The Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) is the multiple-choice section of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE). It's a six-hour examination featuring 200 multiple-choice questions, testing examinees' abilities to apply fundamental legal principles and reasoning to given fact patterns.
Such a comprehensive exam demands an equally rigorous preparation regimen. Besides enrolling in a bar review course, the most effective study method for the Multistate Bar Exam is to answer practice questions.
Yeah, we know: easier said than done. Fitting this into an already packed schedule of intensive studies and related assignments, the responsibilities accompanying a job, and all the countless duties and unpredictable situations of personal and home life—whether that's caring for an elderly family member, children, or just the daily rigmaroles—can sound overwhelming.
With Pieper Bar Review, however, it doesn't have to be.
Pieper Bar Review's Question of The Day
Pieper's Question of the Day is convenient, and most importantly, effective. By signing up, you'll receive one free sample MBE question delivered to your email inbox, daily. You can either answer the question first thing in the morning, save it till you get a free moment during the day, or take this helpful quiz right before you go to bed at night. It's all up to you.
Answering these useful practice questions provides a constant, daily refresher on essential factoids you'll be tested on when it counts most. Their accessibility and portability means you can get crucial study time in wherever, and whenever, is best for you.
Pieper Bar Review's Question of the Day enables you to:
- Review recurrent themes that show up on the Uniform Bar Exam
- Familiarize yourself with the formatting and verbiage of the questions
- Apply process-of-elimination skills
- Re-examine the material presented by your bar review course
- Remain focused on your studies
With Pieper Bar Review's Question of the Day, preparing for MBE has never been more convenient! Register below for free, and have helpful MBE practice questions delivered to your inbox, daily!
A bartender, who hated one of his regular customers, decided to start a fight with the customer, and, if the opportunity arose, to kill him. The bartender approached the customer in the street outside the bar and pushed him around. A spectator, who also hated the customer, stopped to watch. The spectator told the bartender, “Kill him.” The bartender then pulled a knife, stabbed, and killed the customer.
Could the spectator properly be convicted of murder?
(A) No, because his words did not create a “clear and present danger” not already existing.
(B) No, because mere presence and oral encouragement, whether or not he has the requisite intent, will not make him guilty as an accomplice.
(C) Yes, because, with the intent to have the bartender kill the customer, he shouted encouragement to the bartender
.(D) Yes, because he aided and abetted the murder through his mere presence plus his intent to see the customer killed.
The Answer is C.
Choice (C) is the correct answer. The spectator intended that the crime be committed and shouted encouragement. He had the appropriate mens rea; shouting encouragement was the actus reus. Therefore, as a matter of substantive criminal law, the spectator is guilty, as an accomplice, for the murder of the customer. Technically, the spectator is a principal in the second degree because he was present and commanded or otherwise encouraged the principal in the first degree to commit the crime.
Choice (A) is incorrect because the standard discussed relates to First Amendment free speech cases. The spectator is not being prosecuted because he uttered words; he is being prosecuted for his intent to commit a crime which, coupled with the action of uttering words, became a criminal activity.
Choice (B) is incorrect because oral encouragement does make him an accomplice to the crime; therefore, answer choice (B) misstates substantive law.
Choice (D) is incorrect because mere presence, even coupled with intent, is not enough to make someone guilty of committing a crime.
© Pieper Bar Review