CT Bar Criminal Law & Evidence 3

Question 1

Under Connecticut law, which mental state distinguishes first-degree manslaughter from second-degree manslaughter?

Accepted Answer

First-degree requires intent to cause serious physical injury; second-degree requires criminal negligence

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Prior consistent statement to rehabilitate credibility

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Whether the defendant had lawful initial possession of the property

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Yes, if under the totality of circumstances consent was voluntary

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Evidence of modus operandi under FRE 404(b)

Answer

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.

(CT Bar) Connecticut Bar Exam Practice Test

(CT Bar) Connecticut Bar Exam Practice Test

CT Bar Criminal Law & Evidence 3