Top Law Schools

--LinkRemoved--

Is this the level of difficulty we'll see next week? Not sure how to feel about my 15/18.

You destroyed them

You don't have to clown on me (if that's what you were doing). I just want to know whether this is pretty much what we'll be up against on Wednesday so I know how to spend the remainder of my time. (Yeah, I know 18 Qs is not a great sample size, but that's what NCBEX put out.)

.

Don't put too much stock in an 18-question set. Do one of the full 100-question set sold by NCBE to get a larger sample size and to know what the real MBE will be like.

clashjones87 wrote:Don't put too much stock in an 18-question set. Do one of the full 100-question set sold by NCBE to get a larger sample size and to know what the real MBE will be like.

I'm asking about level of difficulty.

You're also asking about the future and being a dick to those trying to help. The NCBE attempted to make a representative sample, using past exam questions, but it's only 18 questions. 83% is far, far above what you need to pass.

No one on here can tell you how the level of difficulty on next weeks test will compare to past exams

bahamallamamama wrote:You don't have to clown on me (if that's what you were doing). I just want to know whether this is pretty much what we'll be up against on Wednesday so I know how to spend the remainder of my time. (Yeah, I know 18 Qs is not a great sample size, but that's what NCBEX put out.)

The test is in like 3 days. Just do a few questions a day, outline a couple essays, skim over your outlines, and try to relax.

Also, kill thineself.

Here's one I didn't get. Hope someone can explain it:

8. A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door.
The friend is guilty of what offense in a common law jurisdiction?
(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny

Seems to me the friend is an accomplice who did not effectively withdraw and thus guilty of both burglary and larceny, which isn't even an option. A is the right answer though. For that matter I'm not clear on why he's not guilty of conspiracy as well.

Because he never intended to actually go through with it, and it's common-law?

Reinhardt wrote:Here's one I didn't get. Hope someone can explain it:

8. A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door.
The friend is guilty of what offense in a common law jurisdiction?
(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny

Seems to me the friend is an accomplice who did not effectively withdraw and thus guilty of both burglary and larceny, which isn't even an option. A is the right answer though. For that matter I'm not clear on why he's not guilty of conspiracy as well.

No agreement - it's a unilateral agreement like the questions with the undercover cops

So under state law, it might be a conspiracy, but common law it is not

Reinhardt wrote:Here's one I didn't get. Hope someone can explain it:

8. A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door.
The friend is guilty of what offense in a common law jurisdiction?
(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny

Seems to me the friend is an accomplice who did not effectively withdraw and thus guilty of both burglary and larceny, which isn't even an option. A is the right answer though. For that matter I'm not clear on why he's not guilty of conspiracy as well.

Conspiracy requires a meeting of 2 guilty minds, both specifically intended that the underlying crime be committed. The man never, in his mind, intended for the crime to be committed, despite his words to the other guy. He intended all along to teach his friend a lesson. He never entered into a conspiracy in the first place.

As for burglary, once again, that is a specific intent crime. He did not specifically intend to commit a felony within, or allow his friend to commit a felony within. Quite the contrary, he meant to thwart him.

Reinhardt wrote:Here's one I didn't get. Hope someone can explain it:

8. A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door.
The friend is guilty of what offense in a common law jurisdiction?
(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny

Seems to me the friend is an accomplice who did not effectively withdraw and thus guilty of both burglary and larceny, which isn't even an option. A is the right answer though. For that matter I'm not clear on why he's not guilty of conspiracy as well.

He is not guilty of conspiracy because he never entered into the agreement with the intent to further the conspiracy ("decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested"). So, he did not need to withdraw from any of the acts because he did not commit the crimes himself and was not actively engaged in a conspiracy.

It seems to me that he did intend for the crime to be committed, because his friend would not be arrested if his friend did not at least commit attempt. Conspiracy, I can see the common law definition getting him off. But accomplice liability I'm not so sure.

Reinhardt wrote:Here's one I didn't get. Hope someone can explain it:

8. A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door.
The friend is guilty of what offense in a common law jurisdiction?
(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny

Seems to me the friend is an accomplice who did not effectively withdraw and thus guilty of both burglary and larceny, which isn't even an option. A is the right answer though. For that matter I'm not clear on why he's not guilty of conspiracy as well.

Conspiracy requires an agreement and intent to commit an unlawful act. The friend never subjectively agreed to commit the crime and never had the intent required for conspiracy. Further, at common law, conspiracy requires both parties to subjectively agree. So even the young man is not guilty on conspiracy.

There is no accomplice liability here because the friend effectively withdrew. I think there would be accomplice liability had there been no withdrawal, because Friend did offer encouragement. However, withdrawal can be effectuated by repudiating encouragement (if encouragement was the extent of aid offered), or taking steps to neutralize the assistance offered - which includes calling the police.

Please - correct me if I'm wrong any of this.

Reinhardt wrote:It seems to me that he did intend for the crime to be committed, because his friend would not be arrested if his friend did not at least commit attempt. Conspiracy, I can see the common law definition getting him off. But accomplice liability I'm not so sure.

I thought the same thing - but it wasn't an answer choice.

This might be a case of Themis screwing me over because it says withdrawing from accomplice liability requires a repudiation of aid + contermand your aid or contact authorities + before the chain of events is set in motion and is unstoppable.

Reinhardt wrote:This might be a case of Themis screwing me over because it says withdrawing from accomplice liability requires a repudiation of aid + contermand your aid or contact authorities + before the chain of events is set in motion and is unstoppable.

Isn't that exactly what the guy did in this question?

Also: Don't really know why the OP is getting a ton of attitude here because I have the same question. Does anyone know if the NCBE 100-question sets are basically representative of the real MBE difficulty? They're a lot easier than bar prep course question sets, which I know shouldn't be surprising but is still a little unnerving.

Reinhardt wrote:This might be a case of Themis screwing me over because it says withdrawing from accomplice liability requires a repudiation of aid + contermand your aid or contact authorities + before the chain of events is set in motion and is unstoppable.

it's not about withdrawal. he never had the intent from the very beginning. there was never a conspiracy and he was never an accomplice. this distinction is frequently tested (also with larceny/burglary/other specific intent crimes), don't get it twisted.

I've heard people say the scaled score from the 100 question NCBE sets is very close to what they got on the real thing. For Themis people it is, sadly, unreliable because we've seen half the questions already.

As for conspiracy and accomplice liability, I guess I should conclude that the mens rea is "good faith intent that the crime be committed"? Or in other words, the co-conspirator or accomplice actually desires to help and not hurt the other person

Reinhardt wrote:I've heard people say the scaled score from the 100 question NCBE sets is very close to what they got on the real thing. For Themis people it is, sadly, unreliable because we've seen half the questions already.

As for conspiracy and accomplice liability, I guess I should conclude that the mens rea is "good faith intent that the crime be committed"? Or in other words, the co-conspirator or accomplice actually desires to help and not hurt the other person

I guess. I think I'm with you, though. Seems like he clearly intended to help his friend commit a crime. After all, the friend did commit a crime — burglary — with guy #1's aid/encouragement. Guy #1's reasons for doing it ought to be immaterial.

I actually think this might be a withdrawal question.

Reinhardt wrote:I've heard people say the scaled score from the 100 question NCBE sets is very close to what they got on the real thing. For Themis people it is, sadly, unreliable because we've seen half the questions already.

i hope you are right!

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

Reinhardt wrote: As for conspiracy and accomplice liability, I guess I should conclude that the mens rea is "good faith intent that the crime be committed"? Or in other words, the co-conspirator or accomplice actually desires to help and not hurt the other person

I guess. I think I'm with you, though. Seems like he clearly intended to help his friend commit a crime. After all, the friend did commit a crime — burglary — with guy #1's aid/encouragement. Guy #1's reasons for doing it ought to be immaterial.

i think good faith could lead you to confuse the issue. it's simply - does he intend the crime be committed or not. the situations where this comes up are trying to get someone caught by the cops, working with the cops, or duress. guy #2 is definitely guilty here, unless we're talking about conspiracy in a non-unilateral jurisdiction, but guy #1 is not guilty of anything.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:
I actually think this might be a withdrawal question.

he intended to have his friend arrested. there was no withdrawal because at no point did he ever intend that his friend would complete the crime. intending someone "attempt and get caught" in a crime is not the specific intent required for conspiracy or accomplice liability. for accomplice, it requires intent or knowledge with substantial certainty that crime will result, for conspiracy it requires an intent to agree and an intent that the crime be committed . it requires "two guilty minds." guy #1 never had a guilty mind.

there are about 9 questions like this throughout barbri with very clear explanations

Reinhardt wrote:It seems to me that he did intend for the crime to be committed, because his friend would not be arrested if his friend did not at least commit attempt. Conspiracy, I can see the common law definition getting him off. But accomplice liability I'm not so sure.

I got that one wrong too. Overthinking. Thanks, Themis later-set MBEs.

I actually found those 15 questions in that booklet much more difficult than the 100 questions from NCBE's website (and I did all 3 exams). I havent really looked at them since I did them so it may be because I did them like a month ago, but I remember a rather difficult question about self defense, a rather difficult question about damages, and then a question about the FHA.

c3pO4 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:I've heard people say the scaled score from the 100 question NCBE sets is very close to what they got on the real thing. For Themis people it is, sadly, unreliable because we've seen half the questions already.

i hope you are right!

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

Reinhardt wrote: As for conspiracy and accomplice liability, I guess I should conclude that the mens rea is "good faith intent that the crime be committed"? Or in other words, the co-conspirator or accomplice actually desires to help and not hurt the other person

I guess. I think I'm with you, though. Seems like he clearly intended to help his friend commit a crime. After all, the friend did commit a crime — burglary — with guy #1's aid/encouragement. Guy #1's reasons for doing it ought to be immaterial.

i think good faith could lead you to confuse the issue. it's simply - does he intend the crime be committed or not. the situations where this comes up are trying to get someone caught by the cops, working with the cops, or duress. guy #2 is definitely guilty here, unless we're talking about conspiracy in a non-unilateral jurisdiction, but guy #1 is not guilty of anything.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:
I actually think this might be a withdrawal question.

he intended to have his friend arrested. there was no withdrawal because at no point did he ever intend that his friend would complete the crime. intending someone "attempt and get caught" in a crime is not the specific intent required for conspiracy or accomplice liability. for accomplice, it requires intent or knowledge with substantial certainty that crime will result, for conspiracy it requires an intent to agree and an intent that the crime be committed . it requires "two guilty minds." guy #1 never had a guilty mind.

there are about 9 questions like this throughout barbri with very clear explanations

Aside from all of that, withdrawal doesn't matter for conspiracy anyway, as withdrawal isn't a valid defense for conspiracy. Conspiracy isn't meant to cover the actual crime you enter the conspiracy for, it's for getting other people to join in with your antisocial behavior. You can't withdraw from conspiracy because once its formed, you already agreed to commit the crime with another person and thus engaged in the behavior that they want to deter/punish.

Anyone who actually knows wtf they're doing feel free to correct that but I think it's correct.