Free MBE Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Questions

1. A man left his home unlocked and drove to the grocery store, forgetting to lock the front door. While he was away, his neighbor entered the home without permission, intending to borrow a hammer that belonged to the man. The neighbor found no tools on the first floor and, opening a desk drawer in the man's bedroom upstairs to look for tools, discovered $5,000 in cash. The neighbor took the cash and left. The man returned home an hour later and discovered the theft. The neighbor is charged with burglary. What is the neighbor's best defense?

1. (A) The man failed to lock his door, so the neighbor did not commit a trespass.
2. (B) The neighbor's theft of the cash occurred after entry, so it was not the burglary but a separate larceny.
3. (C) The neighbor did not force his way into the home, so the entry was not forcible.
4. (D) The neighbor entered the dwelling with the intent to commit a lawful act (borrowing), not a felony.

2. A woman drove her car through an intersection after a traffic light turned red. At the same moment, a police officer, sitting in a patrol car 200 feet away and focused on paperwork, happened to glance up and see her car enter the intersection. The officer immediately turned on her lights and siren and stopped the woman. The woman asked why she was pulled over, and the officer responded, 'I think your registration might be expired.' A check of the registration revealed it was current. The officer then asked for consent to search the vehicle, and the woman declined. Without further legal justification, the officer searched the car and discovered 20 grams of methamphetamine in the glove compartment. The woman is charged with possession with intent to distribute. Is the methamphetamine admissible?

1. (A) No, because the search was conducted without a warrant and without valid consent.
2. (B) Yes, because the officer had reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation had occurred, which justified the stop.
3. (C) No, because the officer's true reason for the stop was pretextual and the stated reason was pretextual.
4. (D) Yes, because the officer conducted the search based on probable cause derived from the traffic stop.

3. A homeowner asked a contractor to come fix a leaky roof. As the contractor was climbing the ladder, the homeowner, who harbored a long-standing grudge against him, suddenly kicked the ladder away. The contractor fell 15 feet and suffered multiple broken bones, but survived. The homeowner was arrested at the scene and charged with attempted murder. The evidence established that the homeowner acted with intent to kill. At trial, the homeowner argues he did not commit attempted murder because the contractor did not die. Is this argument likely to succeed?

1. (A) Yes, because attempted murder requires that the victim actually die; without death, the crime is assault or battery.
2. (B) Yes, because the homeowner's conduct, though reckless, did not constitute a substantial step toward death sufficient to satisfy the attempt requirement.
3. (C) No, because the homeowner's deliberate act of kicking the ladder constitutes attempted murder as a matter of law regardless of the outcome.
4. (D) No, because an attempt requires only the intent to commit the crime and a substantial step toward commission, not the commission of the crime itself.

4. Police stopped a car for a traffic violation. The officer asked the driver for license and registration, which the driver provided. The officer then asked, "Do you mind if I look in the trunk?" The driver, who did not want to refuse a police officer, nervously said "okay." The officer opened the trunk without a warrant and found cocaine. The driver was charged with possession with intent to distribute. At trial, the driver moves to suppress the cocaine, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Should the court grant the motion?

1. (A) No, because the driver explicitly consented to the search, and valid consent is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
2. (B) Yes, because the officer lacked probable cause to believe contraband was in the trunk and therefore could not search without a warrant.
3. (C) Yes, because although the driver said "okay," consent was not freely and voluntarily given, as a reasonable person would feel coerced by an officer's request during a lawful traffic stop.
4. (D) No, because a traffic stop is a Terry stop under the Fourth Amendment and the officer had authority to search the trunk as part of a protective search.

5. A man went to a bar intending to beat up his estranged wife's new boyfriend. When he arrived, he saw them at a table. The man grabbed a beer bottle, smashed it against the table, and lunged toward the boyfriend with the broken bottle in his hand, shouting he would 'gut him.' The boyfriend stood up to defend himself. As the man and boyfriend struggled, the bottle struck the boyfriend in the abdomen, severing a major artery. The boyfriend bled out and died before paramedics arrived. The man claimed he never intended to seriously harm anyone; he was just angry and wanted to scare the boyfriend.

1. (A) Voluntary manslaughter, because the man acted in the heat of passion upon discovering his estranged wife with another man.
2. (B) Involuntary manslaughter, because the man's testimony shows he did not intend to seriously injure the boyfriend.
3. (C) Murder under the implied-malice rule, because the man performed an act in disregard of human life with conscious awareness of the risk of death.
4. (D) Assault with a deadly weapon, because the man used a broken bottle, a weapon not legally classified as deadly per se.

6. Two friends were driving home from a party late at night. The driver had consumed five beers but believed he was safe to drive. As he approached a red light, he did not slow down and struck a pedestrian crossing in the crosswalk. The pedestrian died of blunt-force trauma. Police tested the driver and found his blood alcohol level was well above the legal limit. The driver testified that he simply did not see the pedestrian and that he was not thinking about any risks. A toxicologist testified that at his alcohol level, his reaction time was impaired by approximately 30 percent.

1. (A) Murder, because driving while intoxicated and causing a death demonstrates implied malice.
2. (B) Voluntary manslaughter, because the driver's intoxication mitigates the offense to voluntary manslaughter.
3. (C) Criminal negligence causing death, based on the driver's complete failure to exercise reasonable care.
4. (D) Involuntary manslaughter, because the driver engaged in inherently dangerous conduct—operating a vehicle while intoxicated—without legal authority and caused a death, even if he gave no conscious thought to specific risks.

7. Dante invited his neighbor, Xavier, to come to a community meeting to discuss parking problems on their street. At the meeting, another neighbor, Valerie, became verbally aggressive toward Dante over a prior dispute about a fence. When Valerie approached Dante with her fists clenched and made aggressive statements suggesting she would hit him, Dante pushed her backward into a wall. Valerie fell to the ground and suffered a broken arm. Dante claims he acted in self-defense. The jurisdiction follows the retreating duty rule, which requires a person to retreat if safely possible before using force. At trial, Dante wants to testify that he was afraid Valerie would seriously injure him if he did not act. If the prosecutor objects to this testimony as irrelevant, the court should rule:

1. (A) The objection should be sustained because fear alone cannot justify the use of force.
2. (B) The objection should be sustained because Dante did not attempt to retreat.
3. (C) The objection should be overruled because the defendant's reasonable fear of imminent harm is central to self-defense.
4. (D) The objection should be overruled because the defendant's subjective fear is always admissible in self-defense cases.

8. Maya was charged with battery after she struck her adult son, Kai, during an argument in their home. Kai had been drinking heavily and suddenly became physically aggressive toward Maya, lunging at her and throwing punches. Maya grabbed a wooden chair leg and hit Kai once on the arm, causing him to back away. Kai was treated for minor bruising but was not seriously injured. At trial, Maya testifies that she believed Kai was about to seriously harm her if she did not act, and that hitting him with the chair leg was necessary to stop his attack. The prosecutor argues that Maya could have simply run out of the house. The jurisdiction does not impose a duty to retreat from one's own home, but does require that force be proportional to the threat. What is the most likely outcome?

1. (A) Maya is guilty because she used a weapon when she could have merely pushed Kai away.
2. (B) Maya is not guilty because a parent may use any force necessary to protect herself from her child.
3. (C) Maya is guilty because she had time to leave the house rather than use force.
4. (D) Maya is not guilty because she had no duty to retreat from her own home and her use of a chair leg was reasonable and proportional.

9. A man walked into a department store wearing a heavy coat. Unknown to the man, the store had recently installed new security cameras with improved facial recognition. As the man browsed the electronics section, an undercover store security officer, believing based solely on the man's appearance and clothing that he 'looked like a shoplifter,' followed him closely for several minutes. When the man picked up a telephone charger, the officer immediately approached him and told him, 'I think you're going to steal that. I'm watching you.' The man, feeling intimidated and embarrassed, nervously put the charger back and left the store without purchasing anything. The man did not take any merchandise. Can the man bring a claim based on false imprisonment?

1. (A) Yes, because the officer's accusation and close surveillance created a reasonable person's sense of being restrained.
2. (B) No, because the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the man's appearance and behavior.
3. (C) No, because the man was never physically touched or blocked from leaving the store.
4. (D) Yes, because the officer's actions, considered in their totality, constituted a restraint on the man's freedom of movement sufficient to constitute false imprisonment.

10. A defendant was charged with burglary for breaking into a house at night with the intent to commit theft. At trial, he testified that on the night in question, he had consumed a large quantity of whiskey and was severely intoxicated. He stated that due to his extreme drunkenness, he did not form the specific intent to steal; rather, he entered the house to use its bathroom. The defendant's BAC was measured at 0.25, substantially above the legal intoxication threshold. There is no evidence that the defendant's intoxication resulted from involuntary circumstances. Does the defendant's evidence of voluntary intoxication constitute a valid defense to burglary?

1. (A) Yes, because intoxication that prevents the formation of a specific intent always negates criminal liability.
2. (B) No, because the defendant voluntarily consumed the alcohol, and voluntary intoxication is never a defense to any crime.
3. (C) No, because burglary is a crime of violence and therefore intoxication is categorically excluded as a defense.
4. (D) Yes, as to burglary specifically, because burglary requires the intent to commit an underlying felony, and voluntary intoxication may negate that specific intent.

11. A homeowner hired a contractor to perform renovations on her kitchen. Before work began, the homeowner explicitly told the contractor, "Do not touch anything in the storage room off the kitchen—it's private." The contractor, while working in the kitchen, became curious about the storage room and opened the unlocked door to see what was inside. He immediately saw boxes labeled with a store name and, without entering the room or moving anything, took a photo of the contents and reported it to police. The storage room was visible from the kitchen entrance, and the contractor had no reason to believe the homeowner had objects inside she knew were illegal. Police obtained a warrant based in part on the contractor's report and seized methamphetamine manufacturing equipment from the room. The homeowner was charged with drug manufacturing. At trial, she moves to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. Should the court grant the motion to suppress?

1. (A) Yes, because the contractor's initial entry into the storage room violated the Fourth Amendment and therefore all evidence derived from it is fruit of the poisonous tree.
2. (B) No, because the contractor had implied consent to enter the space since he was lawfully present in the kitchen performing work for the homeowner.
3. (C) No, because the contractor was not a government agent at the time he looked into the storage room, and the Fourth Amendment restricts only government conduct.
4. (D) Yes, because the homeowner's explicit instruction not to enter the storage room created a reasonable expectation of privacy that cannot be violated even by a private party.

12. Police received an anonymous tip that a man matching a specific description was dealing drugs from a white van parked at a shopping mall. Officers drove to the mall and found one white van in the parking lot. Without approaching the van, they used binoculars to observe a man inside who matched the description, and they could see what appeared to be small plastic baggies scattered on the passenger seat. Based solely on this observation from a distance, officers obtained a search warrant for the van. They searched it, found methamphetamine and cash, and arrested the driver. The defendant moves to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule?

1. (A) The court should grant the motion because the anonymous tip alone, without independent corroboration of criminal activity, cannot establish probable cause.
2. (B) The court should grant the motion because observing the van from a distance with binoculars constitutes a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
3. (C) The court should deny the motion because the police had reasonable suspicion based on the tip and the matching description, which was sufficient to justify the search.
4. (D) The court should deny the motion because officers observed items suggesting drug dealing in plain view and obtained a warrant before conducting the search.