BAR EXAM CRIMINAL LAW 2025 UPDATED BY EXPERTS NEW!!!

BAR EXAM CRIMINAL LAW 2025
UPDATED BY EXPERTS NEW!!!
Murder - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>1. Unlawful killing

2. Of a living human being

3. Without justification excuse or mitigation.

4. With the intent by voluntary act.

5. To cause death or great bodily injury to the victim; or

6. In the face of an awareness of an unjustifiably high risk to human life (i.e., acting with a
"depraved heart"), or

7. Intent to commit another felony.

8. Any of which directly causes the death of the victim.

Transfered intent - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>If a defendant either intends to kill or cause
serious bodily harm to one individual but his actions end up killing another, the
defendant's intent toward his intended victim is transferred to the person who actually is
killed, satisfying the mental state requirement as to the actual victim.

Human being - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>A human being is a person "born alive" that has:
completely exited his mother's body and demonstrated "independent circulation" or
viability such as breathing or crying.

When Life Ends. - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>Traditional Test. A person is dead and, thus,
no longer a human being at the moment his heart stops and he stops breathing.

Modern Test. A person is dead when there has been an irreversible cessation of all brain
function which, the absence of mechanical life support, would result in cessation of
heartbeat and breathing.

At common law the victim must die within a year and a day of the defendant's act in order
for the actus reus to have been the proximate cause of the death.

Intoxication - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>is NOT a defense to recklessness resulting in
murder, since recklessness supplies the necessary specific intent.

General Intent. - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>Requires only the intent to do the act which is
prohibited by the law (malum prohibitum); the issue is the doing of the act, which turns out


1

,to be illegal, not whether the defendant knew its legality (i.e., whether the act was illegal or not)
or factuality (i.e., running a stop sign) beforehand or not.

Negligence or recklessness is sufficient.

General intent crimes: - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>i. Rape - the slightest penetration of the
female's sexual organ against her will by the male's sexual organ, whether intended or not.

ii. Arson - the intent to do the act which results in the burning (even if only charred or singed) of
the property of another, whether the defendant intended the burning or not.

iii. Battery - the intent to do the act which resulted in the unwanted touching, whether the
defendant intended the touching or not.

iv. Involuntary manslaughter, (Involuntary).

v. Depraved heart murder (2nd degree murder).

Malice is a requirement for the general intent crime of - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>arson. The
common law created this state of mental state category to deny to arsonists the specific
intent defenses.

You may wish to remember the general intent crimes with the mnemonic: RABID - CORRECT
ANSWER>>>>R -Rape
A -Arson
B -Battery
I - Involuntary Manslaughter
D-Depraved Heart Murder (Murder in the Second Degree)

Specific Intent. - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>Requires both the (i) doing of the act coupled
with the (ii) iintent to accomplish a criminal result which the law prohibits.

Malice is a requirement for the specific intent crime of - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>murder.
The common law created this state of mental state category to deny to murderers the
specific intent defenses.

You may wish to remember the specific intent crimes with the mnemonic: BRAMM ACTS -
CORRECT ANSWER>>>>B - Burglary
R - Robbery
A -Assault
M - Murder (1st Degree)
M -Manslaughter
A - Attempt
C - Conspiracy
T - Theft Offenses
S -Solicitation

2

,Intended Killings. - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>-Premeditation, Deliberation

-Common law murder is, with malice aforethought, the unlawful killing of another human being.
At common law, there were no different degrees of murder such as "first-degree murder."

Malice aforethought can be established by showing: - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>-intent to kill

-Intent to kill or to perpetrate great bodily harm

-Implied malice, i.e., gross negligence or abandoned and malignant heart.

-Felony murder.

First Degree Murder - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>Premeditated/deliberate (intent to kill)
without justification, excuse or mitigation (cold blood).

Majority Rule (first degree murder) - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>In most jurisdictions in
which a first degree murder statute requires "premeditation and deliberation," that mental
state can be formed in an instant and, thus, is equivalent to intent to kill.

Minority Rule (first degree murder) - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>In a minority of jurisdictions
in which a first degree murder statute requires "premeditation and deliberation," that
mental state requires some meaningful reflection prior to the killing. The minority rule
requires the prosecution to prove planning or motive on the part of the defendant. Look for
evidence of:

i. facts showing preparation for killing (e.g., purchasing a weapon);

ii. facts showing motive (e.g., hatred for the victim or standing to profit from the victim's
death); and

iii. facts about the nature of the killing (e.g., wounds deliberately made in vital areas).

In the case of felony murder - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>the prosecution does not have to
prove premeditation

Voluntary Manslaughter - Elements. - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>1) An intentional homicide
which would ordinarily be murder but for

2) The existence of adequate provocation

3) Which in fact directly provoked the defendant and

4) Which would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person



3

, 5) Causing him to lose self-control

6) When there was not sufficient time between the provocation and killing for the passions
of a reasonable person to cool
down...................................................................................................................................Words
alone: Traditionally, words alone cannot constitute the requisite provocation -no matter
how abusive, insulting or harassing V's words are, D will be guilty of murder, not
manslaughter, if he kills in retaliation for the words.

Gauging the Adequacy of Provocation. - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>Determination as to the
adequacy of provocation for involuntary manslaughter is that which would arouse the heat
of passion in a reasonable and sober person. A defendant's voluntary intoxication, which
unreasonably provokes him to lose self-control, will NOT reduce homicide to
manslaughter.

More recently, however, the test for determining the adequacy of provocation takes into
account at least some individual peculiarities of the defendant because they bear upon the
inference as to his character and thus the basis of his actions.

Voluntary Manslaughter by Failure to Act. - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>Remember that
generally no one has a legal obligation to help someone else in peril, unless there is some
defined personal relationship (or there is a statute establishing an obligation); it cannot
amount to manslaughter if the defendant does not render aid or go to the rescue of another
in peril not caused by the defendant. (See "Acts and Omissions" below for additional
information.)

The proximate cause. - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>Finally, of course, the defendant's action
must be the proximate cause of the death.

Voluntary manslaughter - CORRECT ANSWER>>>>is a specific intent crime.

There must be adequate provocation; killing without provocation is murder, not manslaughter. -
CORRECT ANSWER>>>>If the defendant was slapped or hit in the face with a non-deadly
object in a barroom or a restaurant, for example, he might be entitled to a jury instruction
for manslaughter in a second-degree (hot blood) murder case.

Defendant and friend are out in a boat fishing. Several hours after an argument over who had
hooked a large fish which had gotten away, defendant was still furious at friend. Friend falls
overboard. Defendant, who has no legal duty to attempt to rescue friend, nevertheless refuses to
take action in the vindictive hope and with the intent that friend will die. Friend drowns. -
CORRECT ANSWER>>>>GUILTY of voluntary manslaughter for failure to act because
the failure was coupled with the specific intent to cause the death of the victim by
deliberate inaction.




4