Top Law Schools

I can probably guess, but it pretty much always merges onto larceny charge, doesn't it? Can i get an example of "attempted larceny" please? Thanks

dudnaito wrote:I can probably guess, but it pretty much always merges onto larceny charge, doesn't it? Can i get an example of "attempted larceny" please? Thanks

Walking into a store, stretching out your hand to touch a purse, and as soon as you touch it a security guard accidentally accuses you of stealing before you've moved the purse. If you had the intent to steal it when you touched the purse, you've taken a substantial step towards commission of the crime.

If you move the purse even an inch, though, it's actual larceny.

Tanicius wrote:

dudnaito wrote:I can probably guess, but it pretty much always merges onto larceny charge, doesn't it? Can i get an example of "attempted larceny" please? Thanks

Walking into a store, stretching out your hand to touch a purse, and as soon as you touch it a security guard accidentally accuses you of stealing before you've moved the purse. If you had the intent to steal it when you touched the purse, you've taken a substantial step towards commission of the crime.

If you move the purse even an inch, though, it's actual larceny.

Thanks, that's what I figured. You'd need some straight telepathy to pull that off though.

dudnaito wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

dudnaito wrote:I can probably guess, but it pretty much always merges onto larceny charge, doesn't it? Can i get an example of "attempted larceny" please? Thanks

Walking into a store, stretching out your hand to touch a purse, and as soon as you touch it a security guard accidentally accuses you of stealing before you've moved the purse. If you had the intent to steal it when you touched the purse, you've taken a substantial step towards commission of the crime.

If you move the purse even an inch, though, it's actual larceny.

Thanks, that's what I figured. You'd need some straight telepathy to pull that off though.

Yeah, it pisses me off that they test that level of theory. You would think the bar exam would want to test practical situations. No one's being arrested for shoplifting before they've gotten through the doors unless there is some real specific evidence of their intent.

What I do like, though, is that the criminal law questions keep this shit simple. They give you 2-3 sentences and ask you if it's a crime. Contracts, meanwhile, will bore you with so much information about the back-and-forth of a contract's formation, different terms exchanged by the merchants, modification agreements that contradict the original rules of the contract, rescisions and non rescission... and then ask you a super basic question about what expectancy damages would be if the non-breaching party wins. If criminal law partook in that BS, they would write a novel about the woman being hard on money, and how a guy put a gun to her head and told her to commit the crime, but the guy was a cop who had no probable cause to do that, and he was acting outside the scope of his job as an undercover officer, and then it would end with "If she wanted to steal the purse even without the gun to her head, is she guilty?"

Tanicius wrote:

dudnaito wrote:

Tanicius wrote:

dudnaito wrote:I can probably guess, but it pretty much always merges onto larceny charge, doesn't it? Can i get an example of "attempted larceny" please? Thanks

Walking into a store, stretching out your hand to touch a purse, and as soon as you touch it a security guard accidentally accuses you of stealing before you've moved the purse. If you had the intent to steal it when you touched the purse, you've taken a substantial step towards commission of the crime.

If you move the purse even an inch, though, it's actual larceny.

Thanks, that's what I figured. You'd need some straight telepathy to pull that off though.

Yeah, it pisses me off that they test that level of theory. You would think the bar exam would want to test practical situations. No one's being arrested for shoplifting before they've gotten through the doors unless there is some real specific evidence of their intent.

What I do like, though, is that the criminal law questions keep this shit simple. They give you 2-3 sentences and ask you if it's a crime. Contracts, meanwhile, will bore you with so much information about the back-and-forth of a contract's formation, different terms exchanged by the merchants, modification agreements that contradict the original rules of the contract, rescisions and non rescission... and then ask you a super basic question about what expectancy damages would be if the non-breaching party wins. If criminal law partook in that BS, they would write a novel about the woman being hard on money, and how a guy put a gun to her head and told her to commit the crime, but the guy was a cop who had no probable cause to do that, and he was acting outside the scope of his job as an undercover officer, and then it would end with "If she wanted to steal the purse even without the gun to her head, is she guilty?"

Honestly, I feel the same way as you re: Contracts and Crim. except in reverse. Crim. MBE has too much of a back story which distracts me incessantly, whereas Contracts has a predictable pattern of facts which only requires an almost mechanical/mathematical application of rules. I mean, don't get me wrong, i'll get plenty wrong, but it's mostly like... for example, I knew the rule on lack of perfect tender in UCC for installment contracts, but the fact pattern said that their K only had 2 shipments, which up to that point, i didn't really consider as an installment K. (C'mon, 2 ain't a pattern, right?) But now that I know, just apply the rules to the facts and bingo.

And I think I'm one of the few who actually has a higher Adapti-Bar score on Contracts than Crim.

I love the model answers that are like "No fuck you , this is the right answer because x sentence you read slightly differently is the key! But lolololol your reading is probably not what happened". Especially on the "pick the best/most" questions.

dudnaito wrote: Honestly, I feel the same way as you re: Contracts and Crim. except in reverse. Crim. MBE has too much of a back story which distracts me incessantly, whereas Contracts has a predictable pattern of facts which only requires an almost mechanical/mathematical application of rules. I mean, don't get me wrong, i'll get plenty wrong, but it's mostly like... for example, I knew the rule on lack of perfect tender in UCC for installment contracts, but the fact pattern said that their K only had 2 shipments, which up to that point, i didn't really consider as an installment K. (C'mon, 2 ain't a pattern, right?) But now that I know, just apply the rules to the facts and bingo.

And I think I'm one of the few who actually has a higher Adapti-Bar score on Contracts than Crim.

The backstory for almost all of the questions is distracting in all of the topics. How often do you encounter a client in practice that wants to sue executor of their mom's estate for a $10,000 oral guarantee to pay money their dad promised them to quit smoking and now refuses to pay?