MBE Practice Questions Flashcards
real evidence admissibility - chain of custody
)roponent must show that the object has been held in a substantially unbroken chain of possession. It is not necessary to negate all possibilities of substitution or tampering; rather, what is required is to show adherence to some system of identification and custody.
Obscenity Test
Obscenity is unprotected speech. The Court has defined obscenity as a depiction of sexual conduct that, taken as a whole, by the average person, using contemporary community standards: (i) appeals to the prurient interest in sex; (ii) portrays sex in a patently offensive way; and (iii) using a national, reasonable person standard, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Admissibility of Learned Treatises
Can be used to impeach an expert witness by cross-examining the expert on statements contained in any scientific publication that is established as reliable authority; can also be used substantively - exception to the hearsay rule for learned treatises if: (i) the expert is on the stand and it is called to his attention, and (ii) it is established as reliable authority.
How to Establish Reliability of a Publication (e.g. Learned Treatises)
Reliability of a publication may be established by: (i) the direct testimony or cross-examination admission of the expert, (ii) the testimony of another expert, or (iii) judicial notice.
Admissibility of Prior Felony Convictions
The record of the conviction is hearsay; i.e., it is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Under the Federal Rules, however, such judgments fall within the hearsay exception for records of felony convictions. Under the Federal Rules, judgments of felony convictions are admissible in both criminal and civil actions to prove any fact essential to the judgment, whether the judgment arose after trial or upon a plea of guilty. [Fed. R. Evid. 803(22)]
UCC - Proper Tender of Delivery
In a proper tender of delivery under UCC section 2-503, the seller must put and hold conforming goods at the buyer’s disposition for a time sufficient for the buyer to take possession. The seller must give the buyer notice reasonably necessary to enable him to take possession of the goods. Proper tender of delivery entitles the seller to acceptance of the goods and to payment according to the contract. [UCC §2-507]. Proper tender of delivery discharges the duty.
Unjust Restitution Under UCC Proper Tender of Delivery
Proper Tender of Delivery Discharges Duty Under Contract - When a party’s duty of performance is discharged, the other party is entitled to restitution of any benefits that he has transferred to the discharged party in an attempt to perform on his side. If one party would be unjustly enriched, to the detriment of the other, if he were permitted to keep the entire contract price, restitution is permissible in the amount the party was unjustly enriched.
UCC - “F.O.B”
The term “F.O.B.” is a delivery term under the UCC, which governs the contract when it is for the sale of goods. That term means “free on board,” and it obligates the seller to get the goods to the location indicated after the term. [UCC §2-319(1)] - doesn’t matter if parties are merchants
UCC - Breach of “Good Faith”
Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) imposes a duty of good faith on all parties, and failure to deliver under a contract simply because a better price can be obtained might violate this duty, the UCC does not provide for punitive damages for breach of this duty. When a seller fails to deliver goods, one remedy available to the buyer is cover damages—the difference between the contract price and the price of substitute goods.
Speech - Content Based Restriction
To justify content-based regulation of otherwise protected speech, the government must show that the regulation is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest that cannot be satisfied by less restrictive means.
During a trial, a motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) may be filed:
During a trial, a motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) may be filed at any time before submission of the case to the jury. The moving party must specify in its motion the judgment sought and the law and facts on which the party is entitled to judgment. Note, however, that the nonmoving party must have been heard on the issue.
To receive a jury trial, a party generally must
-TLDR: 14 days after last pleading; serve on all parties Under Rule 38, to receive a jury trial a party must file a written demand and serve it on all the parties within 14 days after the service of the last pleading directed to the jury-triable issue. Otherwise, the right to a jury trial generally is deemed waived. Note, however, that the Supreme Court has held that, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, a court should grant relief from the waiver if the issue is normally tried by a jury
Woman commenced an action in federal court, properly based on diversity, seeking rescission of a contract. The company answered, denying the principal allegations of the woman’s complaint and asserting a counterclaim against the woman for breach of contract. In addition, the company timely served a demand for a jury trial. The woman did not.
What are the roles of the judge and jury as finders of fact in the trial of the parties’ claims?
Jury will first determine issues relating to breach of contract claims; judge will determine remaining issues of remission if they are not already resolved by the jury. If legal and equitable claims are joined in one action involving common fact issues, the legal claim is tried first before the jury, and then the equitable claim is tried to the court. The jury’s finding on fact issues will bind the court in the equitable claim.
In a diversity case, federal trial courts are required to apply a _______ when considering a motion for a new trial based on the excessiveness of the verdict.
n a diversity case, federal trial courts are required to apply a state law standard when considering a motion for a new trial based on the excessiveness of the verdict. Federal trial courts may neither use a federal law standard, nor choose a state or federal law standard in the court’s discretion.
Accomplice Liability at Common Law
Specific Intent Crime - An accomplice is one who (i) with the intent to assist the principal and the intent that the principal commit the substantive offense (ii) actually aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime. Absent a statute - mere knowledge is not enough
A homeowner decided to destroy his home by fire in order to collect the insurance. A neighbor’s house was located a short distance from the homeowner’s home. The homeowner knew that there was a strong wind blowing towards the neighbor’s home; while he did not want to burn the neighbor’s home, he nevertheless set fire to his own home. Fire dept put out the fire moments before it spread to the neighbor’s home, which suffered damage from smoke and soot. The jurisdiction’s arson statute covers burning one’s own dwelling as well as the dwelling of another, but is otherwise unchanged from the common law. If the homeowner is charged with attempted arson of the neighbor’s home, is he likely to be found guilty?
The homeowner will be found not guilty because he did not have the requisite mental state. To convict a person for an attempted crime, the prosecution must establish that the defendant had an actual specific intent to cause the harm prohibited by the statute and committed an act beyond mere preparation in furtherance of that intent. Those elements-specific intent and act-are required regardless of the mental state required by the target offense. A person who took a substantial step towards commission of the crime but was only reckless with respect to the target offense could not be found guilty of attempt. The homeowner did not intend to burn the neighbor’s home. Therefore, he cannot be guilty of attempted arson of the neighbor’s home.
Malice Aforethought - define
- intent to kill 2. intent to inflict serious bodily injury (and someone dies) 3. intent to commit a serious dangerous felony (BARRK) that results in death - everyone that participated guilty (unintentional) 4. depraved heart murder - unintentional killing that results from defendant’s reckless conduct
Involuntary Manslaughter - types and define
- voluntary manslaughter - intentional killing in the heat of passion where the defendant acts with adequate provocation 2. involuntary manslaughter - unintentional killing caused by criminally negligent conduct 3. misdemeanor manslaughter - misdemeanor assault/battery resulting in the death of another
To what torts does the doctrine of transferred intent apply?
The transferred intent doctrine allows an intent to commit a tort against one person to be transferred to the committed tort or to the injured person. It applies to (i) assault, (ii) battery, (iii) false imprisonment, (iv) trespass to land, and (v) trespass to chattels
Elements for the tort of Battery
The elements that must be proved to establish a prima facie case for battery are: (i) An act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person; (ii) Intent by the defendant to bring about the harmful or offensive contact; and (iii) Causation. Contact is harmful if it causes actual injury, pain, or disfigurement. Contact is offensive if it would be considered offensive to a reasonable person.
Elements for the tort of Assault
The prima facie case for assault requires (i) an act by defendant causing a reasonable apprehension in plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person, (ii) intent by defendant to bring about in plaintiff apprehension of that contact, and (iii) causation. For there to be apprehension, plaintiff must be aware of defendant’s act at the time that it is occurring.
Who may use force? -Landowner who has been tortiously dispossessed? - owner of chattel trying to recapture the chattel? - citizen trying to effect a misdemeanor arrest? -property owner trying to defend the property from tortious interference?
A landowner may not use force to regain real property after being tortiously dispossessed. Most states today do not allow resort to “self-help”; one who has been wrongfully excluded from possession of real property may bring an ejectment action or other summary procedure to recover possession. Hence, the owner who uses force to retake possession is liable for whatever injury she inflicts. (In former years, under the common law, a landowner tortiously dispossessed of real property could use reasonable force to regain possession, if she acted promptly upon discovery of the dispossession.) An owner of chattel may use force to recapture the chattel. An owner may use reasonable force to recapture a chattel when in “hot pursuit” of the tortfeasor. A demand for return of the chattel must be made before force is used, unless the demand would be futile or dangerous. However, force can be used only against the tortfeasor or a third party who knows that the chattel was tortiously obtained. If an innocent third party has obtained the chattel, the owner is no longer privileged to use force to effect a recapture of the chattel. A citizen may use force to effect a misdemeanor arrest. However, the citizen is allowed to use only the amount of force necessary to effect the arrest and never deadly force. A property owner may use force to defend the property from tortious interference. Although a property owner may use reasonable force to defend property, she may not use force that will cause death or serious bodily harm. Furthermore, one may not use indirect deadly force such as a trap, spring gun, or vicious dog when such force could not lawfully be directly used, e.g., against a mere trespasser.
Shopkeeper’s Privilege - Elements
(1) must have a reasonable belief as to the fact of theft, (2) must conduct the detention in a reasonable manner and detain the suspect for a reasonable period of time for the privilege to apply. By statute in some states and case law in others, shopkeepers have been given a privilege to detain someone suspected of shoplifting and thus avoid liability for false imprisonment. The following conditions must be satisfied: 1. There must be a reasonable belief as to the fact of theft; 2. The detention must be conducted in a reasonable manner and only nondeadly force can be used; and 3. The detention must be only for a reasonable period of time and only for the purpose of making an investigation. A shopkeeper is not required to notify the police in a reasonable amount of time to avoid liability for false imprisonment when detaining a suspect for shoplifting.
Privilege of Private Necessity
A person may interfere with the real or personal property of another when the interference is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury from a natural or other force and the threatened injury is substantially more serious than the invasion that is undertaken to avert it.