed that the infection was a result of medical malpractice that occurred during the surgery. The crime was eventually traced back to the employee and the boss's wife, and they were both charged in connection with the colleague's death.

The employee is most likely to be convicted of which of the following crimes?

A. Murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder.

B. Murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

C. Attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

D. Murder only.

A. Murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder.

**the employee can also be convicted of any foreseeable crimes committed by the wife in furtherance of the conspiracy—including attempt.

An off-duty police officer was having a drink with his wife in a bar. A man walked by their table, and made a lewd comment about the wife as he passed. The officer jumped to his feet and asked the man to repeat what he had said. The man, who was obviously intoxicated, repeated the comment. The officer then pushed the man, causing the man to fall backwards. The man rose to his feet, pulled a knife from his waistband, and walked toward the officer. As the man lunged at the officer with the knife, the officer pulled his gun from his waistband and shot the man in the leg. Although the officer did not intend to fire a lethal shot, the defendant had a disease that prevented his blood from properly clotting, and he died from blood loss due to the injury.

Is the officer likely to be convicted of homicide?

A. No, because the officer had no knowledge of the man's disease when he shot him.

B. No, because the officer was entitled to use self-defense under the circumstances.

C. Yes, because the officer did not communicate his intent to withdraw from the altercation.

D. Yes, because the officer intended to do grievous bodily harm.

B. No, because the officer was entitled to use self-defense under the circumstances.

A gardener entered a garden center through a side entrance during regular business hours. He intended to steal some heirloom parsley plants for his garden. He noticed a sales display of regular parsley plants at the back of the store, but mistakenly believed they were a very valuable type of heirloom parsley. When no one was looking, he took two small parsley plants from the sales display, put them under his sweatshirt, and left the store. At the register, there was a sign that advertised, "Like parsley? We like it so much that we grew more than we need this season! Ask about our overstock! Today only, we are offering each customer two free parsley plants from the surplus in our greenhouse!" The gardener never saw the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as "entering any building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime." The jurisdiction follows the common-law definition of larceny. The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness.

Which is the most serious crime of which the gardener may be convicted?

A. Burglary and larceny

B. Burglary only

C. Larceny only

D. Attempted larceny only

D. Attempted larceny only

**not larceny because of the sign about 2 free parsley - this made his taking not "nonconsensual"

A woman's husband told her that he was divorcing her, leaving the woman distraught. The woman and her sister decided to burn down the husband's new house while the husband was at work. The next day, the woman and her sister purchased the necessary supplies and drove to the husband's house. The sister waited in the car while the woman started the fire. They then drove off to avoid being noticed. Although the woman and her sister believed the husband was at work, in fact he had stayed home sick, and he was killed in the fire. The woman and her sister were both arrested and charged with both arson and homicide.

May the woman and her sister be convicted of both arson and murder?

A. The woman and her sister may be convicted of arson only.

B. The woman and her sister may be convicted of either arson or felony murder.

C. The woman may be convicted of both arson and felony murder, but her sister may be convicted of arson only.

D. The woman may be convicted of both arson and murder, but her sister may not be convicted of either crime.

B. The woman and her sister may be convicted of either arson or felony murder.

**When a D is convicted of felony murder, the underlying felony MERGES into that conviction—meaning that a D can NOT be convicted of both the underlying felony (arson) and felony murder

**An Accomplice is liable to the SAME extent as the Principal for the encouraged crime (arson) + any crimes that are the "natural and probable" consequences of the Accomplice's conduct (felony murder)

A defendant agreed to help a friend with a burglary by transporting the friend to the scene of the burglary, keeping watch outside the residence while the friend committed the burglary, and then driving the friend away from the scene. The friend believed that no one would be home at the time of the burglary, so the friend told the defendant that he would be unarmed. The friend lied, and instead carried a gun on his person into the residence. After waiting for several minutes, the defendant got cold feet and drove away from the residence, abandoning his friend. Shortly thereafter, the friend encountered an occupant inside the residence. Panicking, the friend shot and killed the occupant.

The defendant has been charged with felony murder in a jurisdiction that permits capital punishment by lethal injection for felony murder.

Can the death penalty be imposed on the defendant?

A.No, because capital punishment cannot constitutionally be imposed for felony murder.

B. No, because the defendant did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill the occupant.

C. Yes, because death by lethal injection does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

D. Yes, because the defendant is guilty of felony murder.

B. No, because the defendant did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill the occupant.

**Here, the D was an accomplice to a burglary during which a killing occurred, so he CAN BE convicted of Felony Murder, however, to get the Death Penalty, the D would have had to significantly participated in the commission of the underlying felony + acted with reckless indifference to human life

A witness was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating a large-scale identity-theft operation. The witness was accompanied by his attorney, but the prosecutor refused to let the witness's attorney into the grand jury room. The witness then asked to call another individual as a witness to corroborate his alibi. The prosecutor denied this request as well. After speaking with his attorney outside the grand jury room, the witness decided to testify. The witness was later indicted by the grand jury for identity theft.

The witness has moved to dismiss the indictment as violating his constitutional rights to counsel and to present witnesses.

Should the court dismiss the indictment?

A. No, because the witness waived these constitutional rights by agreeing to testify.

B. No, because the witness was not denied any constitutional rights.

C. Yes, because the witness was denied his constitutional right to counsel.

D. Yes, because the witness was denied his constitutional right to present witnesses.

B. No, because the witness was not denied any constitutional rights.

**GRAND JURY: A grand jury witness may consult with an attorney outside the grand jury room. But there is NO constitutional right to have counsel inside the grand jury room—even when the witness is the target of the grand jury investigation + There also is NO constitutional right to present witnesses at a grand jury proceeding

The police had accumulated reliable information that a doctor was illegally dealing prescription drugs. One day, the police received a reliable tip that a stainless-steel suitcase containing stolen prescription drugs would be delivered to the doctor's home the following afternoon. The police obtained a search warrant to search for and seize the suitcase when it arrived at the doctor's home the next day.

The police immediately put the doctor's home under surveillance. About five minutes after a woman dropped off a stainless-steel suitcase at the home, the police knocked on the doctor's door. The doctor was given the search warrant upon opening the door, and the police immediately found the suitcase unopened on the kitchen table. After confirming that the suitcase contained prescription drugs, they seized the suitcase and put handcuffs on the doctor. The police then fanned out through the house, looking in every room and closet. They found no one else, but one officer found an automatic weapon in a small box on a closet shelf in the doctor's bedroom.

In addition to charges relating to dealing prescription drugs, the doctor was charged with unlawful possession of weapons. The doctor has moved to suppress the automatic weapon.

Should the court grant the motion to suppress the automatic weapon?

A. No, because the police had probable cause to believe that more narcotics could be located in the house and the gun was found in a proper search for narcotics.

B. No, because the search was a justified protective sweep to protect the arresting officers.

C. Yes, because the search exceeded the authority granted by the warrant.

D. Yes, because the warrant was invalid since it was issued before the police believed there were contraband prescription drugs in the doctor's home.

C. Yes, because the search exceeded the authority granted by the warrant.

An officer pulled over the defendant for speeding. When he ran the defendant's driver's license, the officer saw that there was an outstanding warrant for the defendant's arrest based on her failure to pay child support. The officer arrested the defendant and placed her in the backseat of his squad car. The officer then returned to the defendant's car and saw that her purse was sitting on the passenger seat. The officer searched the purse and found a small amount of marijuana, which the defendant was not entitled to have. The defendant was later charged with drug possession. She has moved to suppress evidence of the marijuana.

Is the defendant likely to succeed in having evidence of the marijuana suppressed?

A. No, because the officer was permitted to conduct a search of containers immediately associated with the defendant, including her purse, incident to a valid arrest.

B. No, because the officer was permitted to conduct a search of the passenger compartment of the defendant's vehicle incident to a valid arrest.

C. Yes, because the officer did not have a reasonable belief that the purse on the passenger seat of the defendant's vehicle contained evidence of the offense.

D. Yes, because the officer could not search the defendant's vehicle without probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband.

C. Yes, because the officer did not have a reasonable belief that the purse on the passenger seat of the defendant's vehicle contained evidence of the offense.

**vehicle search permitted IF it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to crime of arrest may be found therein, EVEN IF the vehicle is outside of person's immediate control

The director of public parks was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating an illegal kickback scheme involving governmental officials. Although the director was told of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, she was not specifically warned that she was a target of the investigation or that she could be indicted. The director lied during her testimony before the grand jury.

The director was indicted by the grand jury for perjury and for crimes related to the illegal kickback scheme. In considering the director's involvement in the scheme, the grand jury heard and relied on hearsay testimony. The director has sought to quash the indictment for perjury because she had not knowingly waived her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the indictments related to the kickback scheme because they were based on hearsay testimony. The court refused to quash any grand jury indictments.

Was the court's refusal proper?

A. No, as to all of the indictments.

B. Yes, as to the perjury indictment only.

C.Yes, as to the indictments related to the kickback scheme only.

D. Yes, as to all of the indictments.

D. Yes, as to all of the indictments.

A professional musician's instrument was stolen from her while she was on tour. An attorney erroneously advised the musician that, if she saw the instrument, she would be legally entitled to use force to regain possession of it in any circumstance. The musician believed the attorney, but in truth, the privilege to use force to recapture property was only available to a person who witnessed the taking of the property and used force immediately thereafter.

Several months later, the musician saw a performer with her instrument at a concert. He had purchased the instrument from the thief without knowing that it had been stolen. When the performer refused to hand over the instrument to the musician, she tried to take the instrument. In the ensuing struggle, the instrument was destroyed.

A statute makes it a crime for a person to use force to recapture property, knowing she has no legal privilege to do so.

If the musician is charged and prosecuted under this statute, can she properly be convicted?

A. No, because she acted on the advice of her attorney.

B. No, because she lacked the necessary mental state.

C. Yes, because reliance on the erroneous advice of an attorney is never a defense.

D. Yes, because she had no privilege to use force to take the instrument.

B. No, because she lacked the necessary mental state.

**the musician believed she could take it back so she lacked the knowledge ("knowingly") of no legal privilege

A man asked a coworker to lend him something he could use to break into their manager's house when he was not home in order to steal the manager's valuable record collection. In fact, unbeknownst to the coworker, the man had no intention of stealing the records, but actually intended to break into the house when the manager was home in order to assault the manager. The next day, the coworker brought a lockpick to work and handed it to the man. The man took the lockpick but, upon arriving at the manager's house that night, found that the door had been left unlocked. The man entered the manager's house and assaulted the manager. As he prepared to leave the manager's home, the man noticed the records and took them. He sold the records to a collector later that week.

The coworker has been charged as an accomplice to burglary, larceny, and assault.

Of which crime(s), if any, is the coworker guilty?

A. Burglary, larceny, and assault.

B. Burglary and larceny only, because she did not intend to assist in the assault.

C. Larceny only, because her lockpick was not used to accomplish the breaking.

D. No crime, because she did not provide any substantial aid or assistance with any crime.

B. Burglary and larceny only, because she did not intend to assist in the assault.

**man gave the lockpick with intent coworker would break in to home & steal records - even though stealing did not happen, the man still provided enough assistance to be guilty of the crimes

A daughter was furious with her mother for forbidding the daughter from dating a certain young man. Intending to debilitate the mother for the evening so she could see the young man, the daughter placed three over-the-counter sleeping pills into the mother's tea without the mother's knowledge. The mother drank the tea. Although the pills would not have been dangerous to an ordinary person, the mother was taking other medication that caused her to suffer an adverse reaction and die.

The jurisdiction generally follows the common law of murder but defines first-degree murder as any murder that is (1) committed by means of poison or (2) premeditated.

The daughter has been convicted of first-degree murder. She argues on appeal that the evidence, which set out the above facts, was insufficient to support a finding of first-degree murder.

Should the daughter's conviction be reversed?

A. No, because she used poison to accomplish the killing.

B. No, because she acted with premeditation.

C. No, both because she used poison and acted with premeditation.

D. Yes.

D. Yes.

**daughter did not have intent to kill

A girlfriend decided to surprise her boyfriend by making dinner at his apartment before he arrived home. She let herself into the apartment using keys that her boyfriend had given her. While cooking, the girlfriend discovered intimate pictures of her boyfriend with another woman at the back of a kitchen drawer. Angered, the girlfriend blew out the flame under the pan that was keeping the dinner warm, but she did not turn off the gas to the stovetop. The girlfriend knew that her boyfriend, a smoker, always lit a cigarette first thing upon arriving home after work. She hoped that when he arrived in an hour, the lighter would ignite the gas and cause a small burst of flames that would burn his hands and face. However, she suspected that the result could be even more explosive if she closed the windows first. As a result, she closed all of the windows in the apartment before leaving. When the boyfriend arrived home an hour later, his lighter ignited the gas filling the apartment, and he died in the ensuing fire.

On this evidence alone, what is the most serious charge, listed below in ascending order of seriousness, of which the girlfriend can be convicted?

A. Arson.

B. Involuntary manslaughter.

C. Voluntary manslaughter.

D. Common-law murder.

D. Common-law murder.

**not voluntary (heat of passion) because she had time to cool off before planning

**GF could be guilty of depraved heart murder or felony murder

A drug dealer and one of his regular customers met in a motel room, as they normally did, to conduct a transaction. During their meeting, the drug dealer found out that the customer was a local politician's daughter; he decided to extort money from the politician. He told the daughter that he had a great deal on some high-quality drugs but that she should stay in the motel room and get high on his personal stash while he went to get them. The daughter used the drugs and passed out shortly thereafter. The drug dealer then left the motel room and used a pay phone to call the politician. He told the politician that he had kidnapped the daughter and that he would kill her unless the politician immediately wired money to an offshore account. The politician instead called the police, who traced the call to the pay phone at the motel. Less than an hour later, the police found the drug dealer watching TV in the motel room while the daughter slept on the bed.

Of which of the following crimes can the drug dealer be found guilty?

A. Kidnapping.

B. Attempted kidnapping.

C. Either kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, but not both.

D. Neither kidnapping nor attempted kidnapping.

D. Neither kidnapping nor attempted kidnapping.

**Not Kidnapping because no confinement

**Not Attempt because no specific intent to kidnap

A man and his nephew entered a bank, each intending to cash a check. A teller noticed that the man's check looked odd and promptly notified the bank manager. The bank manager identified the check as counterfeit and called the police. Upon arrival, the police discovered that the nephew's check was also counterfeit and placed both men under arrest. When being questioned by the police, the man stated, "I told my nephew that the tellers at that bank were too well-trained to be fooled." The nephew invoked his Miranda rights and refused to give a statement.

The man and the nephew were indicted for conspiracy to pass counterfeit checks and tried separately.

Is the above evidence, if presented properly by the prosecution and uncontested by the defendant, sufficient to convict the man?

A. No, because the evidence shows only that the man and his nephew committed separate crimes of possessing counterfeit checks.

B. No, because the evidence shows that the man effectively withdrew from the conspiracy when he gave a statement to the police.

C. Yes, because the evidence shows that both the man and the nephew agreed to pass counterfeit checks.

D. Yes, because the evidence shows that both the man and the nephew were in possession of counterfeit checks.

C. Yes, because the evidence shows that both the man and the nephew agreed to pass counterfeit checks.

**implicit agreement

A wife hired an assassin to kill her husband. The parties agreed that the assassin would come to the wife's home the next night while she was out and shoot her husband in his sleep. The next evening, during a heated argument in their bed, the wife shot and killed her husband. She then covered up his body with a heavy blanket, turned off the lights, and left the house. Shortly thereafter, the assassin arrived, broke into the locked house, went into the dark bedroom, and shot the husband.

The jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as a deliberate and premeditated murder, and second-degree murder as a homicide committed with the intent to kill, the intent to do great bodily injury, or a depraved heart.

The charges below are listed in ascending order of seriousness.

On this evidence, what is the most serious charge for which the assassin can be convicted?

A. No crime.

B. Attempted murder in the second degree.

C. Attempted murder in the first degree.

D Felony murder.

C. Attempted murder in the first degree.

**specific intent to commit murder + takes substantial step to commit murder

**D can still be convicted of murder even if it was "factually impossible" to complete the murder (i.e. guy was already dead)

A man hired a professional assassin to kill his business partner. The man paid the assassin $50,000 up front and promised to pay $50,000 when the business partner was dead. The assassin broke into the partner's house and saw the partner apparently sleeping in a recliner in front of the television. The assassin shot the partner in the back of the head and left, believing the partner dead. The partner was found dead the next day, and the man paid the assassin $50,000. An autopsy later revealed that the partner had died of a brain aneurysm hours before he was shot. The assassin was later arrested for an unrelated matter and confessed to being paid by the man to shoot the partner.

The crimes below are listed in descending order of seriousness.

What is the most serious crime of which the man can be convicted?

A. Murder.

B. Attempted murder.

C. Conspiracy to commit murder.

D. Solicitation.

B. Attempted murder.

A wealthy businessperson wanted to build an expensive home on property he had recently purchased. However, a historic building owned by the businessperson already existed on the property, and the town had denied him permission to tear it down. The businessperson decided to burn down the historic building. One night, he took some lighter fluid and matches into the building, splashed the lighter fluid all over the floor, dropped a lit match, and fled. The match burned out without igniting the lighter fluid. The only damage was to a carpet that was singed by the match.

The jurisdiction defines arson as, "The intentional burning of any structure belonging to another person, without consent from the person who owns the structure."

If the prosecution charges the businessperson with attempted arson, can he properly be convicted?

A. No, because his actions could not have legally resulted in arson.

B. No, because the damage did not affect the structure of the building.

C. Yes, because legal impossibility is not a defense to specific intent crimes.

D. Yes, because the businessperson took substantial steps that went beyond mere preparation.

A. No, because his actions could not have legally resulted in arson.

**arson is the burning of a structure of ANOTHER - here, businessperson owns the historic building so he can not commit arson by burning his OWN building

A police officer obtained a valid warrant to arrest a woman for misdemeanor theft. Having probable cause to believe that the woman was spending the afternoon at a friend's house, the officer went to the friend's house to serve the warrant. No one responded to the officer's knocking or to his identification of himself as a police officer. The officer, finding the door unlocked, opened the door and entered the house. Once in the house, the officer found the woman hiding in a bedroom closet. The woman was properly charged with misdemeanor theft. She sought dismissal of the charge against her due the manner of her arrest.

Should the court dismiss the charge against the woman?

A. No, because the officer had probable cause to believe that the woman was in the friend's house.

B. No, because the woman was properly charged with misdemeanor theft.

C. Yes, because the officer could not arrest the woman for a misdemeanor unless the misdemeanor occurred in the officer's presence.

D. Yes, because the officer's arrest of the woman at her friend's house was illegal.

B. No, because the woman was properly charged with misdemeanor theft.

**Q is asking about the CHARGE

A police officer's wife often worked late with her business partner. The officer suspected that they were having an affair and decided to confront the partner. After putting on his patrol uniform and badge, the officer went to the partner's home and kicked open the front door. He found the partner in his kitchen putting cocaine into little bags. The officer immediately arrested the partner for possession of cocaine and informed him of his Miranda rights. The officer confronted the partner about the affair, and the partner confessed that he and the officer's wife spent late nights together selling cocaine.

At the partner's subsequent trial for possession and distribution of cocaine, the prosecution conceded that the partner's arrest was unlawful. The partner then moved to suppress evidence of his confession, arguing that it was involuntary.

What is the strongest argument in support of the suppression of the confession?

A. The confession was involuntary because the partner did not waive his Miranda rights.

B. The confession was too closely tied to the unlawful arrest.

C. The officer did not have probable cause to detain the partner.

D. The partner made the confession after the officer unlawfully arrested him.

B. The confession was too closely tied to the unlawful arrest.

A police officer sought from an independent magistrate a warrant to search a liquor store owned by the defendant for evidence of a murder. The affidavit submitted by the officer specified the premises to be searched and the items to be seized, and it established probable cause on the basis of a reliable informant's tip that such evidence would be found on those premises. The warrant issued by the magistrate set forth the premises to be searched but neither identified the items to be seized nor made reference to the affidavit. Evidence seized by the officer during the search conformed to the evidence specified in the affidavit.

The defendant was charged with murder. The defendant moved to suppress the items seized by the police officer on the ground that the warrant was constitutionally defective.

How should the court rule?

A. Deny the motion, because as a highly regulated business, a liquor store may be searched without a warrant.

B. Deny the motion, because the search was reasonable.

C. Grant the motion, because probable cause cannot be based on an informant's tip.

D. Grant the motion, because the warrant lacked the particularity required by the Constitution.

D. Grant the motion, because the warrant lacked the particularity required by the Constitution.

An employee of a storage company informed police that the owner of the company was involved in a conspiracy to steal goods and then sell them. According to the employee, the owner permitted the storage of the stolen goods in his warehouse, typically only overnight, before the goods were transported elsewhere for resale. Acting on reliable information from the employee that the warehouse was due to receive a shipment of stolen goods that evening, a police officer immediately filed an affidavit in support of a warrant to search the warehouse upon the arrival of the stolen goods. A warrant authorizing the search was subsequently issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, but the warrant did not specify the condition that had to occur before the search was authorized by the warrant. Properly executing the warrant, the police seized the stolen goods.

The owner of the storage company was charged with conspiracy to commit larceny and possession of stolen goods. The owner sought to suppress the evidence of the stolen goods on the ground that the seizure was unconstitutional.

Should the court suppress this evidence?

A. No, because a warrant is not needed to search business premises such as a warehouse.

B. No, because the warrant satisfied the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

C. Yes, because an anticipatory warrant is per se unconstitutional.

D. Yes, because the failure to state the triggering condition in the warrant caused the warrant to fail for lack of particularity.

B. No, because the warrant satisfied the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

**if PC, do not need to include the triggering condition

Police had probable cause to believe that a man had murdered his former business partner, so they obtained a warrant to arrest him. Early the following morning, a team of officers went to the man's home and, without announcing their presence, kicked open the front door. The officers entered the home with guns drawn and located the man in the kitchen eating breakfast. Startled at the sight of the officer's guns, the man immediately put his hands in the air. An officer then asked the man if he had killed his former business partner. The man reluctantly replied that he had. The man was placed under arrest and subsequently charged with murder.

If the court suppresses the use of this statement as evidence, what is the most likely reason why?

A. The police did not announce their presence prior to entering the man's home.

B. The police did not give the man the required Miranda warnings.

C. The police did not have a search warrant authorizing entry into the house.

D. The statement was coerced because it was obtained while the man was at gunpoint.

B. The police did not give the man the required Miranda warnings.

**do not need to knock & announce with murder sus (too dangerous)

**did have warrant

**going into home with guns is "custody" + officer asked question

A man was indicted for murder and appointed an attorney. While the man was imprisoned awaiting trial, the police placed an informant in the man's cell with instructions to simply "keep his ears open" for incriminating statements made by the man. Without prompting by the informant, the man confessed to committing the murder. The informant then reported the man's volunteered confession back to the police.

As part of the discovery process, the prosecution listed the informant as a witness the prosecution intended to call in its case-in-chief. The defense attorney moved to suppress the informant's testimony regarding the man's confession on the ground that it was obtained in violation of the man's constitutional rights.

Should the court grant this motion?

A. Yes, because the confession was obtained in violation of the man's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

B. Yes, because the confession was obtained in violation of the man's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

C. Yes, because the confession was obtained in violation of the man's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

D. No, because the confession was not obtained in violation of the man's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

D. No, because the confession was not obtained in violation of the man's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

**since the Informant's conduct did NOT constitute an interrogation, the man's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated

The police, in conducting a search of a murder victim's home, found an unsigned, handwritten note that contained a threat against the victim's life. The defendant was indicted for the murder, and an attorney was appointed to represent the defendant. While the defendant was in jail awaiting trial, a police officer came to the jail and demanded that the defendant provide the police with a handwriting exemplar, the text of which was based on the contents of the note found in the victim's home. Although the officer did not have a warrant to collect the exemplar, the defendant complied, feeling that he had no choice but to obey the officer.

Prior to trial, the defendant's attorney filed a motion to prevent the prosecution from introducing the exemplar as evidence at the trial because the taking of the exemplar violated the defendant's constitutional rights.

Should the court grant this motion?

A. No, because the officer's taking of the exemplar was not a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.

B. Yes, because the officer's taking of the exemplar after the defendant had been indicted without the presence of the defendant's attorney violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

C. Yes, because the officer's taking of the exemplar violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

D. Yes, because the officer's taking of the exemplar without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

A. No, because the officer's taking of the exemplar was not a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.

**police took exemplar PRIOR to 6th attaching

**5th does NOT attach to physical evidence

A man was formally charged with murder. An attorney was appointed due to the man's indigence. The man consulted with his attorney. Subsequently, while the man was imprisoned awaiting trial, the police placed an informant into the man's cell with instructions to elicit incriminating statements about the crime from the man. In response to the informant's prompting, the man confessed to killing the victim.

At trial, the man testified that, while present at the scene of the murder, he did not participate in the killing. The prosecution then sought to call the informant as a witness to testify as to the man's prior contradictory confession. The defense attorney objected on the ground that the confession had been obtained in violation of the man's constitutional rights.

Should the court sustain this objection?

A. No, because the confession was to be used for impeachment purposes.

B. No, because the man was provided with an attorney and was able to consult with his attorney prior to talking with the informant.

C. Yes, because the confession was obtained in violation of the man's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

D.Yes, because the confession was obtained in violation of the man's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

A. No, because the confession was to be used for impeachment purposes.

**violation of the 6th BUT can come in for impeachment

A defendant sought the services of an out-of-state attorney to represent her against a charge of felony animal abuse. This attorney was erroneously denied pro hac vice admission by the trial court. The defendant then hired an in-state attorney to represent her. The defendant was convicted of the crime, even though the in-state attorney provided the defendant with competent, adequate representation. On appeal, the defendant challenged her conviction on the basis that she was denied her Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

How should the appellate court rule on this challenge?

A. Apply the harmless-error standard to determine whether to reverse the defendant's conviction.

B. Deny the challenge, because the defendant was provided with competent, adequate representation.

C. Determine whether there was a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have been convicted if represented by the out-of-state attorney and, if so, reverse the conviction.

D. Reverse the conviction, because the trial court erroneously denied the defendant representation by the counsel of her choice.

D. Reverse the conviction, because the trial court erroneously denied the defendant representation by the counsel of her choice.

**The 6th right to counsel protects non-indigent criminal defendants' right to choose the attorney who will represent them. This right to choose counsel includes the option to have an out-of-state attorney admitted to practice before the court hearing the defendant's case pro hac vice—i.e., for the defendant's case only. However, the right to counsel is not absolute. For instance, a court may deny a defendant of the choice of counsel IF the desired attorney has a conflict of interest (e.g., is representing a codefendant).

A defendant was charged with capital murder, and the state sought the death penalty. During voir dire, the prosecution challenged nine prospective jurors for cause when the prospective jurors indicated that they were opposed to the death penalty and could never vote to impose it. The defendant has objected to the prosecutor's challenges.

How should the court rule on the defendant's objection?

A. Overrule the objection, because a party may base a challenge for cause on any non-race-related reason.

B. Overrule the objection, because jurors hearing a death penalty case must be able to impose the death penalty.

C. Sustain the objection, because the defendant is entitled to be tried by an impartial jury chosen from a fair cross section of the community.

D. Sustain the objection, because the prospective jurors' views would not prevent them from impartially deciding the issue of the defendant's guilt.

B. Overrule the objection, because jurors hearing a death penalty case must be able to impose the death penalty.

**"for cause" challenge = Atty has to prove juror would be "unfair" in ruling

A defendant was tried for burglary of a jewelry store. At trial, a witness for the prosecution testified that he saw the defendant loitering outside the jewelry store on the night of the burglary. A defense witness, the defendant's employer, then testified that the defendant was working the night shift across town on the night of the burglary. On cross-examination, the prosecutor confronted the employer with a statement she had given the police in which she said that she could not remember who was working on the night of the burglary. The employer acknowledged the statement but testified that she was mistaken when talking to the police.

As to the defendant's alibi, which of the following instructions would be proper?

A. If the defendant's evidence has given you reasonable doubt as to whether he was the burglar, you must find him not guilty.

B. If you have reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the jewelry store on the night of the burglary, you must find him not guilty.

C. While the prosecution must prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must establish his alibi by a preponderance of the evidence.

D. You must decide whether the defendant has produced sufficient evidence to raise the issue of alibi before you may consider it on its merits

B. If you have reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the jewelry store on the night of the burglary, you must find him not guilty.

**goes to an element of the crime

6

**since the issue of who fired first is NOT relevant to the crime with which the defendant was charged (illegal possession of a firearm by a felon) the officer's testimony should be excluded under the collateral-evidence rule

8

A. No, because the defense did not have an opportunity to question the patient in the previous trial

.**prior testimony by a witness that is now unavailable can NOT come in at another trial unless (1) witness is unavailable and (2) D had an opportunity to cross-examine that witness before

A defendant was charged with possession of prescription drugs without a prescription. At trial, the defendant testified that he received the drugs from a friend and believed they were an acceptable over-the-counter medication. The prosecutor intends to ask the defendant about his previous three misdemeanor convictions in the last five years for possession of the same type of prescription drugs without a prescription.

Should the court allow the prosecutor to ask about the defendant's previous convictions?

A.No, because the convictions are inadmissible character evidence.

B. No, because the convictions were misdemeanors.

C. Yes, to impeach the defendant's character for truthfulness.

D. Yes, to show that the defendant knew the prescription drugs were not an over-the-counter medication.

D. Yes, to show that the defendant knew the prescription drugs were not an over-the-counter medication.

**MIMIC - evidence of the D's previous convictions is admissible to show that he did not mistake (absence of mistake) the drugs for over-the-counter medication in the present case.

19

**Such statements can be used as substantive evidence to help establish a material fact. However, a party may only have the particular statements read into evidence—the treatise itself cannot be received as an exhibit.

A man is on trial for the misdemeanor crime of public lewd conduct for allegedly streaking through a gym in the early evening of May 5. This crime is not classified as a sexual offense in the jurisdiction. At trial, a trainer at the gym identified the man as the streaker and testified that, as the man ran through the gym, he cheered for a professional football team that had recently made the playoffs. The man, however, testified that he was nowhere near the gym on the day in question. In rebuttal, the prosecution seeks to call the manager of another local gym to testify that on the afternoon of May 4, the man had streaked through her gym while cheering for the same football team. The defense has objected to the manager's testimony.

Should the manager's testimony be admitted?

A. No, because a prior bad act is not admissible to show that the man possessed a character trait in accord with which he acted on May 5.

B. No, because character may generally be proven only by reputation or opinion evidence, not specific acts.

C.Yes, to demonstrate the man's propensity for streaking through gyms.

D. Yes, to identify the man as the person who streaked through the gym on May 5.

D. Yes, to identify the man as the person who streaked through the gym on May 5.

**non-character purposes - can come in to prove the perpetrator's identity by showing that the prior crimes or bad acts were committed in a manner that is SIMILAR in nature, location, and/or time to the charged crime

An employee at a shipping company was seriously injured when a large crate that was being moved with a forklift fell on him. While in the hospital, the employee received a call from a woman who claimed to work for the shipping company's front office. The woman stated that the forklift was supposed to have gone in for repair prior to the accident and that this oversight was probably why the crate fell.

The employee filed suit against the shipping company for negligently failing to repair the forklift. At trial, the employee attempted to introduce the woman's statement, arguing that it was attributable to the shipping company. The shipping company objected to admission of the statement. In support of its objection, the shipping company produced an affidavit from its human resources manager stating that the woman had been fired from the company two weeks prior to the employee's accident.

May the trial judge consider the human resources manager's affidavit in ruling on the admissibility of the woman's statement?

A.No, because the affidavit is hearsay and does not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule.

B. No, because the affidavit was prepared in anticipation of litigation and lacks trustworthiness.

C. Yes, because the affidavit is an admissible business record.

D. Yes, because the trial judge may consider hearsay when deciding preliminary questions regarding the admissibility of other evidence.

D. Yes, because the trial judge may consider hearsay when deciding preliminary questions regarding the admissibility of other evidence.

A defendant was charged with murder for allegedly striking his wife repeatedly in the head with a blunt object. While testifying, the defendant claimed that an intruder had murdered his wife in the middle of the night. The defendant then called a witness to the stand who testified that, in his opinion, the defendant was a truthful person. The prosecutor objectedto the witness's testimony.

Should the witness's testimony be admitted?

A. No, because truthfulness is not a pertinent character trait in a murder prosecution.

B. No, because truthfulness may only be supported by reputation testimony.

C. Yes, because the defendant may present evidence of his good character.

D. Yes, because the testimony is relevant to the defendant's argument.

A. No, because truthfulness is not a pertinent character trait in a murder prosecution.

**murder is not a crime reg "truthfulness" of a person

A man charged with aggravated assault of a hiker in a national park has alleged that he shot at the hiker in self-defense. The man testified that when the hiker crossed the man's campsite at dusk, the man thought that the hiker intended to rob him. On rebuttal, the prosecution wishes to call a bartender to testify that the year before, the man had fired at another patron of the bar after a disagreement and claimed that he had done so in self-defense.

Is the bartender's testimony admissible?

A. No, because specific acts are not admissible against criminal defendants.

B. No, because the testimony presents improper character evidence.

C. Yes, as evidence of a pattern of operation or common scheme.

D. Yes, as proper impeachment evidence.

B. No, because the testimony presents improper character evidence.

**the circumstances of the man's prior act are too unrelated to the current charge to show a pattern of operation or common scheme.

A defendant was charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a felon. At trial, a prosecution witness testified that he and the defendant were involved in a verbal altercation during which the defendant pulled a pistol. The witness further testified that the defendant shot at him with the pistol and that he returned the defendant's fire. On cross-examination, the defendant's attorney asked the witness if it was true that he, and not the defendant, fired first. The witness maintained that the defendant shot first. While the witness was subject to recall, the defendant called a police officer to the stand in order to impeach the witness by testifying that the witness told her that he, not the defendant, had fired first. The prosecution has objected to the officer's testimony.

Should the court exclude the officer's testimony as to the witness's prior statement?

A. No, because it relates to the witness's prior inconsistent statement.

B. No, because the witness is subject to recall.

C. Yes, because it involves a collateral matter.

D. Yes, because it is inadmissible hearsay.

C. Yes, because it involves a collateral matter.

**D is being charged with the illegal possession of a gun, NOT who fired 1st

A plaintiff brought an action for the tort of battery against a defendant. At trial, the defendant, asserting self-defense, introduced the deposition testimony of a witness, in which the witness stated that the plaintiff had initiated the altercation with the defendant. The witness was unavailable to testify at the trial because he had begun suffering from a major mental disability after his earlier deposition. The plaintiff then called a friend of the witness who testified that the witness was employed by the defendant. The friend also testified that the witness has a reputation in the community for being untruthful. The defendant objectedto the friend's testimony.

Which action should the court take?

A. Admit the friend's entire testimony regarding the witness.

B. Admit the friend's testimony regarding the witness's character for untruthfulness only.

C. Admit the friend's testimony regarding the witness's employment only.

D. Exclude the friend's entire testimony regarding the witness.

A. Admit the friend's entire testimony regarding the witness.

A restaurant management group brought an action for negligence against a chef of one of its restaurants, claiming that his actions resulted in the burning down of the restaurant where he worked. At trial, it was established that the chef had been experimenting with high-flame cooking techniques after the restaurant was closed. The restaurant management group claimed that the chef started the fire by attempting to use the high-flame techniques while inebriated. The chef, however, contended that the restaurant burned down due to faulty wiring. An investigation of the fire was inconclusive as to its cause.

When the owner of the building where the restaurant was located was called to the witness stand, he testified that the fire was likely caused by faulty wiring, as there had been some minor wiring issues in the past. On cross-examination, the restaurant management group attempted to enter into evidence a fire insurance policy on the restaurant in the building owner's name that would pay out $750,000 for fires stemming from malfunctioning restaurant equipment, faulty wiring, or other related issues. However, it would not pay out for fires caused by the negligent conduct of restaurant employees.

Is evidence of the fire insurance policy admissible?

A. No, because admission of the fire insurance policy would be against public policy.

B. No, because the fire insurance policy is not relevant as it was not in the chef's or restaurant management group's name.

C. Yes, because it shows that the building owner's testimony may be biased as to the cause of the fire.

D. Yes, because there is no public-policy exclusion related to liability insurance in negligence cases.

C. Yes, because it shows that the building owner's testimony may be biased as to the cause of the fire.

**can't come in to prove negligence, BUT it can come in to impeach for bias of witness

A plaintiff sued a company for damages incurred when the company's delivery truck drovethrough the plaintiff's storefront. The plaintiff wants to testify that the driver, a permanent employee of the company, told the plaintiff, "These brakes were on their last miles, but the company didn't replace them. They failed as I turned that corner." The company owns the truck.

Is the plaintiff's testimony regarding the truck driver's statement likely admissible?

A. No, because the testimony is hearsay not within any exception.

B. No, because there is no proof that the truck driver was authorized to speak for the company.

C. Yes, because the testimony is nonhearsay.

D. Yes, because the testimony falls within a hearsay exception.

C. Yes, because the testimony is nonhearsay.

**statement made by party opponent = non hearsay

In a medical malpractice case, a patient sued her surgeon for allegedly causing organ damage during a routine surgery. In a previous case, the patient sued her medical insurance company for not covering some of the medical expenses associated with the complications from the organ damage. During that trial, the patient testified that she overheard a nurse assisting the surgeon tell another assisting nurse during the surgery that it appeared the patient's kidney had been pierced. Before the patient could testify about this statement in the medical malpractice trial, she died from complications stemming from the surgery.

Is the patient's testimony from the previous trial admissible in the medical malpractice trial?

A. No, because the defense did not have an opportunity to question the patient in the previous trial.

B. No, because the testimony was given during a previous trial, not the current proceeding.

C. Yes, because the patient is not available and the surgeon caused the patient's unavailability.

D. Yes, because the patient is not available and the testimony was given as a witness at trial.

A. No, because the defense did not have an opportunity to question the patient in the previous trial.

A plaintiff brought a products liability action against a car manufacturer, alleging that the brakes in the plaintiff's car were defectively designed. At trial, the plaintiff called an expert witness who had extensive experience in the building and design of cars. The expert testified that, based on his experience, the brakes were defectively designed and could easily be fixed by a minor alteration.

On cross-examination, the defendant called the expert's attention to a passage in American Car Design, a well-known treatise covering all aspects of car design. The brake-design methods outlined in the passage were identical to those used by the defendant. The expert stated that he was unaware of the passage prior to his testimony. The treatise was established as a reliable authority by judicial notice. The defendant then sought to admit the treatise into evidence as an exhibit.

May the treatise be admitted as an exhibit?

A. No, but the particular statement in the treatise may be read into evidence.

B. No, only an expert witness's reliance or testimony may establish a treatise as a reliable authority.

C. Yes, because the treatise was called to the expert's attention on cross-examination.

D. Yes, because the treatise was established as a reliable authority.

A. No, but the particular statement in the treatise may be read into evidence.

A plaintiff has brought a medical malpractice claim against a physician for her failure to diagnose a serious brain disorder. The physician and the plaintiff have each called experts to testify as to the proper standard of care when diagnosing serious brain disorders. The plaintiff's expert, testifying on direct examination, identified the appropriate standard of care and acknowledged a treatise as a reliable authority in the field of neural diagnostics, though she did not testify that she had relied on the treatise in forming her opinion as to the appropriate standard of care.

During the plaintiff's cross-examination of the physician's expert, the physician's expert is asked to read to the jury passages from this treatise regarding the proper standard of care applicable in this case. The physician's attorney objects, noting that the physician's expert had not testified regarding the treatise while testifying as to the appropriate standard of care on direct examination.

May the passage from the treatise regarding the appropriate standard of care be read into evidence?

A. No, because the physician's expert did not rely on the treatise during direct examination.

B. No, because the plaintiff's expert did not testify that she had relied on the treatise in forming her opinion as to the appropriate standard of care.

C. Yes, as substantive evidence of the proper standard of care.

D. Yes, provided the treatise itself is admitted into evidence.

C. Yes, as substantive evidence of the proper standard of care.

**the statement may only be read into evidence—the treatise itself cannot be received as an exhibit

As a car came to a stop at a stop sign, a pedestrian watched as a box fell off the roof of the car. The pedestrian tried unsuccessfully to alert the driver about the box before the car sped away. The mailing label on the box indicated that, although the intended recipient of the box lived out of state, the sender of the box lived only a couple of blocks away. As required by state law with regard to lost property, the pedestrian decided to return the box to its sender. As the pedestrian reached the sender's residence, the pedestrian had a change of heart and decided to keep the unopened box and its contents for herself. Although the outside of the box gave no indication of its contents, there was a controlled substance inside the box. The applicable law provides that knowing possession of a controlled substance is a criminal offense.

If the pedestrian were to be arrested before she arrived at her home with the unopened box, with which of the following offenses can she be charged?

A. Both larceny and possession of a controlled substance

B. Only larceny

C. Only possession of a controlled substance

D. Neither larceny nor possession of a controlled substance

D. Neither larceny nor possession of a controlled substance

**Under the continuing trespass rule, a trespass is deemed to be "continuing" when the D does not possess the necessary intent at the time of the taking but later develops the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the personal property. However, the initial taking of the personal property must have been wrongful.

The defendant, an 18-year-old high school senior, was worried about his friend's attachment to a stuffed animal that the friend had slept with since childhood. The defendant formulated a plan to take the toy, hoping this would break the friend's attachment to it. While the friend and his family were out to dinner one night, the defendant used the spare key that the family kept under the doormat to open the front door and sneak into the friend's home. The defendant took the stuffed animal back to his own home and threw it in the trash can. The next day, the friend was distraught over the loss of the stuffed animal, and the defendant admitted what he had done. The friend retrieved the stuffed animal from the trash, washed it, and forgave the defendant.

What is the most serious crime, listed in order of increasing seriousness, for which the defendant may be convicted?

A. Attempted larceny.

B. Larceny.

C. Burglary.

D. Robbery.

C. Burglary.

**Burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. Breaking is accomplished by using force to create an opening into a dwelling. The force may be slight, such as opening a door.

A beautiful woman preyed upon lonely, desperate men looking for love on the Internet by getting a potential suitor to fall in love with her and then propose marriage to her. After a suitor would propose to her and give her an engagement ring, the woman would have a replica of the engagement ring made at a fraction of the cost of the real one. Shortly thereafter, the woman would break off the engagement, return the knock-off version of the engagement ring to the duped suitor, and then sell the real engagement ring for a sizeable profit. After scamming her most recent suitor, the suitor tried to return the knock-off ring to a high-end jewelry store the same day that he was dumped. The jewelry store marked all of their rings with a very specific insignia that could not be replicated. Once they realized that the ring was a knock-off, they called the police and the woman was arrested.

If the woman is guilty of any crime, she is most likely guilty of:

A. Embezzlement

B. False pretenses

C. Larceny

D. Larceny by trick

B. False pretenses

**woman obtained title by false misrepresentation

A baker who had a contract for blueberry muffins tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with a blueberry farmer to purchase blueberries. The following evening, the baker waited until the farmer left her roadside stand and then entered the farmer's adjacent blueberry fields, and picked 25 quarts of blueberries. As the baker was loading the blueberries into his van, the baker had second thoughts about what he had done. Realizing the farmer would have no problem selling the blueberries at his stand, the baker carried the buckets filled with blueberries to the front of the farmer's stand. A few moments later, he was apprehended and charged with larceny.

Of the following, which would provide baker with the best defense?

A. The baker had begun to voluntarily return the blueberries before he was apprehended.

B. The baker had not permanently deprived the farmer of her blueberries.

C. The farmer would not have suffered a loss because she could have sold the blueberries at her stand.

D. The baker had picked the blueberries himself.

D. The baker had picked the blueberries himself.

**The taking of real-property items (e.g., unharvested crops) is NOT Larceny when the D's act of severance occurs immediately before the carrying away of the real-property items

**Because the baker had picked the blueberries himself, he had effected their severance from the farmer's field and the blueberries the baker picked are considered to be real rather than personal property.

On a warm summer afternoon, a man was sitting on a park bench looking at his cell phone. Beside him, he had placed a box with a pair of handmade shoes for which he had paid $1,000 earlier that day. A jogger came by and picked up the box before the man was aware of what was happening. Immediately afterwards, the man gave chase. As the jogger turned and fired a gun at the man, the man stumbled. The bullet struck and killed a woman who was strolling behind the man in the park. The jogger was arrested and charged with felony murder of the woman.In the applicable jurisdiction, larceny of personal property with a value of more than $500 is a felony.

Can the jogger be convicted of felony murder of the woman?

A. No, because the jogger did not intend to kill the woman.

B. No, because the jogger did not commit an inherently dangerous felony.

C. Yes, under the doctrine of transferred intent.

D. Yes, because the killing occurred during the jogger's flight from the scene of the crime.

B. No, because the jogger did not commit an inherently dangerous felony.

**under this law, jogger committed "larceny" which is NOT one of the felony crimes required under felony murder (BARRK)

A man and a woman agreed to engage in consensual sexual intercourse at a particular hotel the following night. The man, who was the son of the woman's brother-in-law, rented the hotel room for their tryst, but the woman did not show up.In the applicable jurisdiction, a statute provides that a person commits the offense of incest when such person engages in sexual intercourse with a person whom he or she knows he or she is related to either by blood or by marriage as aunt or nephew.

Can the woman and man properly be charged with conspiracy to commit incest?

A. Yes, because each consented to engage in sexual intercourse.

B. Yes, because the man rented a hotel room.

C. No, because of the Wharton Rule.

D. No, because the woman did not show up to the hotel.

C. No, because of the Wharton Rule.

**Under the Wharton Rule, if a crime requires two or more participants, there is no conspiracy unless more parties than are necessary to complete the crime agree to commit the crime. In this case, because only the woman and man agreed to commit incest and both are required in order to commit this crime, neither can properly be charged with the crime of conspiracy to commit incest.

A plaintiff alleged that a defendant negligently ran over his foot with her car. In a civil negligence action against the defendant for his injuries, the plaintiff properly subpoenaed a witness to testify. The plaintiff sought to elicit testimony from this witness about what the witness observed from where he was parked 50 feet down the street. However, the defendant has a restraining order against the witness that subjects him to criminal liability if he fails to stay at least 100 feet from the defendant at all times. The plaintiff called the witness to the stand and asked him where he was on the night of the accident. The witness refused to answer, claiming the privilege against self-incrimination.

On these facts, should the judge allow the witness to remain silent?

A. No, because the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states only prevents self-incrimination in criminal proceedings.

B. No, because the witness is not the defendant in this action.

C. Yes, because there is a reasonable possibility that the witness could incriminate himself with his answers.

D. Yes, because there is clear and convincing evidence that the witness could incriminate himself with his answers.

C. Yes, because there is a reasonable possibility that the witness could incriminate himself with his answers.

**the privilege against self-incrimination extends to a witness in any proceeding, whether civil or criminal, formal or informal, if the answers provide some reasonable possibility of incriminating the witness in future criminal proceedings

The police obtained a warrant to arrest the defendant for the murder of his girlfriend. When they arrived at the defendant's house to serve the warrant, the defendant's neighbor informed the police that the defendant had left the previous day to visit his sister. The police drove to the sister's home. The defendant answered the front door, and the police promptly arrested him and placed him in the car. The police then asked the defendant's sister for permission to search the house, but she refused. Believing that the sister would likely dispose of any evidence, the police searched the guest room, where the defendant had been staying, without a warrant. During the search, the police found a knife that was later determined to be the murder weapon. The defendant was subsequently charged with murder, but was acquitted after he successfully pled self-defense. The girlfriend's parents later sued the defendant for wrongful death, and during those proceedings, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of the knife found during the search.

What is the plaintiff's best argument that the evidence should be admitted?

A. The defendant was an overnight guest in his sister's home.

B. The current proceeding is a wrongful death action.

C. The search was performed incident to a lawful arrest.

D. There were exigent circumstances justifying the search.

B. The current proceeding is a wrongful death action.

**The remedy provided by the exclusionary rule generally applies only to criminal trials; it is not applicable to civil proceedings such as wrongful death actions.

In response to a request by the president of a local sorority, the owner of a liquor store agreed to supply beer to the sorority for a party at a 10 percent discount off the regular price. The owner was aware that a number of sorority members were under the age of 21, but he did not intend to supply alcoholic beverages to individuals under the age of 21. The owner delivered the beer to the sorority, and the president of the sorority, who was 21 years old, paid for the beer. The sorority permitted anyone who attended the party, including those under 21 years of age, to drink the beer supplied by the owner.

By statute, it is a criminal offense if a person supplies an alcoholic beverage to an individual under 21 years of age. This statute has been interpreted as a strict liability offense.

Can the owner properly be charged with conspiracy to supply alcoholic beverages to individuals under the age of 21?

A. No, because a merchant of goods cannot be criminally liable for legally selling such goods.

B. No, because the owner did not have the specific intent to supply alcoholic beverages to individuals under the age of 21.

C. Yes, because the offense of supplying beer to individuals under age 21 has been interpreted as a strict liability offense.

D. Yes, because the owner should have been aware that there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the beer would end up in the hands of individuals who were under the age of 21

B. No, because the owner did not have the specific intent to supply alcoholic beverages to individuals under the age of 21.

**agreement + specific intent + overt act in furtherance

After receiving a grant of use and derivative use immunity, a mayor testified before a grand jury regarding allegations of corruption. Subsequently, the mayor was indicted for the crime of extortion by a public official based on evidence that the prosecutor obtained without the use of the mayor's grand jury testimony. At trial, the mayor testified on his own behalf.

Is it constitutionally proper for the prosecutor to impeach the mayor's testimony with a statement that the mayor made before the grand jury?

A. No, because the mayor did not waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by taking the stand.

B. No, because the mayor's grand jury testimony was coerced by the grant of immunity.

C. Yes, because statements otherwise protected by the Fifth Amendment may be used for impeachment purposes.

D. Yes, because the prosecutor indicted the mayor without the use of the mayor's grand jury testimony.

B. No, because the mayor's grand jury testimony was coerced by the grant of immunity.

**testimony given under a grant of immunity is coerced and therefore involuntary.

A state official was charged with two federal offenses—bribery in connection with a program administered by the state official that receives federal funds, and interstate travel in furtherance of bribery. The bribe allegedly consisted of accepting payment of the expenses of an out-of-state trip taken by the state official in exchange for awarding a grant under the federal program to the payor of the expenses. The jury found the state official not guilty of bribery but guilty of the offense of interstate travel in furtherance of bribery. The state official has challenged his conviction for interstate travel in furtherance of bribery as unconstitutional.

How should the court rule on this challenge?

A. Against the state official, because a jury verdict is not subject to challenge on appeal.

B. Against the state official, because acquittal by a jury of a predicate offense does not mandate acquittal of a related offense.

C. For the state official, because his conviction for interstate travel in furtherance of bribery is inconsistent with acquittal of bribery.

D. For the state official, because the bribery offense was a lesser included offense of the travel offense.

B. Against the state official, because acquittal by a jury of a predicate offense does not mandate acquittal of a related offense.

In state court, a woman was found guilty of misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, and the court imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment. The execution of the sentence was suspended, and she was placed on probation for six months. The woman later violated a condition of her probation by failing to attend a treatment program. The woman admitted her violation at a preliminary probation-revocation hearing, but at her final probation-revocation hearing she made the necessary proffer of indigence and a timely request for the appointment of counsel, which the court denied. At this final hearing, the court, as permitted by state law, revoked her probation and executed the sentence of six months for violation of the terms of her probation.

Did the woman have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel at the final probation hearing?

A.No, because execution of the woman's sentence was triggered by revocation of her probation.

B. No, because the court's sentence did not exceed six months' imprisonment.

C. Yes, because an indigent defendant has the right to the appointment of counsel.

D. Yes, because the court's action resulted in the woman's incarceration.

A. No, because execution of the woman's sentence was triggered by revocation of her probation.

**B/c the woman admitted her violation at the preliminary hearing + has not claimed that reasons that are complex or difficult to develop justified or mitigated the violation, the woman has NO due process right to counsel