1.Barry wanted to make some money, so he decided to sell methamphetamine, an illegal drug. He asked Alan, who he had heard could get access to illegal drugs, to sell him some methamphetamine so he, in turn could resell the methamphetamine. Alan agreed and sold Barry a bag of clear, crystalline flakes. Barry then repackaged the white powder into smaller containers and sold one to Carmine, who was a police officer who was working undercover. Carmine then arrested Barry. Barry confessed immediately told Carmine that he got the methamphetamine from Alan. When the flakes were tested later, the laboratory found that they were not methamphetamine or any type of illegal substance.

If Alan knew the crystalline flakes were not methamphetamine but Barry believed they were, which of the following is correct?

(A)Both Alan and Barry are guilty of attempting to sell

methamphetamine.

(B)Neither Alan nor Barry is guilty of attempting to sell methamphetamine.

(C)Alan is not guilty of attempting to sell

methamphetamine, but Barry is.

(D)Alan is guilty of attempting to sell methamphetamine, but Barry is not.

--------

2.After waiting for his girlfriend for two hours at a restaurant only to see a text message from her saying that she wanted to break up, Scott drank most of a quart of whisky and decided to ride the bus home. While on the bus, he saw a shopping bag he mistakenly thought was his own, and began struggling with the passenger who was carrying the shopping bag. Scott knocked the passenger to the floor, took the shopping bag, and ran away. Scott was later arrested and charged with robbery.

At his trial, Scott should be:

(A)found not guilty, because his mistake means he did not have the required specific intent.

(B)found not guilty, because he was intoxicated and did not threaten anybody.

(C)convicted, because his intoxication was voluntary.

(D)convicted, because mistake is not a defense to robbery.

--------

3.Anthony lived on the second floor of a small convenience store and gas station that he owned. One night Joshua came into Anthony's store to buy some beer, but Joshua could not show Anthony identification that proved Joshua was of legal age to buy alcohol, so Anthony refused to sell Joshua the beer, saying he could not violate state law. Joshua became enraged and deliberately drove his car into a gasoline pump in front of the store, knocking it over and causing gasoline to shoot from its base. This caused an explosion, which in turn caused a ball of fire to go from the underground gasoline tank into Anthony's building. As a result, the building burned to the ground and Anthony was killed.

This state hasnotadopted the Modern Penal Code and uses common-law definitions of general intent and specific intent. The state has enacted criminal statutes that define murder and arson as general intent crimes.

If Joshua is charged with murder and arson, he should be:

(A)convicted of involuntary manslaughter and found not guilty of arson.

(B)convicted of arson and involuntary manslaughter.

(C)found not guilty of both offenses.

(D)convicted of both offenses.

--------

4.In the parking lot of a convenience store late one night, David and Vanessa agreed to play a game they called "spin it to win it." Victor took an unloaded gun, placed one bullet in the cylinder of the revolver, and spun the cylinder. Vanessa then pointed the gun at David's head and pulled the trigger once. The gun did not fire. David then took the gun, spun the cylinder, and pulled the trigger once. The gun fired, and Vanessa fell over dead.

A statute in the state where this happened defines murder in the first degree as an intentional and premeditated killing or a killing that occurs when a person commits a felony. Under the statute, all other murder is murder in the second degree. The statute defines manslaughter as a killing during an extreme emotional disturbance after an adequate legal provocation or a killing caused by gross negligence.

The most serious crime for which David can properly be convicted is:

(A)murder in the first degree, because the killing was intentional and premeditated and, in any event, occurred during commission of the felony of assault with a deadly weapon.

(B)murder in the second degree, because David's act posed a great threat of serious bodily harm.

(C)manslaughter, because David's act was grossly negligent and reckless.

(D)no crime, because Vanessa and David voluntarily agreed to play a game and each assumed the risk of death.

--------

Questions5, 6and7are all based on the following fact pattern:

Police officers had, over time, collected information from Stephanie, a reliable informant, that Gordon operated a distribution network for illegal drugs, that Gordon and his associates often used violence in their drug business, and that they kept a small collection of weapons in Gordon's house. One day, the police received reliable information that a large green trunk with a Seattle Seahawks logo containing a large amount of the drugs Gordon sold had been delivered to Gordon's house and that the trunk would be moved to another location the next morning. The police obtained a valid search warrant to search for and seize the green trunk and the drugs it contained, then they went to Gordon's house. The police knocked on Gordon's door and said loudly, "This is the police. Open this door immediately. We have a search warrant." After not hearing a response for about 10 seconds, the police broke the door open and stepped into the house. Hearing noises from a room at the back of the house, the police ran to the room and saw Gordon with a large green trunk with a Seattle Seahawks logo on it. They grabbed the trunk and put handcuffs on Gordon. When they searched Gordon, the police found a switchblade knife and a .45-caliber gun. Jason swore at the police and said, "There's no way you would have caught me with that trunk if Stephanie hadn't tipped you off!" The police then spread out all over the house, looking in every room, closet and other space. They did not find anybody else, but one officer found an Uzi automatic weapon in a box on a shelf in a closet in one of the rooms. The prosecutor then obtained an indictment against Gordon, charging him with possession of illegal drugs with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of weapons.

Before Gordon's trial begins, his attorney makes a motion to exclude the evidence of the weapons the police seized and of the statement Gordon made.

5.Gordon's motion to exclude evidence of the switchblade knife and the .45-caliber pistol should be:

(A)granted, because the search and seizure resulted from illegal police conduct in executing the search warrant.

(B)granted, because the police did not tell Gordon that he was under arrest and did not give him notice of hisMirandarights.

(C)denied, because the search and seizure were incident to a lawful arrest.

(D)denied, because the police had reasonable grounds to believe that Gordon had weapons in his house.

6.Gordon's motion to exclude his statement should be.

(A)granted, because the entry by forcing open the door was not reasonable.

(B)granted, because the police did not give Gordon notice of hisMirandarights.

(C)denied, because Gordon made his statement voluntarily.

(D)denied, because Gordon's statement occurred during a lawful public safety search.

7. Gordon's motion to exclude the Uzi automatic weapon should be:

(A)denied, because the police reasonably believed that their search was subject to one of the recognized exceptions to the requirement to obtain a search warrant.

(B)granted, because once the police found and seized the object named in the search warrantthe green trunk no further search of the house is permitted.

(C)denied, because the police were lawfully in Gordon's room and the weapon was something the police could immediately identify as something they could lawfully seize.

(D)denied, because the police were lawfully in Gordon's house and had probable cause to believe that Gordon had weapons in his house.

-------

8.Steve and two of his friends were members of a neighborhood gang. One day, while they watched a local store receiving a delivery of computer tablets and cellular phones, Steve said to his friends Andrew and Michael, "Did you see that? We can make a lot of money if we grab those tablets and sell them to the high school kids cheap. We can break in there tonight and grab them all." Andrew and Michael then agreed to meet late that night and try to break into the store. Steve arrived at 11:30 p.m. that night with a crowbar and driving a pickup truck. Andrew arrived a little later and brought with him a club and a set of burglary tools he had used to break into other stores. Michael never showed up that night, having been called over to his girlfriend's house to take care of a child they had together. After trying for 10 minutes, Steve and Andrew managed to break a thick glass window at the back of the store, but they could not get in before the store's burglar alarm went off. The two of them ran, but the police soon caught them. After talking to other people in the neighborhood, the police also learned that someone had overheard the conversation between Steve, Andrew and Michael, so they later arrested Michael.

Which of the following charges can the prosecutor bring against each of the friends?

(A)Burglary against Steve and Andrew and no charges against Michael.

(B)Attempted burglary against Steve and Andrew and conspiracy to commit burglary against Michael.

(C)Attempted burglary against Steve and Andrew and conspiracy to commit burglary against Steve, Andrew and Michael.

(D)Burglary against Steve and attempted burglary against Andrew and Michael.

--------

9. While having a drink in an almost empty bar one night, Richard noticed that another customer leaving to visit the restroom had left his wallet open on the table, with what looked like a set of credit cards and the corners of two $100 bills poking out of the billfold. Thinking that $200 would get him a long way toward getting racing hubs for his car and that the credit cards might get him a lot more than that, Richard got up, walked over to the table, took the wallet and put it in his jacket pocket and began walking out of the door. Realizing that he had forgotten his car keys on the bar, Richard stopped and started back to the bar. As he returned, he saw the customer whose wallet he had taken, a very large man, looking around the table for the wallet before meeting Richard's eyes with suspicion. Knowing he couldn't get back to the bar without brushing past the customer and possibly having his action discovered, Richard pretended to also look for the wallet. He then secretly and dropped it on the floor before picking it up again and asking the customer if the wallet was his.

Richard has committed:

(A)no crime, because Richard did not take the wallet out of the bar with him.

(B)no crime, because Richard withdrew from his criminal action.

(C)only attempted larceny, because Richard intended to take the wallet out of the bar with him.

(D)larceny, because he took the wallet from its original location and concealed it in his pocket with the intent to steal it.

-------

10.John and his wife Linda went to a party one night where they met Zander, an acquaintance of the party's host. Zander seemed friendly, asking John and Linda if they lived in the neighborhood and what they did for a living, so John began telling Zander about his job as head of security for a local bank and how careful the bank had gotten lately about security because burglars just last month had gotten through the locked steel gate to a room with the bank's safety deposit boxes and had stolen some valuable property. Two weeks later, John arrived home from work and was surprised to see Zander sitting in his living room with another man, who held a knife to Linda's throat. Zander told John to go the bank where he worked and deactivate the security system. After showing him a gun he carried in his jacket pocket, Zander said he would come with him while the other man waited at his house with Linda.

Worried about what might happen to his wife, John did as he was told. Zander removed several boxes from the safety deposit box room and then called his friend, telling him to meet Zander at the bank and bring Linda with him. As Zander hung up, John stabbed him several times with a pocket knife he had with him. Zander later died at a hospital. Zander's friend later arrived at the bank without Linda.

After finding John at the bank, police arrested him and charged him with burglary and murder. If John admits to committing the acts, but claims he was under duress and was defending himself, he likely will:

(A)Be convicted of both charges.

(B)Be convicted of burglary but found not guilty of murder.

(C)Be convicted of murder but found not guilty of burglary.

(D)Be found not guilty of both charges.

-------

11.While attending a protest action in downtown Portland one night, Sarah repeatedly hit a police officer who tried to arrest a friend of hers. After putting Sarah's friend in a police car, the officer returned with other police officers, who grabbed Sarah and began dragging her toward the same squad car. Sarah shouted insults and kicked and punched anybody within range before finally being locked in the back seat of the car. When charged at her arraignment with disorderly conduct, assault and resisting arrest, Sarah entered a plea of not guilty and told the judge she would be defending herself at trial.

The trial judge agreed to let Sarah represent herself, but told her that he would also be appointing standby counsel to assist her with her defense. Acting against the attorney's advice, Sarah decided to try a choice-of-evils defense, but the judge refused to instruct the jury on the defense because Sarah could not show that she had no choice but to take the actions she took. The jury convicted her on the assault and disorderly conduct charges.

On appeal, Sarah's new attorney argued that her convictions should be reversed. The appeals court will likely:

(A)Reverse Sarah's conviction because her decision to represent herself was a structural error in the trial.

(B)Affirm Sarah's conviction because her decision to use a choice-of-evils defense was a reasonable legal strategy that well-informed counsel might make.

(C)Reverse Sarah's conviction because she did not have effective counsel.

(D)Affirm Sarah's conviction because the judge's refusal to give the jury instruction for Sarah's defense was harmless error.

--------

12.Wendel's boss at work told him that his performance was still poor after he had already been warned and put on probation so she was going to recommend to human resources that he should be fired. Angry, Wendel called the police and falsely reported that he had overheard his boss talking about committing a brutal assault that had been in the news while drunk. The police arrested Wendel's boss on suspicion of assault, and when he could not account for where he was on the night of the assault, he was charged and brought to trial, an event the local media covered extensively. The jury later acquitted him for lack of evidence, but in the meantime he had lost his job and gone into debt to try to pay his attorney for his defense. A year later, still unable to get work because of the publicity about his trial, Wendel's former boss committed suicide. Wendel, feeling very sorry about what happened, confessed what he had done to an acquaintance at a bar, who then called the police.

If Wendel is charged with manslaughter, his best defense would be that he:

(A)did not commit act that proximately caused the death of his former boss.

(B)did not intend to cause his former boss's death.

(C)did not act with hatred toward his boss.

(D)acted under extreme emotional distress.