Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
User avatar
sublime

Diamond
Posts: 17385
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby sublime » Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:16 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:
sublime wrote:My understanding was that larceny is one of the few crimes that you can form the intent for later.


Just read something online that would clarify this situation. Later developed intent only works if the initial taking was wrongful. In the case mentioned here, the initial taking wasn't wrongful. Thus, you can't develop intent later.



Cool. Thanks for the clarification!

whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby whitecollar23 » Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:38 pm

sublime wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:
sublime wrote:My understanding was that larceny is one of the few crimes that you can form the intent for later.


Just read something online that would clarify this situation. Later developed intent only works if the initial taking was wrongful. In the case mentioned here, the initial taking wasn't wrongful. Thus, you can't develop intent later.



Cool. Thanks for the clarification!


You're welcome!

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby BigZuck » Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:18 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:
sublime wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:
sublime wrote:My understanding was that larceny is one of the few crimes that you can form the intent for later.


Just read something online that would clarify this situation. Later developed intent only works if the initial taking was wrongful. In the case mentioned here, the initial taking wasn't wrongful. Thus, you can't develop intent later.



Cool. Thanks for the clarification!


You're welcome!

Yeah that's what Themis explained (I think) but I still don't get it.

So... The person just turns into like a finder or something and finders keepers losers weepers? When does it ever turn into larceny? When the "true owner" demands it back?

Sublime I was with you on the forming intent later thing, can you walk me though the clarification?

whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby whitecollar23 » Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:27 pm

Just because it isn't larceny doesn't mean that the other guy doesn't have rights to it. However, it wouldn't be larceny, b/c you can only develop intent later if the initial taking was wrongful. Here, he initially took it to return it. Thus, he can't develop the intent later. However, the rightful owner still has the right to it. There just isn't a crime here. It still is a trespass to chattels or conversion.

Are there any other crimes where you can develop intent later? I know that for receiving stolen property, you have to develop intent on the spot. For larceny by trick or false pretenses, can you develop intent later? Anyone know for sure?

teabreeze

New
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:43 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby teabreeze » Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:41 pm

Evidence help please!

Q. A plaintiff sued a defendant for injuries received when she fell down a stairway in the defendant's apartment building. The plaintiff, a guest in the building, alleged that she caught the heel of her shoe in a tear in the stair carpet. The plaintiff calls a tenant to testify that another resident had said to the tenant a week before the plaintiff's fall: "When I paid my rent this morning, I told the manager he had better fix that torn carpet."

The resident's statement, reported by the tenant, is
A. admissible, to prove that the carpet was defective.
B. admissible, to prove that the defendant had notice of the defect.
C. admissible, to prove both that the carpet was defective and that the defendant had notice of the defect.
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

I chose B, but the correct answer is D. Apparently this is hearsay within hearsay. I understand that the resident's statement is hearsay, but don't understand how the tenant's reporting of the statement is hearsay. I'm confused because hearsay is by definition an out-of-court statement and the tenant's reporting of the statement is made in-court.

Is the explanation wrong or am I not understanding correctly?

User avatar
BVest

Platinum
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby BVest » Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:55 pm

doctoroflaw91 wrote:Anyone have a systematic approach for tackling future interest questions? I sometimes have trouble classifying them, let alone dealing with RAP.

Not sure if you'd call this systematic, but here are my charts: http://imgur.com/a/7hUXr
Last edited by BVest on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sublime

Diamond
Posts: 17385
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby sublime » Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:56 pm

teabreeze wrote:Evidence help please!

Q. A plaintiff sued a defendant for injuries received when she fell down a stairway in the defendant's apartment building. The plaintiff, a guest in the building, alleged that she caught the heel of her shoe in a tear in the stair carpet. The plaintiff calls a tenant to testify that another resident had said to the tenant a week before the plaintiff's fall: "When I paid my rent this morning, I told the manager he had better fix that torn carpet."

The resident's statement, reported by the tenant, is
A. admissible, to prove that the carpet was defective.
B. admissible, to prove that the defendant had notice of the defect.
C. admissible, to prove both that the carpet was defective and that the defendant had notice of the defect.
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

I chose B, but the correct answer is D. Apparently this is hearsay within hearsay. I understand that the resident's statement is hearsay, but don't understand how the tenant's reporting of the statement is hearsay. I'm confused because hearsay is by definition an out-of-court statement and the tenant's reporting of the statement is made in-court.

Is the explanation wrong or am I not understanding correctly?


You would be right if the resident that told the manager testified, but because it is double hearsay (tenant is hearing from resident that resident told the manager), you need each individual possible hearsay to be admissible.

So while the resident telling the manager is admissible to give notice, the resident telling the testifying tenant is hearsay not under any exception to the rule.

Make sense? Basically the issue is T1 told T2 now T2 is testifying instead of T1.

teabreeze

New
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:43 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby teabreeze » Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:56 pm

BigZuck wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:
sublime wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:
sublime wrote:My understanding was that larceny is one of the few crimes that you can form the intent for later.


Just read something online that would clarify this situation. Later developed intent only works if the initial taking was wrongful. In the case mentioned here, the initial taking wasn't wrongful. Thus, you can't develop intent later.



Cool. Thanks for the clarification!


You're welcome!

Yeah that's what Themis explained (I think) but I still don't get it.

So... The person just turns into like a finder or something and finders keepers losers weepers? When does it ever turn into larceny? When the "true owner" demands it back?

Sublime I was with you on the forming intent later thing, can you walk me though the clarification?


Larceny is by definition the TRESPASSORY/WRONGFUL/UNLAWFUL (insert your own word) TAKING and carrying away of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive. The intent can form at any stage, however, the taking must have been trespassory/wrongful/unlawful. Here, the pedestrian didn't take the box in such manner. He simply saw it fall onto the public street and picked it up. Had he reached into the truck to take the box or had he tricked the owner into handing him the box, the taking would've been trespassory/wrongful/unlawful. However, this was not the case.

teabreeze

New
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:43 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby teabreeze » Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:49 pm

sublime wrote:
teabreeze wrote:Evidence help please!

Q. A plaintiff sued a defendant for injuries received when she fell down a stairway in the defendant's apartment building. The plaintiff, a guest in the building, alleged that she caught the heel of her shoe in a tear in the stair carpet. The plaintiff calls a tenant to testify that another resident had said to the tenant a week before the plaintiff's fall: "When I paid my rent this morning, I told the manager he had better fix that torn carpet."

The resident's statement, reported by the tenant, is
A. admissible, to prove that the carpet was defective.
B. admissible, to prove that the defendant had notice of the defect.
C. admissible, to prove both that the carpet was defective and that the defendant had notice of the defect.
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

I chose B, but the correct answer is D. Apparently this is hearsay within hearsay. I understand that the resident's statement is hearsay, but don't understand how the tenant's reporting of the statement is hearsay. I'm confused because hearsay is by definition an out-of-court statement and the tenant's reporting of the statement is made in-court.

Is the explanation wrong or am I not understanding correctly?


You would be right if the resident that told the manager testified, but because it is double hearsay (tenant is hearing from resident that resident told the manager), you need each individual possible hearsay to be admissible.

So while the resident telling the manager is admissible to give notice, the resident telling the testifying tenant is hearsay not under any exception to the rule.

Make sense? Basically the issue is T1 told T2 now T2 is testifying instead of T1.


Ah I get it, thank you!!! I was focusing on the wrong statements all this time.

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby BigZuck » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:13 pm

Ok, fair enough. The taking must be wrongful. I'll keep that in mind.

It seems insane to me that that's not larceny because common sense (at least to me) says "That dude stole that stuff." But if you mechanically apply the law like the Silly Billy bar examiners want you to do then it makes sense.

Thanks guys

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LionelHutzJD » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:24 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Box falls off a truck. Pedestrian sees it happen, goes to box, sees the owner's address is on the box. Pedestrian decides to return box to owner. Pedestrian gets to owner's front door, decides to keep the box, starts to take it home with him.

How is that not larceny? Yeah, the original taking wasn't wrongful or trespassory or whatever. But isn't it larceny when Pedestrian changes his mind and decides to keep it?

HALP


That should be larceny as you can form the intent even after you take it. Only thing I could think of is that the guy didn't get it yet, but I don't think that matters.

Where did you see this?


Now I'm a little confused. I understand larceny is a specific intent crime so if the pedestrian saw where the box fell from (a person or from someone's truck) wouldn't this be a wrongful taking with intent to defraud?

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby BigZuck » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:40 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Box falls off a truck. Pedestrian sees it happen, goes to box, sees the owner's address is on the box. Pedestrian decides to return box to owner. Pedestrian gets to owner's front door, decides to keep the box, starts to take it home with him.

How is that not larceny? Yeah, the original taking wasn't wrongful or trespassory or whatever. But isn't it larceny when Pedestrian changes his mind and decides to keep it?

HALP


That should be larceny as you can form the intent even after you take it. Only thing I could think of is that the guy didn't get it yet, but I don't think that matters.

Where did you see this?


Now I'm a little confused. I understand larceny is a specific intent crime so if the pedestrian saw where the box fell from (a person or from someone's truck) wouldn't this be a wrongful taking with intent to defraud?

Fact pattern said Pedestrian was going to take it back to the dude and that was his intent when he picked it up

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:55 pm

Ummmm I think it's larceny. A taking must be wrongful but that ONLY means without consent of the person with a superior possessory (can't be abandoned) interest on the item. There is no consent here so the taking is "wrongful." When finding a lost item, as in this case, if the true owner is ascertainable (address on the box) and D decides to keep the property, then its larceny. Add to that continued trespass and its larceny. Otherwise I think there would be a big loophole in the law for lost/misplaced property.

source: web, my BLL materials

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:34 am

I have another one: Police lawfully stops a car with two friends in it, passenger and driver, because of a broken tail light. Police search the trunk and find what appears to be a cocaine (and in fact is cocaine) in a clear bag. The passenger and driver bought the cocaine just before the stop. The court determines the search of the trunk was illegal and grants the driver's motion to suppress the evidence. The passenger also moves to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule?

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LionelHutzJD » Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:42 am

mvp99 wrote:Ummmm I think it's larceny. A taking must be wrongful but that ONLY means without consent of the person with a superior possessory (can't be abandoned) interest on the item. There is no consent here so the taking is "wrongful." When finding a lost item, as in this case, if the true owner is ascertainable (address on the box) and D decides to keep the property, then its larceny. Add to that continued trespass and its larceny. Otherwise I think there would be a big loophole in the law for lost/misplaced property.

source: web, my BLL materials


This is what I was thinking.

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LionelHutzJD » Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:45 am

mvp99 wrote:I have another one: Police lawfully stops a car with two friends in it, passenger and driver, because of a broken tail light. Police search the trunk and find what appears to be a cocaine (and in fact is cocaine) in a clear bag. The passenger and driver bought the cocaine just before the stop. The court determines the search of the trunk was illegal and grants the driver's motion to suppress the evidence. The passenger also moves to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule?


Motion denied. Passenger has no standing to contest the motion (assuming it's drivers car)

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:21 am

LionelHutzJD wrote:
mvp99 wrote:I have another one: Police lawfully stops a car with two friends in it, passenger and driver, because of a broken tail light. Police search the trunk and find what appears to be a cocaine (and in fact is cocaine) in a clear bag. The passenger and driver bought the cocaine just before the stop. The court determines the search of the trunk was illegal and grants the driver's motion to suppress the evidence. The passenger also moves to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule?


Motion denied. Passenger has no standing to contest the motion (assuming it's drivers car)


I think you're right (sorry, yea the driver was the owner). Would the result be different if the passenger was a the owner of the drugs?

User avatar
goden

Gold
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:52 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby goden » Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:35 am

Do you mean if passenger was owner of the car? If so, then passenger would have standing since he would have reasonable expectation of privacy in his own car (including the trunk)

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:40 am

goden wrote:Do you mean if passenger was owner of the car? If so, then passenger would have standing since he would have reasonable expectation of privacy in his own car (including the trunk)


I mean the passenger bought the drugs and is the owner of the drugs the police found in the trunk.

User avatar
goden

Gold
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:52 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby goden » Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:43 am

mvp99 wrote:
goden wrote:Do you mean if passenger was owner of the car? If so, then passenger would have standing since he would have reasonable expectation of privacy in his own car (including the trunk)


I mean the passenger bought the drugs and is the owner of the drugs the police found in the trunk.

Ah ok. In that case he still wouldn't have standing to exclude the evidence because it's not his car. It doesn't matter that the drugs are his.

getemgoon

New
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:03 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby getemgoon » Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:56 pm

Evidence question.

How to distinguish between physician-patient privilege and statement made for purpose of obtaining medical treatment/diagnosis?

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ballouttacontrol » Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:53 pm

Evidence set1 question#9

Image
Image

I get that A frames the training as a lay opinion, but why the fuck wouldn't his testimony be admissible as an expert opinion?? Assuming the D laid proper foundation I see nothing wrong with the testimony coming in as an expert opinion

Obviously, this wasn't an answer choice, but this is why I thought there's NO WAY the inadmissible choice should be correct and figured I'd go with A. Wtf? Can anyone clear this up?

criminaltheory

Bronze
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby criminaltheory » Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:11 pm

mvp99 wrote:
goden wrote:Do you mean if passenger was owner of the car? If so, then passenger would have standing since he would have reasonable expectation of privacy in his own car (including the trunk)


I mean the passenger bought the drugs and is the owner of the drugs the police found in the trunk.


"But judge! They were my drugs!"

No.

I'm trying to think of a situation where it would work - like if it was in the passenger's locked box or something in the trunk, but I'm not sure about that.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:16 pm

criminaltheory wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
goden wrote:Do you mean if passenger was owner of the car? If so, then passenger would have standing since he would have reasonable expectation of privacy in his own car (including the trunk)


I mean the passenger bought the drugs and is the owner of the drugs the police found in the trunk.


"But judge! They were my drugs!"

No.

I'm trying to think of a situation where it would work - like if it was in the passenger's locked box or something in the trunk, but I'm not sure about that.


Yea I was a bit confused by outdated stuff I read online, when property interests were central to the inquiry.

User avatar
BVest

Platinum
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby BVest » Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:32 pm

ballouttacontrol wrote:Evidence set1 question#9

[ img][/img]
[ img][/img]

I get that A frames the training as a lay opinion, but why the fuck wouldn't his testimony be admissible as an expert opinion?? Assuming the D laid proper foundation I see nothing wrong with the testimony coming in as an expert opinion

Obviously, this wasn't an answer choice, but this is why I thought there's NO WAY the inadmissible choice should be correct and figured I'd go with A. Wtf? Can anyone clear this up?


You'll want to delete the images. People taking barbri can answer your question without the TOS violation.
Last edited by BVest on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atmosphere and 8 guests