Multistate Bar Exam MBE Criminal Law
Evidence Official Practice Exam Actual
Exam 2026/2027 with Detailed Rationales |
Complete Exam-Style Questions | Pass
Guaranteed – A+ Graded
══════════════════════════════════════
SECTION 1: CRIMINAL LAW (Principles, Inchoate, Defenses) Q1 – Q20
══════════════════════════════════════
Question 1 of 60
Defendant and two friends planned to rob a liquor store. Defendant drove them to the store,
handed one friend a gun, and remained in the car as the getaway driver. Ten minutes before
the friends entered the store, Defendant had a change of heart, told them he wanted no part in
the robbery, and drove away. The friends proceeded to rob the store and shot the clerk during
the confrontation. Defendant is charged as an accomplice to the robbery and the shooting.
A. Defendant is not liable for either crime because he withdrew before the robbery began.
B. Defendant is liable for the robbery but not the shooting because he withdrew before the
robbery began.
C. Defendant is liable for both crimes because mere verbal withdrawal is insufficient to
negate accomplice liability.
D. Defendant is liable for the robbery but not the shooting because the shooting was not a
foreseeable consequence of the robbery. ✓ CORRECT
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: An accomplice who effectively withdraws before the crime begins may avoid
liability for subsequent crimes, but here Defendant provided the gun and transportation mere
minutes before the robbery, making his last-minute withdrawal ineffective to negate liability
for the robbery itself. However, the shooting of the clerk was not a necessary or foreseeable
consequence of the robbery plan as communicated to Defendant, who only agreed to a
simple robbery without violence. The most tempting trap is answer C, which misapplies the
rule that withdrawal must be timely and complete; here, the issue is not the timing of
withdrawal but the scope of the original agreement regarding violence.
Question 2 of 60
,Defendant, a 5'4" woman, began a verbal argument with a much larger man at a bar. The man
shoved her to the ground, then retrieved a broken bottle from the trash and advanced toward
her. Defendant drew a handgun from her purse and shot him dead. She is charged with
murder. The jurisdiction follows the majority rule regarding self-defense.
A. Defendant is guilty of murder because she was the initial aggressor in the confrontation.
B. Defendant is not guilty because the victim's escalation to deadly force allowed her to
regain the right to self-defense. ✓ CORRECT
C. Defendant is guilty of manslaughter because she could have retreated safely instead of
using deadly force.
D. Defendant is guilty of murder because a verbal argument does not justify the use of deadly
force.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Under the majority rule, an initial aggressor who does not use deadly force loses
the privilege of self-defense but regains it when the victim responds with deadly force,
provided the aggressor cannot safely retreat. The victim's use of a broken bottle constituted
deadly force, which restored Defendant's right to respond in kind. Answer A is a common trap
because it ignores the critical exception that the initial aggressor doctrine is not absolute
when the other party escalates to lethal force.
Question 3 of 60
Defendant, believing his business partner had embezzled funds, pointed a loaded gun at what
he thought was the partner sleeping in a bed and fired three shots. The bed was empty; the
partner had been sleeping in a different room. Defendant is charged with attempted murder.
A. Defendant is not guilty of attempt because shooting an empty bed is legally impossible.
B. Defendant is not guilty of attempt because he abandoned the crime before anyone was
harmed.
C. Defendant is guilty of attempt because factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt. ✓
CORRECT
D. Defendant is guilty of murder because the mens rea for murder was present even though
the act was incomplete.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Factual impossibility—such as shooting at an empty bed when the intended target
is elsewhere—is never a defense to a charge of attempt, as the defendant possessed the
specific intent to kill and took a substantial step toward completing the crime. Legal
impossibility, where the act intended is not a crime, would be a defense, but that does not
apply here because killing a person is unlawful. Answer A traps examinees who confuse
factual impossibility, which is not a defense, with legal impossibility, which is.
Question 4 of 60
,Defendant and Accomplice agreed to burglarize a warehouse to steal electronics. During the
burglary, a security guard confronted them. Accomplice panicked and shot the guard, who
died. Defendant had explicitly told Accomplice before the crime that no weapons were to be
used and that they would flee if confronted. Defendant is charged with felony murder.
A. Defendant is guilty of felony murder because any death occurring during a burglary makes
all participants liable.
B. Defendant is guilty of felony murder only if the killing was committed in furtherance of the
burglary.
C. Defendant is not guilty of felony murder because he expressly limited the scope of the
conspiracy to non-violent means.
D. Defendant is not guilty of felony murder because the shooting was not a foreseeable
consequence of the burglary. ✓ CORRECT
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: Under the agency theory of felony murder followed by most jurisdictions, a
co-felon is liable for a killing committed by an accomplice only if the killing was a
foreseeable consequence of the felony. Here, Defendant explicitly prohibited weapons,
making the shooting an unforeseeable deviation from the plan. Answer C is a tempting trap
because while limiting the scope of conspiracy may reduce liability for the shooting under
accomplice theory, the precise felony murder analysis focuses on foreseeability rather than
the defendant's subjective instructions to the accomplice.
Question 5 of 60
Three friends—Alpha, Beta, and Gamma—agreed to burn down a rival's warehouse to collect
insurance money. Alpha and Beta set the fire while Gamma remained at home. The fire spread
to an adjacent building, and Beta was killed when the roof collapsed. Alpha and Gamma are
charged with conspiracy and arson.
A. Gamma is guilty of conspiracy but not the death of Beta because the death was not in
furtherance of the conspiracy. ✓ CORRECT
B. Gamma is guilty of conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter for Beta's death because
co-conspirators are liable for all foreseeable results.
C. Gamma is not guilty of conspiracy because he did not participate in the overt act of setting
the fire.
D. Gamma is guilty of conspiracy and murder for Beta's death under the Pinkerton rule.
Correct Answer: A
Rationale: A co-conspirator is liable for foreseeable crimes committed by other members in
furtherance of the conspiracy, but Beta's own death during the arson was not a crime
committed in furtherance of the agreement and thus falls outside Pinkerton liability. Gamma
is guilty of conspiracy because an agreement plus an overt act by any conspirator satisfies
the requirements for all members. Answer D misapplies the Pinkerton rule, which extends to
, criminal acts committed by co-conspirators, not accidental deaths of the conspirators
themselves.
Question 6 of 60
Defendant suffers from a severe delusional disorder that compels him to obey voices
commanding him to act. He knows that stealing is against the law and that society
condemns it, but when the voices ordered him to take a stranger's wallet, he did so
immediately because he felt absolutely unable to resist the command. He is charged with
larceny. The jurisdiction uses the M'Naghten test for insanity.
A. Defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity because his mental disease prevented him
from controlling his conduct.
B. Defendant is guilty because, under the M'Naghten test, knowing the wrongfulness of the
act defeats the insanity defense. ✓ CORRECT
C. Defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity because his delusional disorder rendered him
incapable of conforming his conduct to the law.
D. Defendant is guilty of a lesser included offense because his mental disease reduces the
crime to petty theft.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The M'Naghten test excuses criminal liability only if the defendant, due to a mental
disease, did not know the nature and quality of his act or did not know that the act was
wrong. Because Defendant knew that stealing was unlawful and condemned by society, he
fails the M'Naghten test despite his inability to resist the voices. Answer A is a classic trap
that applies the irresistible impulse test, which is not part of the traditional M'Naghten
standard and is only used in jurisdictions that have adopted broader formulations.
Question 7 of 60
Defendant told Victim that he was a licensed real estate agent and convinced Victim to sign
over the title to a vacation home so that Defendant could "manage the property and return the
proceeds." Victim signed the title over. Defendant immediately sold the home to a bona fide
purchaser and kept the money. Defendant is charged with larceny by trick and false
pretenses.
A. Defendant is guilty of larceny by trick because he obtained only possession, not title,
through deception.
B. Defendant is guilty of false pretenses because he obtained title to the property through a
material misrepresentation of fact. ✓ CORRECT
C. Defendant is guilty of embezzlement because he was entrusted with the property and
converted it.
D. Defendant is not guilty of theft because the victim voluntarily transferred title.
Evidence Official Practice Exam Actual
Exam 2026/2027 with Detailed Rationales |
Complete Exam-Style Questions | Pass
Guaranteed – A+ Graded
══════════════════════════════════════
SECTION 1: CRIMINAL LAW (Principles, Inchoate, Defenses) Q1 – Q20
══════════════════════════════════════
Question 1 of 60
Defendant and two friends planned to rob a liquor store. Defendant drove them to the store,
handed one friend a gun, and remained in the car as the getaway driver. Ten minutes before
the friends entered the store, Defendant had a change of heart, told them he wanted no part in
the robbery, and drove away. The friends proceeded to rob the store and shot the clerk during
the confrontation. Defendant is charged as an accomplice to the robbery and the shooting.
A. Defendant is not liable for either crime because he withdrew before the robbery began.
B. Defendant is liable for the robbery but not the shooting because he withdrew before the
robbery began.
C. Defendant is liable for both crimes because mere verbal withdrawal is insufficient to
negate accomplice liability.
D. Defendant is liable for the robbery but not the shooting because the shooting was not a
foreseeable consequence of the robbery. ✓ CORRECT
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: An accomplice who effectively withdraws before the crime begins may avoid
liability for subsequent crimes, but here Defendant provided the gun and transportation mere
minutes before the robbery, making his last-minute withdrawal ineffective to negate liability
for the robbery itself. However, the shooting of the clerk was not a necessary or foreseeable
consequence of the robbery plan as communicated to Defendant, who only agreed to a
simple robbery without violence. The most tempting trap is answer C, which misapplies the
rule that withdrawal must be timely and complete; here, the issue is not the timing of
withdrawal but the scope of the original agreement regarding violence.
Question 2 of 60
,Defendant, a 5'4" woman, began a verbal argument with a much larger man at a bar. The man
shoved her to the ground, then retrieved a broken bottle from the trash and advanced toward
her. Defendant drew a handgun from her purse and shot him dead. She is charged with
murder. The jurisdiction follows the majority rule regarding self-defense.
A. Defendant is guilty of murder because she was the initial aggressor in the confrontation.
B. Defendant is not guilty because the victim's escalation to deadly force allowed her to
regain the right to self-defense. ✓ CORRECT
C. Defendant is guilty of manslaughter because she could have retreated safely instead of
using deadly force.
D. Defendant is guilty of murder because a verbal argument does not justify the use of deadly
force.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Under the majority rule, an initial aggressor who does not use deadly force loses
the privilege of self-defense but regains it when the victim responds with deadly force,
provided the aggressor cannot safely retreat. The victim's use of a broken bottle constituted
deadly force, which restored Defendant's right to respond in kind. Answer A is a common trap
because it ignores the critical exception that the initial aggressor doctrine is not absolute
when the other party escalates to lethal force.
Question 3 of 60
Defendant, believing his business partner had embezzled funds, pointed a loaded gun at what
he thought was the partner sleeping in a bed and fired three shots. The bed was empty; the
partner had been sleeping in a different room. Defendant is charged with attempted murder.
A. Defendant is not guilty of attempt because shooting an empty bed is legally impossible.
B. Defendant is not guilty of attempt because he abandoned the crime before anyone was
harmed.
C. Defendant is guilty of attempt because factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt. ✓
CORRECT
D. Defendant is guilty of murder because the mens rea for murder was present even though
the act was incomplete.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Factual impossibility—such as shooting at an empty bed when the intended target
is elsewhere—is never a defense to a charge of attempt, as the defendant possessed the
specific intent to kill and took a substantial step toward completing the crime. Legal
impossibility, where the act intended is not a crime, would be a defense, but that does not
apply here because killing a person is unlawful. Answer A traps examinees who confuse
factual impossibility, which is not a defense, with legal impossibility, which is.
Question 4 of 60
,Defendant and Accomplice agreed to burglarize a warehouse to steal electronics. During the
burglary, a security guard confronted them. Accomplice panicked and shot the guard, who
died. Defendant had explicitly told Accomplice before the crime that no weapons were to be
used and that they would flee if confronted. Defendant is charged with felony murder.
A. Defendant is guilty of felony murder because any death occurring during a burglary makes
all participants liable.
B. Defendant is guilty of felony murder only if the killing was committed in furtherance of the
burglary.
C. Defendant is not guilty of felony murder because he expressly limited the scope of the
conspiracy to non-violent means.
D. Defendant is not guilty of felony murder because the shooting was not a foreseeable
consequence of the burglary. ✓ CORRECT
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: Under the agency theory of felony murder followed by most jurisdictions, a
co-felon is liable for a killing committed by an accomplice only if the killing was a
foreseeable consequence of the felony. Here, Defendant explicitly prohibited weapons,
making the shooting an unforeseeable deviation from the plan. Answer C is a tempting trap
because while limiting the scope of conspiracy may reduce liability for the shooting under
accomplice theory, the precise felony murder analysis focuses on foreseeability rather than
the defendant's subjective instructions to the accomplice.
Question 5 of 60
Three friends—Alpha, Beta, and Gamma—agreed to burn down a rival's warehouse to collect
insurance money. Alpha and Beta set the fire while Gamma remained at home. The fire spread
to an adjacent building, and Beta was killed when the roof collapsed. Alpha and Gamma are
charged with conspiracy and arson.
A. Gamma is guilty of conspiracy but not the death of Beta because the death was not in
furtherance of the conspiracy. ✓ CORRECT
B. Gamma is guilty of conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter for Beta's death because
co-conspirators are liable for all foreseeable results.
C. Gamma is not guilty of conspiracy because he did not participate in the overt act of setting
the fire.
D. Gamma is guilty of conspiracy and murder for Beta's death under the Pinkerton rule.
Correct Answer: A
Rationale: A co-conspirator is liable for foreseeable crimes committed by other members in
furtherance of the conspiracy, but Beta's own death during the arson was not a crime
committed in furtherance of the agreement and thus falls outside Pinkerton liability. Gamma
is guilty of conspiracy because an agreement plus an overt act by any conspirator satisfies
the requirements for all members. Answer D misapplies the Pinkerton rule, which extends to
, criminal acts committed by co-conspirators, not accidental deaths of the conspirators
themselves.
Question 6 of 60
Defendant suffers from a severe delusional disorder that compels him to obey voices
commanding him to act. He knows that stealing is against the law and that society
condemns it, but when the voices ordered him to take a stranger's wallet, he did so
immediately because he felt absolutely unable to resist the command. He is charged with
larceny. The jurisdiction uses the M'Naghten test for insanity.
A. Defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity because his mental disease prevented him
from controlling his conduct.
B. Defendant is guilty because, under the M'Naghten test, knowing the wrongfulness of the
act defeats the insanity defense. ✓ CORRECT
C. Defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity because his delusional disorder rendered him
incapable of conforming his conduct to the law.
D. Defendant is guilty of a lesser included offense because his mental disease reduces the
crime to petty theft.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The M'Naghten test excuses criminal liability only if the defendant, due to a mental
disease, did not know the nature and quality of his act or did not know that the act was
wrong. Because Defendant knew that stealing was unlawful and condemned by society, he
fails the M'Naghten test despite his inability to resist the voices. Answer A is a classic trap
that applies the irresistible impulse test, which is not part of the traditional M'Naghten
standard and is only used in jurisdictions that have adopted broader formulations.
Question 7 of 60
Defendant told Victim that he was a licensed real estate agent and convinced Victim to sign
over the title to a vacation home so that Defendant could "manage the property and return the
proceeds." Victim signed the title over. Defendant immediately sold the home to a bona fide
purchaser and kept the money. Defendant is charged with larceny by trick and false
pretenses.
A. Defendant is guilty of larceny by trick because he obtained only possession, not title,
through deception.
B. Defendant is guilty of false pretenses because he obtained title to the property through a
material misrepresentation of fact. ✓ CORRECT
C. Defendant is guilty of embezzlement because he was entrusted with the property and
converted it.
D. Defendant is not guilty of theft because the victim voluntarily transferred title.
