Free AZ Bar Scoring Questions and Answers
A man was charged with larceny for taking a bicycle from outside a store. He claims he mistakenly believed the bicycle was abandoned. Which of the following is the best defense to the larceny charge?
Larceny requires the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. If the man genuinely believed the bicycle was abandoned, he lacked the intent necessary to commit larceny. This belief, if reasonable, could serve as a defense, even if mistaken.
A shopper in a grocery store slipped on a puddle of water that had been on the floor for over an hour. The store employees were aware of the spill but had not yet cleaned it up. The shopper sustained injuries and sued the store. What is the store's best defense?
The store’s best defense would be to show that it exercised reasonable care under the circumstances, such as having procedures in place to regularly inspect and clean the premises. If the store can demonstrate that it acted reasonably, even if the spill was not cleaned up immediately, it might avoid liability. However, this defense is difficult since the store employees were aware of the spill.
A state passed a law prohibiting any display of religious symbols on public property. A group of citizens filed a lawsuit, arguing that this law violated their First Amendment rights. The state's defense is that the law is neutral and applies to all religions equally. How should the court rule?
The law may violate the Free Exercise Clause, which protects individuals' rights to practice their religion. Even though the law appears neutral, the Free Exercise Clause requires that the government not prohibit religious practices unless there is a compelling state interest, and the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In this case, a blanket prohibition on religious symbols might not meet this standard.
In a criminal trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce a confession made by the defendant during a police interrogation. The defense argues that the confession should be excluded because the defendant was not informed of their Miranda rights before the interrogation. How should the court rule?
A homeowner entered into a contract with a builder to renovate their kitchen for $50,000. After starting the work, the builder demanded an additional $10,000 to complete the renovation. The homeowner, needing the work done, agreed to the additional payment. Once the renovation was completed, the homeowner refused to pay the extra $10,000. Is the homeowner legally obligated to pay the additional amount?
Under contract law, any modification to an existing contract must be supported by new consideration. In this case, the builder was already obligated to complete the renovation for $50,000, so the demand for an additional $10,000 without new consideration is unenforceable. The homeowner is not legally obligated to pay the extra amount.