CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE — FREE MBE PRACTICE QUESTIONS
A free sample of NCBE-style Criminal Law & Procedure questions with full per-choice explanations. Click “Reveal” after you commit to an answer. Pair these with the Criminal Law & Procedure Master Outline and its one-sheet.
📝 Want the full bank? These are a free sample. Drill thousands of NCBE-style MBE questions — with per-choice rationales, named trap analysis, an adaptive weak-spot engine, and a predicted-score tracker — at MBEMax. Your first 10 MBE questions and the entire MPRE bank are free. Part of the ALL4JDS / Bar Exam Project family.
QUESTION 1 — Homicide - Degrees of Murder and Voluntary Intoxication (medium)
After drinking heavily at a Denver bar, Victor Kane argued with stranger Liam Ortiz and stabbed him. Kane had no prior plan to kill anyone that night. Prosecutors charged first-degree murder requiring deliberation and premeditation. Kane's blood alcohol level was 0.18. Can Kane's voluntary intoxication negate first-degree murder?
(A) Yes, voluntary intoxication may negate deliberation and premeditation required for first-degree murder.
(B) Yes, voluntary intoxication always reduces murder to manslaughter.
(C) No, voluntary intoxication is never a defense to any homicide charge.
(D) No, unless Kane was involuntarily intoxicated.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: A. Correct. Voluntary intoxication may be considered to negate the specific mental state of deliberation and premeditation for first-degree murder, though it generally does not excuse killing.
Why the others are wrong:
(B) Incorrect. Intoxication does not automatically reduce murder to manslaughter in all cases.
(C) Incorrect. Intoxication may negate particular intent or deliberation even when voluntary.
(D) Incorrect. Voluntary intoxication can negate deliberation; involuntary intoxication is not the only path.
Black-letter rule: Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to general-intent crimes but may negate the specific intent, deliberation, or premeditation required for first-degree murder or other specific-intent offenses.
Trap: Treats voluntary intoxication as never relevant to murder degrees.
Memory hook: Voluntary drunk may kill intent to deliberate, not excuse killing.
QUESTION 2 — Criminal Homicide - Murder vs. Manslaughter (medium)
Husband Ray Duval returned home and found wife kissing neighbor. Duval immediately grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed neighbor to death while still enraged. Duval had no prior plan to kill. What is Duval's most likely homicide classification?
(A) First-degree murder, because intentional stabbing always shows premeditation.
(B) Second-degree murder, because heat of passion does not reduce intentional killing.
(C) Voluntary manslaughter, if Duval killed in the heat of passion upon adequate provocation without cooling time.
(D) Involuntary manslaughter, because Duval used a deadly weapon.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: C. Correct. Killing in the heat of passion upon legally adequate provocation without reasonable cooling time supports voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.
Why the others are wrong:
(A) Incorrect. Premeditation requires reflection; sudden discovery and immediate killing may negate it.
(B) Incorrect. Adequate provocation and heat of passion can reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.
(D) Incorrect. Intentional stabbing in rage is not involuntary manslaughter based on weapon use alone.
Black-letter rule: Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing committed in the heat of passion upon adequate legal provocation before a reasonable cooling-off period.
Trap: Labels all intentional killings murder regardless of provocation.
Memory hook: Sudden rage + adequate provocation = manslaughter not murder.
QUESTION 3 — Robbery - Elements and Lesser Included Offenses (medium)
Defendant approached cashier Nina Park at a Phoenix convenience store, grabbed $300 from the open register while Park watched, and fled without touching Park or threatening force. Of which crime is defendant guilty?
(A) Robbery, because taking money from a cashier is always robbery.
(B) Robbery, because the money belonged to the store.
(C) Larceny, because defendant took property without force, intimidation, or immediate presence taking from a person.
(D) No crime, because Park did not resist.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: C. Correct. Taking cash from an open register without force, intimidation, or taking from the victim's person is larceny, not robbery.
Why the others are wrong:
(A) Incorrect. Robbery requires taking from the person or presence by force or intimidation.
(B) Incorrect. Ownership by the store does not convert unattended register money into robbery without force or intimidation.
(D) Incorrect. Nonresistance does not legalize theft of cash.
Black-letter rule: Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of another by force or intimidation; taking unattended property without force or intimidation is larceny.
Trap: Labels any store theft from cashier area as robbery.
Memory hook: Grab register cash unseen = larceny; force from person = robbery.
QUESTION 4 — Larceny vs. False Pretenses vs. Embezzlement - Distinguishing Theft Crimes (hard)
Bank teller Vera Sims accepted a customer's deposit of $10,000 cash, placed it in the till, and later pocketed the cash intending to keep it. The bank retained ownership of funds in the till. What crime did Sims commit?
(A) Larceny, because Sims physically took cash from the till.
(B) False pretenses, because Sims used deception to obtain the deposit.
(C) Embezzlement, because Sims had lawful possession or custody of the bank's cash and misappropriated it.
(D) No theft crime, because the customer voluntarily brought the cash to the bank.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: C. Correct. A person with lawful possession or custody of another's property who misappropriates it commits embezzlement.
Why the others are wrong:
(A) Incorrect. Taking cash already in teller custody with authority over bank funds is embezzlement, not larceny from another's possession.
(B) Incorrect. False pretenses requires obtaining title by false representations; Sims already held bank funds in custody.
(D) Incorrect. Lawful customer deposit does not prevent criminal misappropriation by the teller.
Black-letter rule: Embezzlement is fraudulent conversion of property by one in lawful possession or custody; larceny requires taking from another's possession, and false pretenses requires obtaining title by false pretenses.
Trap: Labels any physical taking from a till as larceny.
Memory hook: Lawful custody + steal = embezzle; trick for title = false pretenses.
📝 Want the full bank? These are a free sample. Drill thousands of NCBE-style MBE questions — with per-choice rationales, named trap analysis, an adaptive weak-spot engine, and a predicted-score tracker — at MBEMax. Your first 10 MBE questions and the entire MPRE bank are free. Part of the ALL4JDS / Bar Exam Project family.
Keep studying: Criminal Law & Procedure Master Outline · Criminal Law & Procedure One-Sheet · How to Attack the MBE.