MD Bar Multistate Bar 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A landowner conveys property "to my daughter for life, then to her children who reach age 21." The daughter has one child, age 5. What interest does the child have?
- A contingent remainder (Correct answer)
- A vested remainder subject to open
- An executory interest
- A vested remainder subject to complete divestment
Correct answer: A contingent remainder
Because the child has not yet satisfied the age-21 condition precedent, the remainder is contingent.
Question 2: A defendant is charged with burglary. At trial, the prosecution offers evidence that the defendant committed a similar burglary two years earlier. This evidence is most likely admissible to show what?
- A distinctive modus operandi identifying the defendant (Correct answer)
- The defendant's propensity to commit burglary
- The defendant's bad character
- That the defendant deserves punishment
Correct answer: A distinctive modus operandi identifying the defendant
Under FRE 404(b), prior crimes are inadmissible to show propensity but may prove identity through a distinctive modus operandi.
Question 3: A buyer and seller sign a written contract for the sale of a rare painting for $50,000. Before closing, the seller orally agrees to also include the frame. The buyer sues to enforce the promise about the frame. What is the seller's best defense?
- The parol evidence rule
- The statute of frauds
- Lack of consideration for the modification (Correct answer)
- The mailbox rule
Correct answer: Lack of consideration for the modification
At common law, a modification requires new consideration, and the buyer gave nothing new for the frame promise.
Question 4: A pedestrian sues a driver for negligence in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The pedestrian is domiciled in Maryland, and the driver moved from Maryland to Virginia intending to remain there permanently one week before the suit was filed. Is diversity satisfied?
- Yes, because domicile is measured when the complaint is filed (Correct answer)
- No, because the driver was a Maryland domiciliary when the accident occurred
- No, because the move appears motivated by litigation
- Yes, but only if the driver has lived in Virginia for six months
Correct answer: Yes, because domicile is measured when the complaint is filed
Diversity of citizenship is determined at the time the action is filed, and the driver's new domicile in Virginia counts.
Question 5: A state law requires all trucks using its highways to have contoured mudflaps, though straight mudflaps are legal in every other state. A trucking company challenges the law. What is the strongest constitutional argument?
- The law violates the dormant Commerce Clause by unduly burdening interstate commerce (Correct answer)
- The law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV
- The law violates substantive due process
- The law is a bill of attainder
Correct answer: The law violates the dormant Commerce Clause by unduly burdening interstate commerce
A nondiscriminatory state law still violates the dormant Commerce Clause if its burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds its local benefits.
Question 6: A homeowner sees a trespasser walking across her lawn and shoots him with a rifle. The homeowner is sued for battery. What is the most likely result?
- The homeowner is liable because deadly force may not be used solely to defend property (Correct answer)
- The homeowner prevails because the trespasser was committing a tort
- The homeowner prevails because she acted on her own land
- The homeowner is liable only if the trespasser suffered serious injury
Correct answer: The homeowner is liable because deadly force may not be used solely to defend property
Deadly force is never permitted merely to protect property, so the homeowner is liable for battery.
Question 7: Police arrest a suspect and read him Miranda warnings. He says, "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer." Police continue questioning and he confesses. Is the confession admissible?
- Yes, because the suspect's statement was not an unambiguous request for counsel (Correct answer)
- No, because any mention of a lawyer requires questioning to stop
- No, because confessions after Miranda warnings are presumed coerced
- Yes, but only if the suspect later signed a written waiver
Correct answer: Yes, because the suspect's statement was not an unambiguous request for counsel
Under Davis v. United States, questioning must cease only after an unambiguous and unequivocal request for counsel.
MD Bar Multistate Bar 2
A landowner conveys property "to my daughter for life, then to her children who reach age 21." The daughter has one child, age 5.
What interest does the child have?