CT Bar Criminal Law & Evidence 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Connecticut law, which mental state distinguishes first-degree manslaughter from second-degree manslaughter?
- First-degree requires intent to cause death; second-degree requires recklessness
- First-degree requires intent to cause serious physical injury; second-degree requires criminal negligence (Correct answer)
- First-degree requires premeditation; second-degree requires intent to harm
- First-degree requires recklessness; second-degree requires negligence
Correct answer: First-degree requires intent to cause serious physical injury; second-degree requires criminal negligence
Connecticut first-degree manslaughter requires intent to cause serious physical injury resulting in death, while second-degree manslaughter requires reckless conduct causing death.
Question 2: A witness testifies consistently with their prior out-of-court statement. The opposing party offers the prior statement to show the witness fabricated their current story after a motive to lie arose. The prior statement is offered as:
- Substantive evidence of the facts asserted
- Prior consistent statement to rehabilitate credibility (Correct answer)
- Hearsay within hearsay
- An admission by a party opponent
Correct answer: Prior consistent statement to rehabilitate credibility
A prior consistent statement is admissible under FRE 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive if made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose.
Question 3: Which element distinguishes larceny from embezzlement?
- The value of the property taken
- Whether the taking was by force
- Whether the defendant had lawful initial possession of the property (Correct answer)
- Whether the victim consented to the taking
Correct answer: Whether the defendant had lawful initial possession of the property
Embezzlement involves fraudulent conversion of property by someone who lawfully possessed it (e.g., an employee), while larceny involves a trespassory taking from someone who has not entrusted possession.
Question 4: Police stop a car for a broken taillight. The driver is nervous. An officer asks if he can search the car. The driver says 'I guess so.' The search reveals drugs. Is the consent valid?
- No, because consent given during a traffic stop is inherently coerced
- No, because nervousness indicates the consent was not voluntary
- Yes, if under the totality of circumstances consent was voluntary (Correct answer)
- Yes, only if the officer first told the driver he had the right to refuse
Correct answer: Yes, if under the totality of circumstances consent was voluntary
Consent to search is valid if voluntary under the totality of the circumstances; police are not required to inform suspects of their right to refuse under Schneckloth v. Bustamonte.
Question 5: A defendant charged with rape raises a consent defense. The prosecution seeks to admit evidence that the defendant raped two other women using the same pattern of luring victims. This evidence is most likely admissible as:
- Character evidence showing propensity to commit rape
- Evidence of modus operandi under FRE 404(b) (Correct answer)
- Habit evidence under FRE 406
- Reputation evidence of the defendant's character
Correct answer: Evidence of modus operandi under FRE 404(b)
Evidence of prior bad acts showing a distinctive modus operandi is admissible under FRE 404(b) to prove identity or plan, not merely to show propensity.
Question 6: A defendant is charged with conspiracy. His co-conspirator pleads guilty and testifies against him. Which constitutional right of the defendant is implicated if the co-conspirator is unavailable for cross-examination?
- Due Process Clause
- Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination
- Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause (Correct answer)
- Seventh Amendment right to jury trial
Correct answer: Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause
The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testify against them.
Question 7: Which doctrine allows a court to admit evidence of a prior crime committed by the defendant to show he had the intent required for the current charged offense?
- Res gestae doctrine
- Doctrine of chances
- Prior acts under FRE 404(b) (Correct answer)
- Reverse 404(b)
Correct answer: Prior acts under FRE 404(b)
FRE 404(b) permits admission of prior crimes or acts to prove intent, knowledge, motive, or absence of mistake—but not to prove character conformity.
CT Bar Criminal Law & Evidence 3
Under Connecticut law, which mental state distinguishes first-degree manslaughter from second-degree manslaughter?