1. What is the most accurate statement regarding the burden of proof in a criminal case?

A. The defense has the burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

B. The prosecution has the burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

C. The defense has the burden to prove the case by clear and convincing evidence.

D. The prosecution has the burden to prove the case by clear and convincing evidence.

2. A jury hears evidence in a murder case where the defendant alleges self defense. When the judge instructs the jury about the law, she explains the rule of proportionality in self defense cases as follows: "In order to conclude that the defendant acted in self defense, you must conclude that the defendant used only the amount of force that was necessary to defend themselves, and that the amount of force the defendant used was proportional to the amount of force used by the victim." Assume that the jurors believed that the defendant's use of force was disproportionate to the amount of force used by the victim, but they find the defendant not guilty because they do not believe he should be convicted of murder under the circumstances. What concept does the jury's decision best demonstrate?

A. The process of jury selection

B. The rule of lenity

C. Applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt

D. Jury nullification

3. David was embroiled in a conflict with his coworker Vicky. He decided that the only way to end the conflict was to kill Vicky. He went to her home, hid outside in some bushes, and waited for Vicky to start doing dishes right by her kitchen window. At 10pm, Vicky appeared by the kitchen window (as she stood at her sink doing dishes). David fired a gun through Vicky's kitchen window, shattering the window's class and shooting Vicky in the head. Vicky died immediately. David is charged with first degree murder and with burglary. On appeal, his attorney argues that the burglary conviction should be reversed. Assume that the common law rule for burglary applies. Should the appellate court uphold the burglary conviction?

Please select the best answer choice below regarding whether the burglary conviction should stand, and the reason for your selection:

A. Yes, David should be convicted of burglary because all of the elements of burglary are satisfied.

B. No, David should not be convicted of burglary because the entry element cannot be satisfied since he remained outside the home during the entire commission of the crime.

C. No. David should not be convicted of burglary because he intended to shoot Vicky but did not intend to commit larceny inside.

D. Yes, David should be convicted of burglary because he is a risk to public safety, and protecting the community is more important than requiring that the prosecution prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Assume it is 2022 and you are a judge who is presiding over a case where the parties are arguing about whether a statute that prohibits *knowingly giving false information to a police officer" requires that the defendant merely "knowingly give false information," or that the defendant also know that the person they give false information to is a police officer. The statute in question was modified by the state legislature in 2018. Which of the following sources would be most useful for the judge to rely on in reaching their conclusion?

A. A dictionary definition of the word "knowledge."

B. A transcript of the 2018 legislative session that revised the statute, indicating that a previous version of the statute included the following language: "knowingly give false information to a police officer with the knowledge that they were giving information to a police officer," but that the legislators agreed to delete the following language: 'with the knowledge that they were giving information to a police officer."

C. The concept of willful blindness as an alternative way to prove the mens rea of knowledge.

D. A 2017 court opinion from this jurisdiction interpreting the meaning of knowledge in this statute.

5. Assume you are in a jurisdiction that follows the common law rule we have studied regarding attempts. Dave is charged with attempted murder of Vera, his ex-girlfriend. Evidence shows that Dave shot Vera at close range while they were arguing. At trial, Dave admits to pointing the gun at Vera and pulling the trigger, but he testifies that he believed the gun he was brandishing at Vera was unloaded and that no bullet would discharge when he fired it. Assume the jury believes D about this fact.

On the charge of attempted murder, which statement best reflects the legal significance that Dave believed that the gun was unloaded? Dave's mistaken belief would result in:

A. Conviction (i.e. he would be guilty) because he acted with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life by failing to check the gun to see if it was loaded.

B. Conviction (i.e. he would be guilty) because although Dave's mistake of fact was honest, it was not reasonable.

C. Acquittal (i.e. he would not be guilty) because Dave did not act with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk because he did not know the gun was loaded.

D. Acquittal (i.e. he would not be guilty) because the mens rea for attempted murder cannot be established due to Dave's honest mistaken belief.

6. Terry is a babysitter who was taking care of two children while their parents were at work. The children decided to go swimming in their backyard swimming pool. Terry didn't know they had decided to go swimming because she was scrolling through TikTok videos on her phone and was distracted. The children drifted over to the deep end of the pool, where they could not stand. They started to yell "Terry! Terry!" Terry heard them but didn't think there was a problem- she thought they were just playing around in their yard. Terry didn't do anything to help them. The children ended up drowning in the pool. Terry is charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter. What would be her strongest defense?

A. Terry cannot be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because the actus reus requirement of the crime cannot be satisfied since she did not kill the children.

B. Terry cannot be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because an ordinary reasonable person would not have realized that the children screaming her name demonstrated a substantial and unjustifiable risk that they could die.

C. Terry cannot be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because malice cannot be established in this case.

D. Terry cannot be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because she did not have a duty to act.

7. Assume a defense attorney is communicating a plea bargain offer from the prosecution to a client, and the client is a green card holder (i.e. a lawful permanent resident) but not a citizen. Which of the following best summarizes the defense attorney's obligation to the client?

A. The defense attorney has an obligation to inform the client of the punishment that would accompany the plea bargain, but not the immigration consequences of the plea since this is criminal and not immigration court.

B. The defense attorney has an obligation to inform the client of the punishment that would accompany the plea bargain, but not the immigration consequences of the plea since the client is a green card holder and would likely not face immigration consequences because they are lawfully in the United States.

C. The defense attorney has an obligation to inform the client of the punishment that would accompany the plea bargain, and is also obligated to inform her client about the immigration consequences of the plea because the client is not a citizen.

D. The defense attorney has an obligation to advise the prosecutor and the judge, but not the client, about the immigration consequences of the plea bargain.

8. Delia was an accountant who managed her client's personal finances. She realized she was not charging enough for her work, so she informed her client that she would be increasing her fees. The client refused to pay the higher rate that Delia had decided to charge. Delia felt that this was unfair, but she decided to continue to work for this client. She became more and more resentful about this client's refusal to pay her the higher rate, especially because she could see that this client was earning over one million dollars per month. Delia decided to take things into her own hands, and she started to transfer $500 from the client's account into her own personal account each month.

Assume you are in a jurisdiction that follows the common law of theft crimes. Which statement is most accurate? When Delia transferred the money to her account, she committed the crime of:

A. Embezzlement

B. Larceny

C. Larceny by trick

D. Obtaining property by false pretenses

9. Assume you are in a jurisdiction that follows the common law. Alex is watching the Dodgers in the playoffs at a local sports bar. He is a huge fan of the Dodgers and loves watching them play. A loud group of people who seem to have no interest in watching the game come into the bar and begin to talk, scream, and sing so loudly that Alex can't hear the game. Then they start to stand on the tables and block Alex's view of the game. This upsets Alex so much that he yells at the crowd of people. One of them punches Alex is the face. Alex responds by beating him to death. Assume that the prosecution can establish malice based on these facts. What would be the most appropriate homicide charge, and why?

A. Alex should be convicted of first degree murder under a theory of premeditation and deliberation because it does not matter whether he was thinking with a cool head or not during the fight.

B. Alex should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter under the provocation doctrine because battery is a provocative act, and the other elements of the provocation doctrine can likely be met.

C. Alex should be not be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and should instead be convicted of second degree murder, because an ordinary reasonable person would not have been as emotional as Alex was under the circumstances.

D. Alex should be convicted of involuntary manslaughter because he was acting in the heat of passion.

10. Vic and Dan, who are partners, get into an argument in their home. After Dan beats Vic, Vic runs out of the house to protect himself. He keeps running until he reaches his sister's house. He tells his sister what has happened. She makes him a cup of tea and encourages him to stay over at her house and to get a good night's sleep. That night, Vic's sister's house burns down, and both Vic and his sister are killed.

Is Vic's partner Dan the proximate cause of Vic's death? Please select the most accurate answer choice below.

A. Yes, Dan is the proximate cause of Vic's death because but for Dan beating him, Vic would not have left his home and would not have been at his sister's house.

B. No, Dan is not the proximate cause of Vic's death because Vic had reached a place of apparent safety when he arrived at his sister's house, and the causal chain linking back to Dan was broken.

C. Yes, Dan is the proximate cause of Vic's death because the fire was an intervening act that was responsive to or dependent on the partner's actions, and it does not matter whether it was a highly unusual occurrence.

D. No, Dan is not the proximate cause of Vic's death because there is no evidence that Dan knew that Vic had fled to his sister's house.

11. Jack and Jill were best friends. One day, they were walking home from school. A classmate of Jill's called her an insulting but non-threatening name. Jack responded by punching the classmate in the nose. Jill did nothing to assist Jack, but she also did nothing to stop him. Assume Jack and Jill are both charged with the crime of battery, which is defined in this jurisdiction as an "intentional and unwanted touching." What is the most likely outcome of the case?

A. Neither Jack nor Jill be convicted of battery because Jack's punch was a justified response to the classmate's insulting comment.

B. Jack and Jill will both be convicted of battery because Jill was an accomplice.

C. Jack will be convicted of battery, but Jill will not because she was merely present and took no actions to aid, abet, or encourage the commission of the crime.

D. Jack and Jill will both be convicted of battery because Jill can satisfy the actus reus requirement for accomplice liability based on her failure to act because she had a duty to protect her classmate.

12. Dave is charged with first degree murder under a felony murder theory for a death that occurred during the commission of a robbery. Dave was in the process of robbing a store when the store's owner pulled out a gun and shot in Dave's direction. The bullet hit a customer who had been shopping in the store at the time of the robbery. Dave's best defense is that:

A. Dave is not guilty of first degree felony murder under the Agency rule.

B. Dave is not guilty of first degree felony murder under the Merger rule.

C. Dave is not guilty of first degree felony murder because robbery is not inherently dangerous to human life.

D. Dave is not guilty of first degree felony murder because robbery is not an enumerated felony.