February 2015 Bar Exam Forum

[cooperlaserpup]

You can eliminate C because he never actually committed the crime because he never entered/broke the plane of a place he wasn't allowed to be. That leaves A as the only option.

Doesn't work... he would be guilty of burglary via accomplice liability for the exact same circumstances if the question prompt had left out all the business about calling the police. The bar examiners obviously think the question turns on that fact.

I'm with you. from a logical policy standpoint, don't we want people to call the police before the crime happens? Instead of making sure they do it and THEN calling the police? I would have ended up choosing B under accomplice liability as well. I mean he BROUGHT him to the house and waited until he went inside to ensure that he committed the crime. I don't know if they are trying to suggest it is withdrawal or what.

[YibanRen]

Hey guys: I made the following thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=244074 (for takers in all states).

The purpose is to pool simple explanations/knowledge on the hardest topics that some of us have probably written off. I know that each time I've taken the bar in a different jurisdiction, I've written off a harder topic because I ran out of time, and missed a couple MBE points because I didn't have a concise/easy explanation to guide me.

Anyway, I'm going to be contributing there. It would be great if others would as well.

[fslexcduck]

I'm with you. from a logical policy standpoint, don't we want people to call the police before the crime happens? Instead of making sure they do it and THEN calling the police? I would have ended up choosing B under accomplice liability as well. I mean he BROUGHT him to the house and waited until he went inside to ensure that he committed the crime. I don't know if they are trying to suggest it is withdrawal or what.

Ha yeah I was just gonna make a post on the policy argument but I didn't want to post a million times. But exactly! Whenever it's close for me on the answer I try to think of the policy, and why on earth would we want to encourage anyone to help anyone commit a crime?

Ugh I feel annoyed too because I have no idea what "level" the bar examiners are on. I've spent all this time preparing on Themis and I feel like if this question had been on Themis, the answer would have been C because they are super literal.

[nvbar2015]

A looks right to me, the friend didn't have the intent for the crime to actually be committed.

Yes he did! He took the man to the house with the specific intent that the man would break into the house. What was his intention, if not for the man to commit burglary? That the man would run away and do backflips in the street?

I think he didn't have the intent that the crime would be committed and that he would get away with it , but that seems like an entirely different issue.

Also I just saw someone else wrote "specific intent" - that just doesn't cut it though. Someone please give me a reason why what I wrote just now doesn't make him guilty.

My thinking.

His intent was to get the young man in trouble, not to commit burglary.

Burglary requires the specific intent to commit a felony therein (inside the dwelling of another). The friend didn't have that, he wanted the young man to commit burglary so the young man would get in trouble, so C is out.

The friend can't be guilty of conspiracy either because he did not have the specific intent to commit an unlawful objective because he just wanted the young man to get in trouble. If he can't be guilty of conspiracy then B and D is out leaving A as the only possible answer.

[cooperlaserpup]

A looks right to me, the friend didn't have the intent for the crime to actually be committed.

Yes he did! He took the man to the house with the specific intent that the man would break into the house. What was his intention, if not for the man to commit burglary? That the man would run away and do backflips in the street?

I think he didn't have the intent that the crime would be committed and that he would get away with it , but that seems like an entirely different issue.

Also I just saw someone else wrote "specific intent" - that just doesn't cut it though. Someone please give me a reason why what I wrote just now doesn't make him guilty.

My thinking.

His intent was to get the young man in trouble, not to commit burglary.


Burglary requires the specific intent to commit a felony therein (inside the dwelling of another). The friend didn't have that, he wanted the young man to commit burglary so the young man would get in trouble, so C is out.

The friend can't be guilty of conspiracy either because he did not have the specific intent to commit an unlawful objective because he just wanted the young man to get in trouble. If he can't be guilty of conspiracy then B and D is out leaving A as the only possible answer.

Right but with accomplice liability (correct me if I am wrong) he needs the specific intent for the person he is aiding and abetting to break and enter with intent to commit a crime. He doesn't need to intend for himself to physically do that.

So riddle me this: What if he feels bad and never calls the cops. Still guilty of no crime for knowingly helping someone commit a crime?

[ilovetypos]

A looks right to me, the friend didn't have the intent for the crime to actually be committed.

Yes he did! He took the man to the house with the specific intent that the man would break into the house. What was his intention, if not for the man to commit burglary? That the man would run away and do backflips in the street?

I think he didn't have the intent that the crime would be committed and that he would get away with it , but that seems like an entirely different issue.

Also I just saw someone else wrote "specific intent" - that just doesn't cut it though. Someone please give me a reason why what I wrote just now doesn't make him guilty.

My thinking.

His intent was to get the young man in trouble, not to commit burglary.


Burglary requires the specific intent to commit a felony therein (inside the dwelling of another). The friend didn't have that, he wanted the young man to commit burglary so the young man would get in trouble, so C is out.

The friend can't be guilty of conspiracy either because he did not have the specific intent to commit an unlawful objective because he just wanted the young man to get in trouble. If he can't be guilty of conspiracy then B and D is out leaving A as the only possible answer.

Right but with accomplice liability (correct me if I am wrong) he needs the specific intent for the person he is aiding and abetting to break and enter with intent to commit a crime. He doesn't need to intend for himself to physically do that.

So riddle me this: What if he feels bad and never calls the cops. Still guilty of no crime for knowingly helping someone commit a crime?

I think no because he still didn't have the intent when the crime occurred, although he might get hit with accomplice liability after the fact if he drives him away from the crime scene.

[aretoodeetoo]

A looks right to me, the friend didn't have the intent for the crime to actually be committed.

Yes he did! He took the man to the house with the specific intent that the man would break into the house. What was his intention, if not for the man to commit burglary? That the man would run away and do backflips in the street?

I think he didn't have the intent that the crime would be committed and that he would get away with it , but that seems like an entirely different issue.

Also I just saw someone else wrote "specific intent" - that just doesn't cut it though. Someone please give me a reason why what I wrote just now doesn't make him guilty.

My thinking.

His intent was to get the young man in trouble, not to commit burglary.


Burglary requires the specific intent to commit a felony therein (inside the dwelling of another). The friend didn't have that, he wanted the young man to commit burglary so the young man would get in trouble, so C is out.

The friend can't be guilty of conspiracy either because he did not have the specific intent to commit an unlawful objective because he just wanted the young man to get in trouble. If he can't be guilty of conspiracy then B and D is out leaving A as the only possible answer.

Right but with accomplice liability (correct me if I am wrong) he needs the specific intent for the person he is aiding and abetting to break and enter with intent to commit a crime. He doesn't need to intend for himself to physically do that.

So riddle me this: What if he feels bad and never calls the cops. Still guilty of no crime for knowingly helping someone commit a crime?

What's going on here? Accomplice liability and "specific intent" is dicey because you have to remember it isn't a specific intent crime for defenses. His intent has to only be to aid or encourage the other guy. Driving him there is encouraging, even if he has some other intent... He still drove him there with to aid or encourage him into committing the crime.

[cooperlaserpup]

Yes he did! He took the man to the house with the specific intent that the man would break into the house. What was his intention, if not for the man to commit burglary? That the man would run away and do backflips in the street?

I think he didn't have the intent that the crime would be committed and that he would get away with it , but that seems like an entirely different issue.

Also I just saw someone else wrote "specific intent" - that just doesn't cut it though. Someone please give me a reason why what I wrote just now doesn't make him guilty.

My thinking.

His intent was to get the young man in trouble, not to commit burglary.


Burglary requires the specific intent to commit a felony therein (inside the dwelling of another). The friend didn't have that, he wanted the young man to commit burglary so the young man would get in trouble, so C is out.

The friend can't be guilty of conspiracy either because he did not have the specific intent to commit an unlawful objective because he just wanted the young man to get in trouble. If he can't be guilty of conspiracy then B and D is out leaving A as the only possible answer.

Right but with accomplice liability (correct me if I am wrong) he needs the specific intent for the person he is aiding and abetting to break and enter with intent to commit a crime. He doesn't need to intend for himself to physically do that.

So riddle me this: What if he feels bad and never calls the cops. Still guilty of no crime for knowingly helping someone commit a crime?

What's going on here? Accomplice liability and "specific intent" is dicey because you have to remember it isn't a specific intent crime for defenses. His intent has to only be to aid or encourage the other guy. Driving him there is encouraging, even if he has some other intent... He still drove him there with to aid or encourage him into committing the crime.

Yes, I agree with you, that is my point as well. specific intent was posited by someone else before. So I think the answer should be B. but the actual answer is A. If you understand why please explain!!

[fslexcduck]

you mean C, not B. C was the one that said "burglary." just to clarify so there's no more confusion than there already is in this thread!

[cooperlaserpup]

you mean C, not B. C was the one that said "burglary." just to clarify so there's no more confusion than there already is in this thread!

YES. my bad.

[aretoodeetoo]

you mean C, not B. C was the one that said "burglary." just to clarify so there's no more confusion than there already is in this thread!

YES. my bad.

Oh okay the answer is because he withdrew because 1. the crime wasn't unstoppable because his semi-buddy got stopped and 2. he notified the police and also sped off on him.

I woulda definitely gotten that answer wrong.

[fslexcduck]

Withdrawal!!! OK, I don't love the question still, but I'm feeling this answer way better than I was feeling anything else.

Wait though, in NY this would be withdrawal bc withdrawal is before commission of the crime. But common law, I have withdrawal as before the chain of events is set in motion. Doesn't this seem like the chain of events was already in motion? WTF?

aretoo, do you have something else for withdrawal - what are you saying about "unstoppable" crimes? is that what they mean by chain of events - that the chain of events is "unstoppably" set in motion?

[fslexcduck]

Does anyone have links to other question sets released by NCBEX? That last one threw me for a loop, I had been getting really high on Themis/Barmax and just bombed that last one so hard.

[aretoodeetoo]

Withdrawal!!! OK, I don't love the question still, but I'm feeling this answer way better than I was feeling anything else.

Wait though, in NY this would be withdrawal bc withdrawal is before commission of the crime. But common law, I have withdrawal as before the chain of events is set in motion. Doesn't this seem like the chain of events was already in motion? WTF?

aretoo, do you have something else for withdrawal - what are you saying about "unstoppable" crimes? is that what they mean by chain of events - that the chain of events is "unstoppably" set in motion?

Yeah he for sure withdrew - 1. Attempted to neutralize assistance + 2. Called cops. This stopped the crime so it wasn't unstoppable.

[BeachedBrit]

Withdrawal!!! OK, I don't love the question still, but I'm feeling this answer way better than I was feeling anything else.

Wait though, in NY this would be withdrawal bc withdrawal is before commission of the crime. But common law, I have withdrawal as before the chain of events is set in motion. Doesn't this seem like the chain of events was already in motion? WTF?

aretoo, do you have something else for withdrawal - what are you saying about "unstoppable" crimes? is that what they mean by chain of events - that the chain of events is "unstoppably" set in motion?

To make it even better, can't you say that no matter what, it can't be withdrawal because you can't withdraw from a crime that has already been committed and here, once he went in to the house, the crime has been committed because all the elements have been fulfilled?

[fslexcduck]

I mean, calling the cops 5 seconds before the guy commits the crime isn't really preventing the commission of the crime since it's impossible for them to actually stop it (and it wasn't stopped - the crime still happened)!

It's still unclear whether the bar examiners were going for withdrawal or going for lack of intent. Both are wrong IMO but it would be helpful to see the explanations to understand the logic.

Either way, I'm gonna just chalk this one up to WTF, and move on with my life I guess! And I won't advise any of my clients to do this in the future, just in case...

but if I hear of my clients doing it, I won't HAVE to withdraw from the case, since I don't KNOW it to be a crime. #barjoke #imtired

[cooperlaserpup]

Withdrawal!!! OK, I don't love the question still, but I'm feeling this answer way better than I was feeling anything else.

Wait though, in NY this would be withdrawal bc withdrawal is before commission of the crime. But common law, I have withdrawal as before the chain of events is set in motion. Doesn't this seem like the chain of events was already in motion? WTF?

aretoo, do you have something else for withdrawal - what are you saying about "unstoppable" crimes? is that what they mean by chain of events - that the chain of events is "unstoppably" set in motion?

I don't even see how it works in NY either. Wouldn't he need to withdraw before the guy breaks and enters? Did he do that here? and since the purpose of withdraw is a significant attempt to stop it from happening, I would assume that waiting until the guy is on the porch step rather than reporting it way ahead of time wouldn't qualify as withdrawal either.

This is a dumb question. That's what I've decided.

[aretoodeetoo]

Withdrawal!!! OK, I don't love the question still, but I'm feeling this answer way better than I was feeling anything else.

Wait though, in NY this would be withdrawal bc withdrawal is before commission of the crime. But common law, I have withdrawal as before the chain of events is set in motion. Doesn't this seem like the chain of events was already in motion? WTF?

aretoo, do you have something else for withdrawal - what are you saying about "unstoppable" crimes? is that what they mean by chain of events - that the chain of events is "unstoppably" set in motion?

I don't even see how it works in NY either. Wouldn't he need to withdraw before the guy breaks and enters? Did he do that here? and since the purpose of withdraw is a significant attempt to stop it from happening, I would assume that waiting until the guy is on the porch step rather than reporting it way ahead of time wouldn't qualify as withdrawal either.

This is a dumb question. That's what I've decided.

Lol time to move on from this question. I see what you're all saying, I guess I would say the crime was being committed. The fact that he drove off with the getaway car and called the cops and the other guy got caught make withdrawing an okay answer. It definitely has nothing to do with intent.

[46-and-2]

I hate the mind f*ck involved when writing essays. How much law should I jot in? Do I need to further explain my rationale? Does any of this make sense? And then boom- time is up.

[jarofsoup]

When are you folks calling it quits for Feb. My last day will probably tomorrow. I have to travel for the exam tomorrow so probably won't get much done.

I feel ready. Positivity folks.

[cooperlaserpup]

When are you folks calling it quits for Feb. My last day will probably tomorrow. I have to travel for the exam tomorrow so probably won't get much done.

I feel ready. Positivity folks.

I'm going through until Monday evening. And Tuesday night I'm doing MBEs. I'm one of those people that will never feel ready.

[ilovetypos]

When are you folks calling it quits for Feb. My last day will probably tomorrow. I have to travel for the exam tomorrow so probably won't get much done.

I feel ready. Positivity folks.

I'm going through until Monday evening. And Tuesday night I'm doing MBEs. I'm one of those people that will never feel ready.

I'll probably do a little bit on Monday, but Tuesday night I'm going to a spa

[YibanRen]

When are you folks calling it quits for Feb. My last day will probably tomorrow. I have to travel for the exam tomorrow so probably won't get much done.

I feel ready. Positivity folks.

I'm going through until Monday evening. And Tuesday night I'm doing MBEs. I'm one of those people that will never feel ready.

I'll probably do a little bit on Monday, but Tuesday night I'm going to a spa

Nice thing about the MBE is that you aren't going to change your score that much in the last night. However, the last five minutes of cramming before essays can literally save you. The last time I took the bar I flipped through my wills outline literally seconds before they said "go," and the stuff I read was on the section (and I hadn't known previously).

[encore1101]

I remember that friend-burglary question when I was studying for the summer bar. In all honesty, if you get 2/200 accomplice questions, I'd be surprised. It's not worth the attention at this stage.

Just memorize those particular facts without trying to understand why, that's what my strategy was.

[minnbills]

Yeah that's my strategy for RAP questions too. I memorized the widow, octogenarian, and executory interest pitfalls.

At this point I think my best bet is to keep reviewing the MBE topics, which I probably know as well as I ever will, while trying to build my competency in the MEE-only subjects.