BarBri - NY Exam - July 2014 Forum

[Guchster]

haha what why?

also: insanity and EED for affirmative defenses

haha because every time someone need to know something random or what was mentioned in a lecture, you have the right answer in your notes. that or you must have a photographic memory which is awesome.

[thetashster]

haha what why?

also: insanity and EED for affirmative defenses

haha because every time someone need to know something random or what was mentioned in a lecture, you have the right answer in your notes. that or you must have a photographic memory which is awesome.

somehow the questions asked i remembered. i looked up the pneumonic for this one though online. though i had most listed.

also! self defense is ordinary in NY but affirmative for the MBE.

[encore1101]

Does anyone know which defenses in NY are affirmative versus ordinary defenses? Is there a resource somewhere with that information or some outline? I'm trying to figure out more ordinary defenses and I don't know any. I noticed on a few of the criminal law essays they pointed it out.

If you know any off the top of your head that I can write down that would be great. If no one knows, maybe add to this list?

Ordinary Defenses:
Justification (i.e., self-defense)

Affirmative Defenses:
Duress (includes homicide)
Entrapment
Assuming control of the victim
Withdrawal (solicitation and conspiracy)
Abandonment (attempt)

Mm, for New York specifically, NY Penal Law lists Defenses as Infancy and Justification (including self-defense), and affirmative defenses as Duress, Entrapment, Renunciation, and Mental Disease or Defect.

EED is a affirmative defense for Murder 2

[thetashster]

my boyfriend wants us all to know that this is how we're gonna attack the bar

http://www.customink.com/designs/2014ba ... -_-button1

also that's my cat.

[greenjuice]

Q: can a witness to a will testify as to whether a testator was mentally competent at the time she signed her will? I just read some sample student answers that say you can (question 60) but I vaguely remember a sample Barbri answer in one of the earlier essays that said they couldn't, but can't find it now.

Thanks!

Barbri Answer 43 allowed two witnesses at the execution to testify that the testator was "alert and lucid" when she executed the will. I think the answer is yes. Isn't that what witnesses are there for?

Thanks for the quick responses guys. I should clarify my Q. I thought that witnesses can't say, "yes, X was mentally competent", but can say, "X was lucid, she was speaking normally, etc. etc." I guess it's kind of a crossover with expert testimony/testimony as to an ultimate issue. If I find the barbri answer I'll let you guys know. Thanks!

Okay, found it--essay 35, prompt (2)? I think I may be losing the forest for the trees or whatever that saying is by this point...

[thetashster]

Q: can a witness to a will testify as to whether a testator was mentally competent at the time she signed her will? I just read some sample student answers that say you can (question 60) but I vaguely remember a sample Barbri answer in one of the earlier essays that said they couldn't, but can't find it now.

Thanks!

Barbri Answer 43 allowed two witnesses at the execution to testify that the testator was "alert and lucid" when she executed the will. I think the answer is yes. Isn't that what witnesses are there for?

Thanks for the quick responses guys. I should clarify my Q. I thought that witnesses can't say, "yes, X was mentally competent", but can say, "X was lucid, she was speaking normally, etc. etc." I guess it's kind of a crossover with expert testimony/testimony as to an ultimate issue. If I find the barbri answer I'll let you guys know. Thanks!

Okay, found it--essay 35, prompt (2)? I think I may be losing the forest for the trees or whatever that saying is by this point...

where one witness testified that on the day of the codicil the testatrix showed no recognition, understanding, or awareness of her surroundings, justifying the conclusion that the decedent, weakened by age, illness and disease, lacked testamentary capacity both before and after she executed the codicil to her will, and the inference that such lack of capacity existed at the very moment the codicil was executed. Estate of Lockwood (1967, 1st Dist) 254 Cal App 2d 309, 62 Cal Rptr 230.

[Guchster]

Q: can a witness to a will testify as to whether a testator was mentally competent at the time she signed her will? I just read some sample student answers that say you can (question 60) but I vaguely remember a sample Barbri answer in one of the earlier essays that said they couldn't, but can't find it now.

Thanks!

Barbri Answer 43 allowed two witnesses at the execution to testify that the testator was "alert and lucid" when she executed the will. I think the answer is yes. Isn't that what witnesses are there for?

Thanks for the quick responses guys. I should clarify my Q. I thought that witnesses can't say, "yes, X was mentally competent", but can say, "X was lucid, she was speaking normally, etc. etc." I guess it's kind of a crossover with expert testimony/testimony as to an ultimate issue. If I find the barbri answer I'll let you guys know. Thanks!

Okay, found it--essay 35, prompt (2)? I think I may be losing the forest for the trees or whatever that saying is by this point...

Oh that makes sense. I believe in this question, the analysis said it would've been permitted if it was expert testimony though (i.e., expert opinion). Even though the NY Rules of Evidence don't necessarily apply to probate proceedings, maybe there is a problem when lay personal opinion testimony covers ground reserved to an expert. Observations though are legit--it's just opinions about those observations do not seem to be.

[belowthelaw57]

Was there ever an "Essay Workshop II" w/ Mike Sims? It's in the lecture handouts but to my knowledge we never had a video on it. If it actually exists it seems like something that could be worthwhile.

[PennBull]

Was there ever an "Essay Workshop II" w/ Mike Sims? It's in the lecture handouts but to my knowledge we never had a video on it. If it actually exists it seems like something that could be worthwhile.

If it does exist it's something that is definitely not worthwhile.

[thetashster]

Was there ever an "Essay Workshop II" w/ Mike Sims? It's in the lecture handouts but to my knowledge we never had a video on it. If it actually exists it seems like something that could be worthwhile.

If it does exist it's something that is definitely not worthwhile.

Yeah I was wondering about that. And also there was a second MPT workshop? Neither were listed.

[belowthelaw57]

Was there ever an "Essay Workshop II" w/ Mike Sims? It's in the lecture handouts but to my knowledge we never had a video on it. If it actually exists it seems like something that could be worthwhile.

If it does exist it's something that is definitely not worthwhile.

Yeah I was wondering about that. And also there was a second MPT workshop? Neither were listed.

Maybe they're part of that BS one day review they were trying to get us to pay extra for a few weeks ago.

[Guchster]

If it actually exists it seems like something that could be worthwhile.

[thetashster]

If it actually exists it seems like something that could be worthwhile.

The only thing worthwhile at this point is a nice neat scotch.

[Guchster]

If it actually exists it seems like something that could be worthwhile.

The only thing worthwhile at this point is a nice neat scotch.

[thetashster]

If it actually exists it seems like something that could be worthwhile.

The only thing worthwhile at this point is a nice neat scotch.

I'd like to think I'll class it up Thursday with a glenfiddich 15. But let's be real, there won't be enough tequila within the city limits.

[Guchster]

MBE/NY Rule question

Does the prosecution have to show the principal committed a crime for an accomplice to be convicted?

I assumed the majority rule was that the principal must be shown to have committed the crime (but not necessarily convicted or charged).

Is this NY's rule too?

[thetashster]

MBE/NY Rule question

Does the prosecution have to show the principal committed a crime for an accomplice to be convicted?

I assumed the majority rule was that the principal must be shown to have committed the crime (but not necessarily convicted or charged).

Is this NY's rule too?

I thought that the accomplice could be charged regardless depending on what they did/if they renounced etc

[belowthelaw57]

MBE/NY Rule question

Does the prosecution have to show the principal committed a crime for an accomplice to be convicted?

I assumed the majority rule was that the principal must be shown to have committed the crime (but not necessarily convicted or charged).

Is this NY's rule too?

I thought that the accomplice could be charged regardless depending on what they did/if they renounced etc

I think an underlying crime must have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt. To use the classic MBE example, if you're hunting with a friend and tell him to shoot a deer, but that deer is really a man in a deer costume how can you be held liable as an accomplice to any degree of homicide? You can't be found guilty for aiding or abetting a legal act.

[turquoiseturtle]

Please make me feel better about my complete lack of learning any of the degrees of crimes. All I've got are the common law definitions. From reading the essays it seems like occasionally they actually give you the crime and degree plus elements in the actual essay. Other times they don't and its split pretty 50/50 between whether the examinee answers just go with common law definitions or whether they try and name a NY degree.

Given that I'm not going to memorize them, do you think my best bet is to try and make up a degree (to at least show that I know NY divides them up) or to just stick with common law definitions?

[thetashster]

Please make me feel better about my complete lack of learning any of the degrees of crimes. All I've got are the common law definitions. From reading the essays it seems like occasionally they actually give you the crime and degree plus elements in the actual essay. Other times they don't and its split pretty 50/50 between whether the examinee answers just go with common law definitions or whether they try and name a NY degree.

Given that I'm not going to memorize them, do you think my best bet is to try and make up a degree (to at least show that I know NY divides them up) or to just stick with common law definitions?

I think it's fair to say that you still get points with the law that you do know. It seems that the most popular NY distinction crimes are robbery and murder for the essays. And out of those, I'd at least try and know the differences in murder.

But other than that, either list the common law if you know it really well or take a stab at it and add a weapon/injury for a degree.

But again, people list the wrong law and get full credit all the time. We wouldn't see disagreeing essays! And we wouldn't be seeing people listing common law and being put in the book if it weren't acceptable!

[PennBull]

Please make me feel better about my complete lack of learning any of the degrees of crimes. All I've got are the common law definitions. From reading the essays it seems like occasionally they actually give you the crime and degree plus elements in the actual essay. Other times they don't and its split pretty 50/50 between whether the examinee answers just go with common law definitions or whether they try and name a NY degree.

Given that I'm not going to memorize them, do you think my best bet is to try and make up a degree (to at least show that I know NY divides them up) or to just stick with common law definitions?

Why not both?

[turquoiseturtle]

Please make me feel better about my complete lack of learning any of the degrees of crimes. All I've got are the common law definitions. From reading the essays it seems like occasionally they actually give you the crime and degree plus elements in the actual essay. Other times they don't and its split pretty 50/50 between whether the examinee answers just go with common law definitions or whether they try and name a NY degree.

Given that I'm not going to memorize them, do you think my best bet is to try and make up a degree (to at least show that I know NY divides them up) or to just stick with common law definitions?

Why not both?

Like say "At common law, robbery consisted of [elements]. NY divides robbery into different degrees [make up the degree?]"

This is probably just me being crazy and over thinking it, but somehow saying both makes me feel like its more obvious that I don't actually know the NY rule/am being wishy-washy. But I guess if I'm making up what constitutes the degree anyway, it doesn't matter.

Thanks to you both though! I just need to keep reassuring myself this weekend.

[thetashster]

Please make me feel better about my complete lack of learning any of the degrees of crimes. All I've got are the common law definitions. From reading the essays it seems like occasionally they actually give you the crime and degree plus elements in the actual essay. Other times they don't and its split pretty 50/50 between whether the examinee answers just go with common law definitions or whether they try and name a NY degree.

Given that I'm not going to memorize them, do you think my best bet is to try and make up a degree (to at least show that I know NY divides them up) or to just stick with common law definitions?

Why not both?

Like say "At common law, robbery consisted of [elements]. NY divides robbery into different degrees [make up the degree?]"

This is probably just me being crazy and over thinking it, but somehow saying both makes me feel like its more obvious that I don't actually know the NY rule/am being wishy-washy. But I guess if I'm making up what constitutes the degree anyway, it doesn't matter.

Thanks to you both though! I just need to keep reassuring myself this weekend.

we got this, you guys. even if it feels like we don't, we do. everyone's feeling insecure. and everyone's got shit they don't know. it's all gonna come down to game day and how you walk in there. we've all studied.

personally, i like to pump myself up with some eminem and lonely island. to quote all those bitches on the Jersey Shore "just do you!" be good to yourself. and walk in there ownin it.

*steps off soap box*

[pizzasodafries]

MBE/NY Rule question

Does the prosecution have to show the principal committed a crime for an accomplice to be convicted?

I assumed the majority rule was that the principal must be shown to have committed the crime (but not necessarily convicted or charged).

Is this NY's rule too?

I thought that the accomplice could be charged regardless depending on what they did/if they renounced etc

My understanding was that Solicitation/Conspiracy/Attempt were the INCOMPLETE crimes that didn't need to be completed obviously, but the Accomplice Liability could only occur with an actual crime being done by the principal. The withdrawing was effective if there was a completed crime, if the crime never happened then no accomplice liability. Just my understanding of it.

[meliorquamheri]

Quick question: are the mixed subject questions online recycled from other BarBri questions? I went through a few in the first set, and they seemed very familiar to me.