MS Bar Essay 5

Question 1

In a Mississippi trusts essay, a trustee invests all trust assets in a single stock that performs poorly. Beneficiaries sue. The trustee's primary duty breached is:

Accepted Answer

The prudent investor rule requiring diversification of trust investments

Answer

The prudent investor rule, adopted in Mississippi, requires trustees to diversify investments unless special circumstances justify concentration, and a failure to diversify is a breach of that duty.

Question 2

A Mississippi essay on criminal law raises the insanity defense. Mississippi follows the M'Naghten test, under which the defendant must prove:

Accepted Answer

At the time of the act, a mental disease caused the defendant not to know the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong

Answer

Mississippi uses the M'Naghten cognitive test: the defendant must show that a disease of the mind caused unawareness of the act's nature or its wrongfulness at the time of commission.

Question 3

On a Mississippi bar essay addressing the Statute of Frauds in contracts, an oral contract for the sale of real property is enforceable under the part performance exception when the buyer:

Accepted Answer

Pays the purchase price, takes possession, and makes improvements attributable to the contract

Answer

Mississippi's part performance exception requires conduct — typically payment, possession, and improvements — that is unequivocally referable to the oral contract, taking it out of the Statute of Frauds.

Question 4

In a Mississippi constitutional law essay, a state law classifies citizens based on race. The law is subject to:

Accepted Answer

Strict scrutiny requiring the law be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest

Answer

Racial classifications are inherently suspect under the Equal Protection Clause and trigger strict scrutiny, requiring the government to show a compelling interest and narrow tailoring.

Question 5

A Mississippi evidence essay involves a witness's prior consistent statement offered to rehabilitate after a charge of recent fabrication. Under MRE 801(d)(1)(B), the statement is admissible as non-hearsay only if it was made:

Accepted Answer

Before the alleged motive to fabricate arose

Answer

Under MRE 801(d)(1)(B), a prior consistent statement is admissible to rebut a charge of fabrication only if the statement predates the motive to fabricate that has been alleged.

(MS Bar) Mississippi Bar Exam Practice Test

(MS Bar) Mississippi Bar Exam Practice Test

MS Bar Essay 5