Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread Forum

[Confusedgraduate456]

Is there a good way to distinguish between when something is involuntary manslaughter (criminal negligence) and when something is murder under depraved heart? Just got two practice questions wrong because I thought testing explosives near a school was criminal negligence (it was depraved heart) and then thought that shooting into a vacant lot was depraved heart (but it was criminal negligence). It seems somewhat arbitrary.

I'm definitely not going to write about it like this on the MEE if it comes up...but I think of it as the difference between someone doing something stupid (like pointing a roman candle at someone hoping to burn them) and someone who seems to have the psychopathic mental state that pop culture associates with murderers (playing russian roulette with someone with indifference as to whether there is a bullet in the chamber).

This is definitely helpful. Thanks!

Also, does anyone have a good summary on the introduction of character evidence, including past crimes? I'm having trouble getting it all straightened out (between crime and civil, between defendants and witnesses, etc)

[LurkerTurnedMember]

quitclaim deeds confusion. actually, generally rules of marketable title confusion

I understand that when a seller conveys a quitclaim deed, there are no covenants and the seller isn't even promising he has title to what he is about to convey. But I read at some point that even in a quitclaim deed, there is an implied promise to deliver marketable title at closing. is that true?

In every conveyance, there is an implied promise to deliver marketable title. However, if AFTER closing, buyer learns he does not have marketable title, he has no recourse? Or he has recourse based on breach of one of the other type of covenants in a generally warranty deed, but no recourse if quitclaim deed because no covenants?

Help

True. Quitclaim is only as to express covenants. Implied covenant of marketable title is aways implied unless you expressly say there's no warranty as to marketable title. Remember that the implied term is only up to delivery. Once there is delivery the buyer only haas a cause of action for future covenants, if any, and real defenses.

True that the contract merges into the deed, but as to your last sentence, if there is a general warranty deed the buyer may have a cause of action for breach of present covenants, if any. Right?

You're totally right, present covenants too. I was mistakenly thinking of future grantees that may be able to enforce covenants but only future covenants because these covenants run with the land unlike present covenants.

If it's a quitclaim deed, there are no covenants in the deed. So after closing, the buyer is left on the hook? Am I understanding that right?

[ballouttacontrol]

Is there a good way to distinguish between when something is involuntary manslaughter (criminal negligence) and when something is murder under depraved heart? Just got two practice questions wrong because I thought testing explosives near a school was criminal negligence (it was depraved heart) and then thought that shooting into a vacant lot was depraved heart (but it was criminal negligence). It seems somewhat arbitrary.

I'm definitely not going to write about it like this on the MEE if it comes up...but I think of it as the difference between someone doing something stupid (like pointing a roman candle at someone hoping to burn them) and someone who seems to have the psychopathic mental state that pop culture associates with murderers (playing russian roulette with someone with indifference as to whether there is a bullet in the chamber).

If it's an MEE question, just state the two standards. "Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life" versus criminal negligence, or recklessness under mpc. Then analyze.

I doubt the MBE will give you a close call to make. I haven't had a problem with any Barbri MBE questions on this yet, but maybe that's just me.

OTOH I did get a question wrong on a similarly murky distinction, where apparently leaving the electricity on to a transformer counts as deadly force (unjustifiable). I reasoned that this was like an electrified fence, which is obviously allowed in the defense of property.

Long story short, IMO, as long as u know the two standards i think you're good. Barbri definitely pages the envelope sometimes with tough distinctions, but I don't think the real MBE will require you to make one

[mvp99]

quitclaim deeds confusion. actually, generally rules of marketable title confusion

I understand that when a seller conveys a quitclaim deed, there are no covenants and the seller isn't even promising he has title to what he is about to convey. But I read at some point that even in a quitclaim deed, there is an implied promise to deliver marketable title at closing. is that true?

In every conveyance, there is an implied promise to deliver marketable title. However, if AFTER closing, buyer learns he does not have marketable title, he has no recourse? Or he has recourse based on breach of one of the other type of covenants in a generally warranty deed, but no recourse if quitclaim deed because no covenants?

Help

True. Quitclaim is only as to express covenants. Implied covenant of marketable title is aways implied unless you expressly say there's no warranty as to marketable title. Remember that the implied term is only up to delivery. Once there is delivery the buyer only haas a cause of action for future covenants, if any, and real defenses.

True that the contract merges into the deed, but as to your last sentence, if there is a general warranty deed the buyer may have a cause of action for breach of present covenants, if any. Right?

You're totally right, present covenants too. I was mistakenly thinking of future grantees that may be able to enforce covenants but only future covenants because these covenants run with the land unlike present covenants.

If it's a quitclaim deed, there are no covenants in the deed. So after closing, the buyer is left on the hook? Am I understanding that right?

Yes. I should've been clearer, I was simply adding a little something to my explanation. Quitclaim deeds have no express covenants.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Does someone have a good summary on when extrinsic evidence is allowed, for character, impeachment, etc? My outlines and notes for character evidence just have distinctions based on reputation, opinion, or specific acts, but nothing about whether these things can be proved with extrinsic evidence. Would be nice if someone had a clear summary of the extrinsic/intrinsic evidence usages.

[mvp99]

Does someone have a good summary on when extrinsic evidence is allowed, for character, impeachment, etc? My outlines and notes for character evidence just have distinctions based on reputation, opinion, or specific acts, but nothing about whether these things can be proved with extrinsic evidence. Would be nice if someone had a clear summary of the extrinsic/intrinsic evidence usages.

You want to learn how impeachment works. Try to understand the big picture first. Extrinsic evidence is generally (almost always) not allowed for collateral matters and bad acts.

ss. Witness can be impeach through
i. Bias (lay foundation (authenticity of evidence, relevant) bring in extrinsic evidence
ii. PSI (extrinsic evidence ok but must allow party to examine W to explain it)
1. Includes grand jury, affidavit
iii. Character
1. Convictions (no misdemeanor w/o truthfulness) (not same as 803(22) hearsay exception judgment to prove a fact of the case)
2. Bad acts on cross (no extrinsic evidence)
iv. Competency
v. Bringing another W to contradict

[mvp99]

Anyone with a good summary of the rules for third parties beneficiaries wanna share it with me?

[LionelHutzJD]

Anyone with a good summary of the rules for third parties beneficiaries wanna share it with me?

MEE Book - Additional Questions - Contracts - Question 2 - Model Answer

You're Welcome.

[mvp99]

Anyone with a good summary of the rules for third parties beneficiaries wanna share it with me?

MEE Book - Additional Questions - Contracts - Question 2 - Model Answer

You're Welcome.

Good, succinct explanation. Thanks.

Additional questions.

What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?

What's an example of (i) manifest assent to the promise in a manner invited or requested by the parties? Could this be implied in the conduct of the parties or is it more narrow than that (for example, the parties asked the creditor to sign the contract)?

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Does someone have a good summary on when extrinsic evidence is allowed, for character, impeachment, etc? My outlines and notes for character evidence just have distinctions based on reputation, opinion, or specific acts, but nothing about whether these things can be proved with extrinsic evidence. Would be nice if someone had a clear summary of the extrinsic/intrinsic evidence usages.

You want to learn how impeachment works. Try to understand the big picture first. Extrinsic evidence is generally (almost always) not allowed for collateral matters and bad acts.

ss. Witness can be impeach through
i. Bias (lay foundation (authenticity of evidence, relevant) bring in extrinsic evidence
ii. PSI (extrinsic evidence ok but must allow party to examine W to explain it)
1. Includes grand jury, affidavit
iii. Character
1. Convictions (no misdemeanor w/o truthfulness) (not same as 803(22) hearsay exception judgment to prove a fact of the case)
2. Bad acts on cross (no extrinsic evidence)
iv. Competency
v. Bringing another W to contradict

I have no idea what that means haha. I just wish the Barbri material would explain it in plain english or include all the information in the same spot. For character evidence they don't even mention extrinsic evidence anywhere I can find, just whether opinion, reputation, or specific instances can be used and when. But this doesn't tell me whether I can introduce opinion, reputation, or specific instances through extrinsic evidence or just intrinsic. When they get to the impeachment, it's a bit better, although still murky at some parts. When you add all the distinctions (types of evidence allowed, whether extrinsic or intrinsic, the different purposes) and then on top of that my state's own distinctions, it's way too much.

[mvp99]

Does someone have a good summary on when extrinsic evidence is allowed, for character, impeachment, etc? My outlines and notes for character evidence just have distinctions based on reputation, opinion, or specific acts, but nothing about whether these things can be proved with extrinsic evidence. Would be nice if someone had a clear summary of the extrinsic/intrinsic evidence usages.

You want to learn how impeachment works. Try to understand the big picture first. Extrinsic evidence is generally (almost always) not allowed for collateral matters and bad acts.

ss. Witness can be impeach through
i. Bias (lay foundation (authenticity of evidence, relevant) bring in extrinsic evidence
ii. PSI (extrinsic evidence ok but must allow party to examine W to explain it)
1. Includes grand jury, affidavit
iii. Character
1. Convictions (no misdemeanor w/o truthfulness) (not same as 803(22) hearsay exception judgment to prove a fact of the case)
2. Bad acts on cross (no extrinsic evidence)
iv. Competency
v. Bringing another W to contradict

I have no idea what that means haha. I just wish the Barbri material would explain it in plain english or include all the information in the same spot. For character evidence they don't even mention extrinsic evidence anywhere I can find, just whether opinion, reputation, or specific instances can be used and when. But this doesn't tell me whether I can introduce opinion, reputation, or specific instances through extrinsic evidence or just intrinsic. When they get to the impeachment, it's a bit better, although still murky at some parts. When you add all the distinctions (types of evidence allowed, whether extrinsic or intrinsic, the different purposes) and then on top of that my state's own distinctions, it's way too much.

I'm not an expert but when a W testifies as to his opinion of D or D's reputation (I believe only the prosecution may use specific instances on cross) as to a pertinent character trait that is in itself a use of extrinsic evidence. W is the extrinsic evidence, right?

[LionelHutzJD]

Does someone have a good summary on when extrinsic evidence is allowed, for character, impeachment, etc? My outlines and notes for character evidence just have distinctions based on reputation, opinion, or specific acts, but nothing about whether these things can be proved with extrinsic evidence. Would be nice if someone had a clear summary of the extrinsic/intrinsic evidence usages.

You want to learn how impeachment works. Try to understand the big picture first. Extrinsic evidence is generally (almost always) not allowed for collateral matters and bad acts.

ss. Witness can be impeach through
i. Bias (lay foundation (authenticity of evidence, relevant) bring in extrinsic evidence
ii. PSI (extrinsic evidence ok but must allow party to examine W to explain it)
1. Includes grand jury, affidavit
iii. Character
1. Convictions (no misdemeanor w/o truthfulness) (not same as 803(22) hearsay exception judgment to prove a fact of the case)
2. Bad acts on cross (no extrinsic evidence)
iv. Competency
v. Bringing another W to contradict

I have no idea what that means haha. I just wish the Barbri material would explain it in plain english or include all the information in the same spot. For character evidence they don't even mention extrinsic evidence anywhere I can find, just whether opinion, reputation, or specific instances can be used and when. But this doesn't tell me whether I can introduce opinion, reputation, or specific instances through extrinsic evidence or just intrinsic. When they get to the impeachment, it's a bit better, although still murky at some parts. When you add all the distinctions (types of evidence allowed, whether extrinsic or intrinsic, the different purposes) and then on top of that my state's own distinctions, it's way too much.

I'm not an expert but when a W testifies as to his opinion of D or D's reputation (I believe only the prosecution may use specific instances on cross) as to a pertinent character trait that is in itself a use of extrinsic evidence. W is the extrinsic evidence, right?

Use of a W is extrinsic evidence. On cross examination the prosecution may inquire as to ANY specific instances of misconduct. The prosecution may not offer extrinsic evidence regarding the misconduct.

[ballouttacontrol]

I'm confused what exactly the extrinsic evidence you're talking about is. For character evidence, a witness can testify to his impression of D and D's reputation in the community. What else do u mean by extrinsic evidence? Like, a video tape of something? If yes, I believe that would be a selection act, and not appropriate. Or do.u mean when can a witness testify in general?

[LurkerTurnedMember]

I'm confused what exactly the extrinsic evidence you're talking about is. For character evidence, a witness can testify to his impression of D and D's reputation in the community. What else do u mean by extrinsic evidence? Like, a video tape of something? If yes, I believe that would be a selection act, and not appropriate. Or do.u mean when can a witness testify in general?

If D has a witness say he has a great reputation, are you limited to just asking that witness (intrinsic evidence) questions regarding D's reputation, which, since it's on cross, can be answered through opinion, reputation, or specific instances? And if it's specific instance and the witness says I dunno, can you bring in paperwork showing the incident happened (extrinsic evidence)? Or what if you wanna have your own witness follow up to D's witness (this would presumably count as extrinsic evidence) to say no D had a bad reputation? That seems like it's allowed.

[ballouttacontrol]

I'm confused what exactly the extrinsic evidence you're talking about is. For character evidence, a witness can testify to his impression of D and D's reputation in the community. What else do u mean by extrinsic evidence? Like, a video tape of something? If yes, I believe that would be a selection act, and not appropriate. Or do.u mean when can a witness testify in general?

If D has a witness say he has a great reputation, are you limited to just asking that witness (intrinsic evidence) questions regarding D's reputation, which, since it's on cross, can be answered through opinion, reputation, or specific instances? And if it's specific instance and the witness says I dunno, can you bring in paperwork showing the incident happened (extrinsic evidence)? Or what if you wanna have your own witness follow up to D's witness (this would presumably count as extrinsic evidence) to say no D had a bad reputation? That seems like it's allowed.

Specific acts are not allowed to prove propensity.

You can try to prove motive/MO etc with a specific act, but no extrinsic evidence.

If you're talking about impeachment, questioning W of bad acts is allowed, and extrinsic evidence can generally be used, but depends on the exact rule. E.g., extrinsic is OK for prior inconsistent statement (obviously). Not allowed for prior bad acts, unless a relevant conviction or felony within last 10 years.

You can call a rebuttal witness once the door had been opened.

I think your hangup on characterizing things as extrinsic is very confusing. Just learn the specific rules, IMHO.

[ellewoods123]

Common law Defamation damages:

Libel and slander per se = presumed

Otherwise, does P need to show some sort of pecuniary harm? I thought I read this in a PQ and I can't find it now and it's bothering me. What am I thinking of?

[ballouttacontrol]

Common law Defamation damages:

Libel and slander per se = presumed

Otherwise, does P need to show some sort of pecuniary harm? I thought I read this in a PQ and I can't find it now and it's bothering me. What am I thinking of?

I believe this is correct. If damages are not presumed you need to show special damages.

[LionelHutzJD]

Common law Defamation damages:

Libel and slander per se = presumed

Otherwise, does P need to show some sort of pecuniary harm? I thought I read this in a PQ and I can't find it now and it's bothering me. What am I thinking of?

You are right. Absent libel or slander per se P must show pecuniary harm.

[goden]

if there’s multiple levels of hearsay, can the fact that the outer layer is by the opposing party get the whole statement in?

for example, P is trying to introduce an out-of-court statement by D saying: "My friend told me that I was negligent."

[LurkerTurnedMember]

I'm confused what exactly the extrinsic evidence you're talking about is. For character evidence, a witness can testify to his impression of D and D's reputation in the community. What else do u mean by extrinsic evidence? Like, a video tape of something? If yes, I believe that would be a selection act, and not appropriate. Or do.u mean when can a witness testify in general?

If D has a witness say he has a great reputation, are you limited to just asking that witness (intrinsic evidence) questions regarding D's reputation, which, since it's on cross, can be answered through opinion, reputation, or specific instances? And if it's specific instance and the witness says I dunno, can you bring in paperwork showing the incident happened (extrinsic evidence)? Or what if you wanna have your own witness follow up to D's witness (this would presumably count as extrinsic evidence) to say no D had a bad reputation? That seems like it's allowed.

Specific acts are not allowed to prove propensity.

You can try to prove motive/MO etc with a specific act, but no extrinsic evidence.

If you're talking about impeachment, questioning W of bad acts is allowed, and extrinsic evidence can generally be used, but depends on the exact rule. E.g., extrinsic is OK for prior inconsistent statement (obviously). Not allowed for prior bad acts, unless a relevant conviction or felony within last 10 years.

You can call a rebuttal witness once the door had been opened.

I think your hangup on characterizing things as extrinsic is very confusing. Just learn the specific rules, IMHO.

I think you're right. I'm just getting really nervous. I studied so much and it's all starting to blur together out of nerves.

[apricot]

What is the situation for amending alimony (spousal maintenance awards)? Can a sister state amend or does the State of the original spousal maintenance order have continuing jurisdiction indefinitely?

(Not talking child support, just spousal support)

[mvp99]

What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?

What's an example of (i) manifest assent to the promise in a manner invited or requested by the parties? Could this be implied in the conduct of the parties or is it more narrow than that (for example, the parties asked the creditor to sign the contract)?

[BVest]

What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?

Creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisor or promisee, despite not being a party. Donee beneficiary can enforce against promisor but not promisee.

(either must be vested to enforce)

[LionelHutzJD]

What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?

Creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisor, despite not being a party. Donee beneficiary cannot.

I think you mean the creditor beneficiary can enforce against the promisee but a donee cannot. A donee beneficiary can enforce rights against the promisor if it's rights have vested.

[BVest]

I think you mean the creditor beneficiary can enforce against the promisee but a donee cannot. A donee beneficiary can enforce rights against the promisor if it's rights have vested.

Sorry. You're right. I've edited to correct above.