. Forum

[Charles Barkley]

"Theft" isn't an offense. It's either larceny, burglary, or robbery.

Theft is an offense under the MPC, I believe.

[kalvano]

"Theft" isn't an offense. It's either larceny, burglary, or robbery.

Theft is an offense under the MPC, I believe.

For MBE purposes, I believe the category is "theft offenses" and the types are larceny, burglary, or robbery. I don't think "theft" would ever be a correct answer on the MBE.

[mrpickles]

"Theft" isn't an offense. It's either larceny, burglary, or robbery.

Yes, under common law. This question explicitly recognizes "theft" as a crime - that's not the point of my question (nor the call of the question or explanation). The explanation explicitly recognizes the substantive crime of theft in the question/fact pattern.
"while the man's withdrawal from the conspiracy was not sufficient to eliminate his liability for the conspiracy itself, it is effective with regard to the substantive crime of theft committed by his two friends."

[Charles Barkley]

"Theft" isn't an offense. It's either larceny, burglary, or robbery.

Theft is an offense under the MPC, I believe.

For MBE purposes, I believe the category is "theft offenses" and the types are larceny, burglary, or robbery. I don't think "theft" would ever be a correct answer on the MBE.

From my outline (again, this could be incorrect)

iii. Note – the MPC treats crimes such as larceny, false pretenses and embezzlement as one crime "theft"

The MBE question said to assume MPC, so hypothetically, had the man not withdrew from the conspiracy, he could've been guilty of theft (larceny)

[kalvano]

It depends on where you are. I plan on leaving the site in Philly. I left the site when I took the Michigan bar and I made it back in time. When I took the TX bar in Austin, I had lunch at Starbucks and made it back in plenty of time. If you know where you are and don't go to a sit down restaurant, you have plenty of time to go get lunch.

You have taken some bars in your day.

Yeah, do none of them transfer over to other jurisdictions?

[kalvano]

"Theft" isn't an offense. It's either larceny, burglary, or robbery.

Yes, under common law. This question explicitly recognizes "theft" as a crime - that's not the point of my question (nor the call of the question or explanation). The explanation explicitly recognizes the substantive crime of theft in the question/fact pattern.
"while the man's withdrawal from the conspiracy was not sufficient to eliminate his liability for the conspiracy itself, it is effective with regard to the substantive crime of theft committed by his two friends."

"Theft" isn't an offense. It's either larceny, burglary, or robbery.

Theft is an offense under the MPC, I believe.

For MBE purposes, I believe the category is "theft offenses" and the types are larceny, burglary, or robbery. I don't think "theft" would ever be a correct answer on the MBE.

From my outline (again, this could be incorrect)

iii. Note – the MPC treats crimes such as larceny, false pretenses and embezzlement as one crime "theft"

The MBE question said to assume MPC, so hypothetically, had the man not withdrew from the conspiracy, he could've been guilty of theft (larceny)

I may be wrong. I know in real life, theft is an actual crime. But for MBE purposes, it has never once been a correct answer that I can recall, and if it is, what are the elements? Since the MBE heavily tests the specific elements of burglary versus larceny versus theft, how do you know what the elements are for MBE purposes?

Again, I know it's an actual crime under the MPC, but for bar exam purposes, I think you're limited to larceny, burglary, or robbery.

[Torvon]

"Theft" isn't an offense. It's either larceny, burglary, or robbery.

Yes, under common law. This question explicitly recognizes "theft" as a crime - that's not the point of my question (nor the call of the question or explanation). The explanation explicitly recognizes the substantive crime of theft in the question/fact pattern.
"while the man's withdrawal from the conspiracy was not sufficient to eliminate his liability for the conspiracy itself, it is effective with regard to the substantive crime of theft committed by his two friends."

The MPC lets you withdraw from the conspiracy completely--meaning a defense against the charge of conspiracy--if you tell everyone in the conspiracy you're not going to be a part of it and perform an affirmative act to "thwart" the conspiracy.

In order to avoid liability for crimes that will be committed in furtherance of the conspiracy you only have to tell everyone else in the conspiracy that you aren't going through with it. At that point, you have cut off liability for future crimes, but NOT for the crime of conspiracy itself.

[locusdelicti]

It depends on where you are. I plan on leaving the site in Philly. I left the site when I took the Michigan bar and I made it back in time. When I took the TX bar in Austin, I had lunch at Starbucks and made it back in plenty of time. If you know where you are and don't go to a sit down restaurant, you have plenty of time to go get lunch.

You have taken some bars in your day.

Yeah. I'm from Michigan and I practiced there, but I've moved twice in the last 3 years (my husband changing jobs), so I haven't been able to get reciprocity. Here I am, taking PA and NJ.

Three bar exams in, and they still suck balls.

[Reinhardt]

Smacks of unconstitutional violation of your right to travel under the 14th amendment P&I clause

[Agoraphobia]

Wow. I read that as the 14th Amendment PB&J clause. I need to go to bed.

[jerwood84]

Good luck future esteemed colleagues and members of a respective Bar.

[releasethehounds]

Wow. I read that as the 14th Amendment PB&J clause. I need to go to bed.

Oh thank God, i'm not the only one who did...

According to the Model Penal Code, an accomplice can effectively withdraw and avoid criminal liability by doing one of three things:

1) Rendering his prior assistance to the perpetrator completely ineffective;
2) Providing the police with a timely warning of the perpetrator’s plan; or
3) Making a proper effort to prevent the perpetrator from committing the crime.

Still not really clear the guy did withdraw even under the MPC definition.

Agreed. My issue is that..the answer even says he failed to withdraw? So then how is he guilty of the conspiracy but not larceny?
"The MPC allows withdrawal from a conspiracy after the performance of an overt act, but the defendant must thwart the performance of the planned crimes. Here, the defendant failed to do so, and therefore is guilty of conspiracy."

Under de MPC, if you attempt to withdraw before an overt act is taken (and therefore before the conspiracy is ~consummated) and you mess up and don't properly withdraw, your "punishment" for not successfully thwarting the crime is that you're going to be held liable for the conspiracy (because you didn't properly withdraw). Your "door prize" for at least trying is that you aren't going to be liable for the underlying subsequent crimes committed as a result of the conspiracy. Your liability for any crimes associated with the conspiracy (except, of course, the conspiracy itself--remember, you didn't successfully withdraw) cuts off at the point you made your attempt at withdrawing. Conspiracy doesn't merge, so you can be convicted of it without being convicted of the target crime.

Also, kalvano: yes, you're right, under common law theft is not a separate offense, and we're usually asked to assume common law. But the question they're referring to specifically said "this jurisdiction's adopted the MPC' and went on to define the offense of "theft" in the facts of the question. So be careful, apparently it does pop up occasionally.

[Reinhardt]

Yeah but what about the fact(?) that he aided and abetted the crime?

[mrpickles]

Under de MPC, if you attempt to withdraw before an overt act is taken (and therefore before the conspiracy is ~consummated) and you mess up and don't properly withdraw, your "punishment" for not successfully thwarting the crime is that you're going to be held liable for the conspiracy (because you didn't properly withdraw). Your "door prize" for at least trying is that you aren't going to be liable for the underlying subsequent crimes committed as a result of the conspiracy. Your liability for any crimes associated with the conspiracy (except, of course, the conspiracy itself--remember, you didn't successfully withdraw) cuts off at the point you made your attempt at withdrawing. Conspiracy doesn't merge, so you can be convicted of it without being convicted of the target crime.

Also, kalvano: yes, you're right, under common law theft is not a separate offense, and we're usually asked to assume common law. But the question they're referring to specifically said "this jurisdiction's adopted the MPC' and went on to define the offense of "theft" in the facts of the question. So be careful, apparently it does pop up occasionally.

Thank you! I don't know why I couldn't have picked up on this in the last 2 months from it...I guess I've always interpreted it as you're either in the conspiracy and screwed, or you took all the steps and you're wholly out. Maybe it's just because there hasn't been a ton of fact patterns on the "bad" withdrawal - it's usually either common law where they say can't withdraw, or they say the guy completely withdrew or didn't, giving all facts very clearly. I'm hoping it's clear on Wednesday as well...and hoping there's not this nuanced on essay. Actually, essay is a lot easier, argue the 3, 4, 5, ways to interpet it, rack up points, check move on.
Screw the MBE.

[Agoraphobia]

Under de MPC, if you attempt to withdraw before an overt act is taken (and therefore before the conspiracy is ~consummated) and you mess up and don't properly withdraw, your "punishment" for not successfully thwarting the crime is that you're going to be held liable for the conspiracy (because you didn't properly withdraw). Your "door prize" for at least trying is that you aren't going to be liable for the underlying subsequent crimes committed as a result of the conspiracy. Your liability for any crimes associated with the conspiracy (except, of course, the conspiracy itself--remember, you didn't successfully withdraw) cuts off at the point you made your attempt at withdrawing. Conspiracy doesn't merge, so you can be convicted of it without being convicted of the target crime.

Also, kalvano: yes, you're right, under common law theft is not a separate offense, and we're usually asked to assume common law. But the question they're referring to specifically said "this jurisdiction's adopted the MPC' and went on to define the offense of "theft" in the facts of the question. So be careful, apparently it does pop up occasionally.[/quote
Thank you! I don't know why I couldn't have picked up on this in the last 2 months from it...I guess I've always interpreted it as you're either in the conspiracy and screwed, or you took all the steps and you're wholly out. Maybe it's just because there hasn't been a ton of fact patterns on the "bad" withdrawal - it's usually either common law where they say can't withdraw, or they say the guy completely withdrew or didn't, giving all facts very clearly. I'm hoping it's clear on Wednesday as well...and hoping there's not this nuanced on essay. Actually, essay is a lot easier, argue the 3, 4, 5, ways to interpet it, rack up points, check move on.
Screw the MBE.

And the difference in withrawing from a conspiracy in the C/L? Sorry if I missed this.

[kalvano]

It depends on where you are. I plan on leaving the site in Philly. I left the site when I took the Michigan bar and I made it back in time. When I took the TX bar in Austin, I had lunch at Starbucks and made it back in plenty of time. If you know where you are and don't go to a sit down restaurant, you have plenty of time to go get lunch.

You have taken some bars in your day.

Yeah. I'm from Michigan and I practiced there, but I've moved twice in the last 3 years (my husband changing jobs), so I haven't been able to get reciprocity. Here I am, taking PA and NJ.

Three bar exams in, and they still suck balls.

Doesn't the MBE transfer?

[locusdelicti]

It depends on where you are. I plan on leaving the site in Philly. I left the site when I took the Michigan bar and I made it back in time. When I took the TX bar in Austin, I had lunch at Starbucks and made it back in plenty of time. If you know where you are and don't go to a sit down restaurant, you have plenty of time to go get lunch.

You have taken some bars in your day.

Yeah. I'm from Michigan and I practiced there, but I've moved twice in the last 3 years (my husband changing jobs), so I haven't been able to get reciprocity. Here I am, taking PA and NJ.

Three bar exams in, and they still suck balls.

Doesn't the MBE transfer?

No. I don't think any jurisdiction lets you do that anymore.

To waive in to a state that has reciprocity with your state (you make a motion and get admitted instead of having to take the bar), you have to have practiced 5 out of the last 7 years continuously in one state. I practiced for 4 years when I moved the first time. I didn't practice at all in Texas. So here I am.

[kalvano]

That blows. Some of the states I looked at specifically said they will waive the MBE if you passed that, so I thought they all did it.

[releasethehounds]

Under de MPC, if you attempt to withdraw before an overt act is taken (and therefore before the conspiracy is ~consummated) and you mess up and don't properly withdraw, your "punishment" for not successfully thwarting the crime is that you're going to be held liable for the conspiracy (because you didn't properly withdraw). Your "door prize" for at least trying is that you aren't going to be liable for the underlying subsequent crimes committed as a result of the conspiracy. Your liability for any crimes associated with the conspiracy (except, of course, the conspiracy itself--remember, you didn't successfully withdraw) cuts off at the point you made your attempt at withdrawing. Conspiracy doesn't merge, so you can be convicted of it without being convicted of the target crime.

And the difference in withrawing from a conspiracy in the C/L? Sorry if I missed this.

At common law, it's not actually possible to withdraw. The conspiracy is 100% complete at the moment two or more people agree to commit a crime. Despite the fact that you can withdraw in the MPC even after the conspiracy is complete (after overt act but before underlying crime is attempted), the common law doesn't give anyone that luxury. If you attempt to withdraw at common law, you're still liable for the conspiracy and underlying target crime (or other crimes committed in the process) if/when it's completed or attempted.

The other major difference to keep in mind between C/L and MPC is that at common law, you must have two or more people agree to have a conspiracy. So if an undercover cop or some other party who doesn't satisfy the intent requirement "agrees" to commit a crime, there's actually no conspiracy because two people haven't actually agreed. This is remedied in the UPC approach: two or more people need to agree, but only one person actually has to have the intent in order to have a conspiracy.

Keeping the philosophies behind common law and MPC in mind may help a little. The common law is strict and gives no fucks: it focuses heavily on intent and it is very black-or-white (hence the requirement that BOTH people intend and agree for a conspiracy) You see the same sort of 'you wanted to commit a crime? FUCK YOU.' approach in the common law views on abandonment as well. MPC by contrast gives people chances: it just wants to encourage people to 1) think better of it and not participate and 2) in a perfect world, prevent their co-conspirators from participating or 3) prevent the commission of the underlying target crime by getting the cops involved. The exception, i suppose, is that only one person need have the intent run around committing crimes with direction and magnitude to form a conspiracy.

[anonymcoffee]

Texas bar takers,

I'm woefully unprepared (had a thread earlier in June) and I am mentally prepared to fail. It's all right with my work because bar passage is not required. I considered withdrawing but everyone and their cat was against it. So now...I'm taking this thing.

A few questions, someone is dropping me off and picking me up but the testing site info says not to bring study materials or leave them lying around. So what do I do with my books since I'll obviously want to bring them to study and my phone (has flashcards)...anyone here willing to help me borrow a car to leave them in? Are there lockers? Do I just risk it and leave my books on a bench near the class?

What's the dress code for this thing? I know Virginia has a professional requirement, can we just dress however we want? And lastly,...I thought there was no word count but saw a question a while back, is there a word count?

[BarbellDreams]

Can I wear sweatpants and tshirt to PA bar? Cause it may be required based on 6 am wake up.

[kalvano]

A few questions, someone is dropping me off and picking me up but the testing site info says not to bring study materials or leave them lying around. So what do I do with my books since I'll obviously want to bring them to study and my phone (has flashcards)...anyone here willing to help me borrow a car to leave them in? Are there lockers? Do I just risk it and leave my books on a bench near the class?

I don't think there is any space in the Convention Center to leave anything, and I certainly wouldn't leave your phone out. Do you know anyone staying at the hotel who can loan you their room?

What's the dress code for this thing? I know Virginia has a professional requirement, can we just dress however we want?

Whatever you like.

And lastly,...I thought there was no word count but saw a question a while back, is there a word count?

I don't believe there is a word limit, just a time limit. The Short Answer questions on Tuesday must be hand-written, and you're limited to 5 lines, but they are actually short answer, not fake short answer. Sometimes just a sentence is enough.

[anonymcoffee]

@kalvano

thanks for the responses, I just got to Houston and am now figuring out logistics. I think I'll be finding a hotel room for the nights before Wed and Thursday but b/c of availability the hotel is too far to just walk.

Damn, I have no idea what to do with the materials...I was hoping to study especially in the last day when I know what essays will be on the evening portion. Is everyone just going to their car to study? I'm willing to pay half of that parking fee to be able to leave them somewhere

[Catleesi]

Doesn't the MBE transfer?

No. I don't think any jurisdiction lets you do that anymore.

To waive in to a state that has reciprocity with your state (you make a motion and get admitted instead of having to take the bar), you have to have practiced 5 out of the last 7 years continuously in one state. I practiced for 4 years when I moved the first time. I didn't practice at all in Texas. So here I am.

You can transfer it with at least some UBE states. I know of someone who failed Colorado last year by almost nothing and considered transferring to a different UBE state with a lower overall score. She could have transferred her whole score to Arizona for $350.

So you can't transfer for free, but at least some places will still let you move your score. There's a very short time frame, though-- I think she had to do it before the next exam.

[kalvano]

@kalvano

thanks for the responses, I just got to Houston and am now figuring out logistics. I think I'll be finding a hotel room for the nights before Wed and Thursday but b/c of availability the hotel is too far to just walk.

Damn, I have no idea what to do with the materials...I was hoping to study especially in the last day when I know what essays will be on the evening portion. Is everyone just going to their car to study? I'm willing to pay half of that parking fee to be able to leave them somewhere

Wait, you're in Houston? I have no idea about the Houston exam site.