California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam Questions and Answers 2024

Searching for FREE California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam Questions and Answers online? If YES, check below for the right answers:

NOTE: All questions and answers to different California Bar Criminal Law sample papers are checked twice before publishing them to you. So, please do share as well if it helps.

California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam Questions and Answers – Sample Papers Solved

Below you can find the list of different questions and answers coming under the California Bar exam topic “CRIMINAL LAW”…

You can select any topic of your wish and get the answers for FREE:

California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam Questions and Answers

California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam Questions and Answers – Sample Paper 1

Q. Murder
Ans: unlawful homicide (physical act) committed with malice (mental state). Common law – death = no breathing/heart stops. Modern – death = brain dead.

Q. Homicide, categories. “Killing is caused by the defendant if…”
Ans: Four scenarios in which killing is “caused by the defendant”:
1) D acted alone to cause death
2) D’s omission caused death and D had a duty to act by statute, relationship, or voluntary undertaking.
3) Act of a 3rd party contributed to cause death.
4) Death was a foreseeable result of D’s act or omission.

Q. Malice, quartet
Ans: Need one of four to have malice:
1) Intent to kill (words, evidence, or deadly weapon doctrine)
2) Intent to inflict great bodily harm/serious bodily injury
3) Depraved heart: reckless indifference to a known risk of death or serious bodily injury.
4) Felony Murder Rule: Homicide committed during the perpetration of an inherently dangerous crime.

Q. Felony Murder Rule:
Ans: Homicide committed during the perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony:
1) During the perpetration.
2) Majority: Inherently dangerous felony. Minority: include non-dangerous felonies committed in dangerous manner.
3) Felony must be independent from act that caused death.
4) Defense to underlying felony is defense to FM charge.
5) Vicarious liability: At common law, all felons are liable for death caused by co felon. Majority – no felony murder if non-felon kills a felon. Minority – excuses felons form felony murder liability if a non-felon kills another non-felon while resisting felony.
6) Proximate cause: the felony must be the proximate cause of the homicide (i.e., the homicide must be a foreseeable result of the felony)

Q. Inherently dangerous felonies, BARRK
Burglary, Arson, Rape, Robbery, Kidnapping for ransom
(common law) mayhem, forcible sodomy

Q. Involuntary Manslaughter
Ans: An unintentional homicide committed without malice involving either gross or criminal negligence or commission of a crime not covered by Felony Murder Rule.

Q. What are the 3 possible circumstances of Involuntary Manslaughter?
– Intent to inflict slight bodily injury (non-aggravated, no weapon battery or assault that leads to death)
– Criminal negligence
– Misdemeanor manslaughter rule

Q. Criminal negligence
Ans: D’s conduct is gross deviation from standard of care an RP would observe. More than ordinary negligence, which leads only to tort liability but falling short of depraved heart.

Q. Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule (Bad Act Manslaughter)
Ans: D kills while committing a non-inherently dangerous felony (insufficient for FMR) or malum in se (inherently wrongful) crimes.

Q. Justification
Ans: Applies to murder, involuntary manslaughter, and all other homicide crimes. If homicide crime is justified criminal liability will not attach.

Q. Self-Defense, Justification
Ans: D may use deadly force to protect against an imminent deadly attack. Deadly force MUST be reasonable and necessary to repel attacker.

Q. Self-Defense, Justification – Majority Rule
Ans: Majority – D need not retreat before using deadly force, unless D is the initial aggressor and safe retreat is available.

Q. Self-Defense, Justification – Minority Rule
Ans: Minority – D must retreat before using deadly force if safe retreat is available, unless D is in his/her home, a police officer, or is a victim of a violent felony.

Q. Self-Defense, Justification – If D is aggressor
Ans: If D is initial aggressor, D cannot assert self-defense as justification unless one of 3 exceptions exists:
1) D is initial aggressor BUT withdraws by clearly communicating to victim that they intend to stop fighting.
2) D initially used non-deadly force and is now faced with attacker suddenly using deadly force
3) If safe retreat is available, the initial aggressor must retreat before using deadly force.

Q. Defense of Others, Justification
Ans: D can use deadly force if reasonable and necessary to defend another.

Q. If D used deadly force to defend a criminal or initial aggressor who had no right to use self-defense?
Ans: Following are the cases:
Majority – D may claim defense of others if the victim reasonably appears to have the right to use deadly force, even if “other” does not actually have that right.
Minority – D can use no more force than the person they are defending. D “steps into shoes of person defended.”

Q. Crime Prevention, Justification
Ans: A police officer or private person may use deadly force before a crime has been committed if reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of a dangerous felony.

Q. Apprehension/Arrest of Criminal, Justification
Ans: A police officer or private person may use deadly force if reasonably necessary after a crime has been committed to prevent apprehend/arrest a dangerous felon.
NOTE: Private citizen can only use deadly force if the person apprehended with deadly force is actually guilty of the dangerous felony. No reasonable mistake.

Q. Reasonable mistake, Justification
Ans: D may use deadly force based on a reasonable mistake as to self-defense, defense of others (majority only), and crime prevention.
Only a police officer can use deadly force to apprehend or arrest based on reasonable mistake.

Q. Defense of Habitation/Property, Justification
Ans: As a general rule, a D cannot use deadly force to protect home or other property.
Exception: Deadly force can be used to protect occupants of home from violent intruder or if intruder intends to commit a felony inside.

Q. Excuse
Ans: If a homicide (or another crime) is excused, the D is not criminally liable for the crime. Categories:
– Youth and infancy
– Insanity
– Intoxication

Q. Insanity
Ans: Four tests:
– M’Naghten or Right/Wrong test
– Irresistible Impulse Test
– ALI/MPC Test
– Durham Test

Q. M’Naghten or Right/Wrong Test, Insanity, Excuse
Ans: M’Naghten or Right/Wrong test:
– Defendant, as a result of mental defect,
– Did not know the wrongfulness of his act
– Could not understand the nature and quality of his acts. (cognitive)

Q. Irresistible Impulse Test, Insanity, Excuse
Ans: D, as a result of mental defect, was unable to control his conduct or conform his conduct to the law. (volitional)

Q. ALI/MPC Test, Insanity, Excuse
Ans: D lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (volitional + cognitive)


California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam Questions and Answers – Sample Paper 2

Q. Durham Test
Ans: D is not guilty if is crime was the product of a mental disease or defect.

Q. Intoxication, Excuse
Ans: If D is intoxicated at the time of the crime, the intoxication may excuse criminal liability. Intoxication can be voluntary or involuntary.

Q. Voluntary Intoxication, Excuse
Ans: Exists when D voluntarily and knowingly consumes an intoxicating substance. Voluntary intoxication is NO DEFENSE to crimes requiring no intent (strict liability), or general intent crimes or malice. Voluntary intoxication CAN NEGATE specific intent crimes but only if the D is so intoxicated that he cannot form specific intent required for the crime.

Q. Involuntary Intoxication, Excuse
Ans: Exists when D involuntarily (forced to consume) or unknowingly (didn’t know substance was intoxicating) an intoxicating substance.

Involuntary intoxication is a defense to all crimes if intoxication renders the defendant “insane” under the applicable test.

Q. Minority – recognizes a diminished defense where evidence of D’s mental defect while insufficient for insanity, is admissible to Ans: prove that D did not have or could not have formed the intent required for the crime.

Q. Mitigation
Ans: A partial defense. An intentional killing that would otherwise be murder will be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter under both of the following situations:
– Provocation
– Good faith mistake

Q. Provocation, Mitigation
Ans: An intentional killing will be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter if the D experiences an adequate provocation. The provocative act must be one that would cause both subjective and objective passion and no “cooling off.”

Q. Good Faith Mistake, Mitigation
Ans: A D who intentionally kills victim under good faith, but unreasonable mistaken belief as to self-defense, defense of others, or crime prevention can successfully argue their homicide crime should be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.

Q. First Degree Murder, Degrees of Murder
Ans: There are 3 common types of first-degree murder (two ways to establish First Degree murder):
– Premeditated Intent to Kill: Premeditated: D had time (even brief) to think about killing the victim before doing so.
– Deliberate Intent to Kill : D acted in a calm and cool frame of mind.
– Felony Murder Rule: A murder that satisfies the FMR AND is based on one of the specified felonies in the state’s first-degree murder statute (BAARK).

Q. First degree Murder
Ans: Committed by (1) poison, torture, lying in wait or other willful, deliberate and premeditated means or; (2) application of the Felony Murder Rule

Q. Second degree murder
Ans: murder with malice not first degree

Q. willful
Ans: voluntary and intentional

Q. Voluntary Manslaughter
Ans: intentional homicide without actual malice or with malice under mitigating circumstances.

Q. Manslaughter
unlawful homicide without malice aforethought

Q. Heat of Passion – mitigation
Ans: Murder can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if D can prove:
1) adequate provocation to lead a reasonable person to lose normal self-control
2) D actually lost self-control (subjective test)
3) not enough time for D to cool off between the provocation and the murder
4) no actual cooling off
5) concurrence

Q. premeditated
Ans: thought out or planned in advance

Q. Felony Murder Rule
1. death occurs during attempt or commission of serious felony
2. death is causally related to felony
3. the target felony is not a lesser included offense of the homicide
4. D can be charged with first degree murder.

Q. deliberate
Ans: carefully considered

Q. Torture
Ans: inflict great bodily injury with intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion or any sadistic purpose

Q. Attempt, Preliminary Crimes
Ans: D is guilty of attempt if D commits an act of perpetration with the intent to commit the intended (target) crime.

Q. Act of perpetration
1. D must do more than merely prepare.
2. D must take a substantial step towards commission or come dangerously close to completion of crime.
3. With the intent to commit the crime: D must have specific intent to commit target crime.

Q. Merger, Attempt, Preliminary Crimes
Ans: Attempt merges into the target crime so a D who actually commits the target crime cannot be convicted and punished for both attempt and the intended crime.

Q. Legal impossibility
Ans: Legal impossibility is a good defense. Exists when acts D intends to commit are not a crime in the jurisdiction.

Q. Factual impossibility
Ans: Factual impossibility is NOT a good defense. Exists when the acts D intended to commit would be a crime, if the facts were as D believed them to be. (attempt still attaches)


California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam Questions and Answers – Sample Paper 3

Q. Solicitation, Preliminary Crimes
Ans: D is guilty of solicitation if D asks or requests another to commit a crime with the intent that the person asked commits the crime.

Q. Conspiracy, Preliminary Crimes
Ans: D is guilty of conspiracy if D enters into an agreement with another party for an unlawful objective and some over act is performed in furtherance of that unlawful objective.

Q. Majority Rule, Conspiracy, Preliminary Crimes
Ans: Majority requires all conspirators to actively agree to commit an unlawful objective. An agreement with an undercover police officer only feigns agreement and is not a conspiracy. You need two guilty minds.

Q. Minority Rule “MPC”, Conspiracy, Preliminary Crimes
Ans: Minority follows the unilateral conspiracy rule and provides that “one guilty mind” is enough if that guilty mind believed the other party was actually agreeing to commit an unlawful purpose.

Q. Wharton’s Rule, Conspiracy, Preliminary Crimes
Ans: If the target crime requires two parties (dueling) then there is no conspiracy unless there are three or more parties. (Always need one more party than is required for crime to have conspiracy)

Q. Vicarious Liability, Conspiracy, Preliminary Crimes
Ans: All conspirators are liable for any crime committed by any other conspirator so long as the crime was both: 1) reasonably foreseeable, and 2) in reasonable furtherance of the conspiracy (criminal act committed in effort to complete target crime).

Q. Homicide
Ans: the killing of one person by another.

Q. Malice Aforethought
Ans: Mens Rea (state of mind) required for murder exists when the Defendant has a “man-endangering state of mind” evidenced by one or more of the following intentions:
1. intent to kill expressed by D (Express Malice)
2. intent to cause serious bodily harm implied by D’s actions
3. a wanton and willful disregard of human life (depraved or malignant heart, Depraved Heart Murder or Gross Negligence Murder) as implied by the D’s actions; or
4. an intent to commit a dangerous felony as implied by the D’s actions (i.e. during perpetration or attempt)
5. an intent to resist a lawful arrest in a dangerous manner as implied by the actions of the D

Q. Elements of a Crime
Ans: It includes:
1. Actus Reus – overt act (or omission if legal duty)
2. Men Rea – mental state
3. Concurrence
4. Causation – actual and proximate

Q. Crimes Against the Person
1. Homicide
2. Manslaughter
3. Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment
4. Rape, Statutory Rape
5. Kidnapping
6. Mayhem

Q. Crimes Against Real Property
1. Burglary
2. Arson

Q. Crimes Against Property (Theft)
1. Larceny
2. Embezzlement
3. False Pretenses
4. Receiving stolen property

Q. Burglary
1. breaking
2. entering
3. dwelling
4. of another
5. nighttime
6. intent to commit felony inside

Q. breaking
Ans: constructive breaking – 3 methods
(1) fraud; (2) conspiracy; (3) violence/threat

Q. entering
Ans: may be by use of instrument if used to commit the crime (e.g. shovel)

Q. dwelling house
Ans: CL – not warehouse, unoccupied new house, curtilage

Q. night time
Ans: 1 hr. after sunset until 1 hr before sunrise

Q. intent to commit felony therin
Ans: intoxication, mistake

Q. Statutory Burglary
Ans: unlawful entry into a structure or vehicle with the intent to commit a felony or theft inside dispenses with breaking, dwelling house, nighttime

Q. curtilage
Ans: space necessary, habitually and conveniently used for household or family purposes

Q. Crimes Against the person and property
Ans: It includes the following:
1. Robbery
2. Extortion

Q. Arson
Ans: Includes the following:
1. malicious
2. burning
3. dwelling
4. of another

Q. Answer YES/NO
burning, charring and scorching – yes
blackening, smoke damage – no

Q. Statutory Arson
Ans: malicious burning of any structure

Q. Larceny
Ans: trespass or taking/carrying away the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive the owner.


California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam Questions and Answers – Sample Paper 4

Q. Larceny by trick
Ans: larceny consent was given by owner to take property consent was obtained by fraud (lie + possession = larceny by trick)

Q. Embezzlement
Ans: fraudulent taking of another’ property by one who has been entrusted with possession
intent to defraud (conversion/transfer of apparent ownership + fraudulent intent = embezzlement)

Q. Robbery
Ans: larceny (trespassory taking, carrying away, personal property of another, with intent to permanently deprive) use of violence, force, intimidation, or threat of immediate harm

Q. Extortion
Ans: unlawfully obtaining property of another through coercion, threat of future illegal act

Q. Blackmail
Ans: Includes the following:
1. Majority – same as extortion
2. Minority – Some states extortion applies to officials, while blackmail applies to any person; and some states blackmail is coercion by threat to reveal information

Q. Bribery
Ans: corrupt payment or receipt with intent to influence (action, vote, opinion) public or official capacity

Q. Forgery
Ans: false making or material alteration any writing of legal significance with intent to defraud

Q. Uttering
Ans: use of forged instrument knowingly with intent to defraud

Q. Receiving Stolen Property
Ans: acquisition of stolen property knowledge that stolen at time of receipt intent to deprive owner

Q. Perjury
Ans: false oath or affirmation judicial proceeding

Q. Embracery
Ans: attempt to influence a juror by corrupt and wrongful means.

Q. Breach of Peace
Ans: willful act unreasonably disturbs the public peace

Q. Unlawful Assembly
Ans: meeting of three or more people with a common plan to commit an unlawful act or a lawful act in a manner likely to cause a breach of peace.

Q. Rout
Ans: movement of unlawful assemblers to carry out the common design

Q. Riot
Ans: tumultuous breach of peace by three or more persons

Q. Affray
Ans: mutual fight in a public place

Q. Subornation of Perjury
Ans: procure perjury from another

Q. Inchoate
Ans: partly or imperfectly formed or incomplete

Q. Solicitation
Ans: one counsels, incites, urges, encourages, solicits or requests another to commit an unlawful act with the intent that the act be committed

Q. Attempt
Ans: criminal intent accompanied by a substantial step (overt act) toward the commission of the crime within close proximity of a committing a crime

Q. Conspiracy
Ans: Two or more people in agreement with specific intent to accomplish a criminal or unlawful act or to do a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means. Modern – overt act required.

Q. Accomplice Liability
Ans: Under theory, accomplices are guilty of the target crime and in majority are also guilty of all acts by all accomplices or principals which are in furtherance of the target crime and all additional crimes which are a natural or probable consequence of the target crime.

Q. Felony
Ans: Any crime punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year

Q. Misdemeanor
Ans: most other crimes other than felony

Q. Malum in Se
Ans: wrong in itself, something naturally evil

Q. Malum Prohibitum
Ans: something made wrong by legislation

Q. Burden of Proof
Ans: to a moral certainty beyond a reasonable doubt


California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam Questions and Answers – Sample Paper 5

Q. Elements of a Crime
Ans: It includes the following:
1. Actus Reus – overt act or omission to act where a legal duty exists
2. Mens Rea – mental state – purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently, strict liability

Q. Actus Reus
Ans: Overt act or omission to act where a legal duty exists.

Q. Merger Rule
Ans: When all elements of one crime are included within the elements of another crime, the lesser crime merges with the greater crime. Defendent cannot be convicted of both.

Q. The Corpus Delicti
Ans: prima facie case or elements of the crime generally embodies the obvious evidence and the logical conclusion that the elements of a crime have been comitted

Q. Mens Rea
Ans: Mental State – guilty mind or wrongful intent

Q. Concurrence
Ans: Actus Reus (act) and Mens Rea (mental state) must exist at the same time.
Mens Rea (mental state) and criminal result

Q. General Intent
Ans: Under common law, purposeful commission of a prohibited act is sufficient to establish intent to commit the crime. Intent is inferred for example battery and rape.

Q. Specific Intent
Ans: Purposeful commission of a prohibited act with the aim to produce a particular result – for example larceny or burglary.

Q. Transferred Intent Doctrine
Ans: Defendant commits a crime against one person, unintentionally commits crime against a different person or commits a different crime. Defendant’s wrongful intent is transferred to the unintended victim or crime. Only applies to General Intent Crimes

Q. Intent (Model Penal Code)
Ans: Defendant is guilty of an offense only if he acted purposefully, knowingly, recklessly or negligently as the law for a specific crime may require, with respect to each material element of the offense

Q. Purposefully
Ans: acted with the conscious object to do the act or to cause the result of the act, or while aware or hopeful the circumstances which led to harm existed.

Q. Knowingly
Ans: conscious awareness or substantial certainty act would produce its result or that circumstances which led to harm existed.

Q. Recklessly
Ans: conscious disregard of a substantial unjustifiable risk that a crime would result from act, such that disregard involved a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the defendant’s situation.

Q. Negligently
Ans: defendant should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a crime would result, risk must be a nature and degree that the D’s failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the D’s situation.

Q. Intent for Inchoate Crimes
Ans: Target crime is a general intent, the inchoate version will be a specific intent crime.

Q. Causation
Ans: Proof that Defendant’s act is the actual and proximate cause of harm.

Q. Actual Cause or Cause in Fact (criminal)
Ans: Cause which starts, ignites, or makes possible the result which follows, and which satisfies “But For” or “Substantial Factor Test”

Q. “But For” Test
Ans: But for the Defendant’s act, the harm would not have occurred.

Q. Substantial Factor Test
Ans: Used to establish actual cause where more than one act contributes to the harm. D is the actual cause of harm if D’s act is a substantial factor – contributed more than a trivial degree

Q. Proximate cause ( or Cause in Law)
Ans: actual cause of harm is also proximate cause if the act is closely connected enough to the resulting harm that is fair to hold the D responsible for causing the harm. Under MPC, the resulting harm is not “too remote or accidental” from the defendant’s act to make it unfair to hold him responsible.

Q. Principal in the First Degree
Ans: Common law – person personally performs actus reus

Q. Principal in the Second Degree
Ans: Common law – person does not personally perform any actus reus but is actually or constructively present and who aids and abets in the commission of the crime.

Q. Principal
Ans: Modernly – person who commits the actus reus

Q. Constructive Presence
Ans: Presence legally imputed although not physically present situated to give assistance – for example, a getaway car driver

Q. aid and abet
Ans: knowingly or intentionally assist or facilitate the commission of a crime


California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam Questions and Answers – Sample Paper 6

Q. Accessory
Ans: one who knowingly counsels, commands, encourages, or aids in the perpetration of a crime but who is not present during the actual crime

Q. Accessory before the Fact
Ans: Common Law: one who knowingly counsels, commands, encourages, or assists prior to the actus reus but who is not present during the actual commission of the crime

Q. Accessory after the Fact
Ans: not present during actus reus but provides aid with knowledge that the crime was committed.

Q. Compounding the Crime
Ans: Acceptance of anything of value under an unlawful agreement not to prosecute a known offender or to limit or to otherwise hinder the prosecution of this case.

Q. Pinkerton’s Rule
Ans: Co-conspirators are guilty of each other’s crimes if (1) in furtherance of target crime or (2) natural and probably consequence of target crime.

Q. Accomplice
Ans: Modernly – one who intentionally and knowingly participates or assists in the commission of a crime as an accomplice. In the minority which still uses the term “accessory before the fact” an accomplice is one who participates or assists in a crime and who is present during the crime.

Q. Misprision of a Felony
Ans: Common law – nondisclosure of the known felony of another. Modernly – concealment of a known felony of another.

Q. Wharton’s Rule
Ans: A party to a conspiracy is liable for all the reasonably foreseeable crimes committed by the co-conspirators during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. When a crime requires participation of more than one person the perpetrators cannot be charged with conspiracy unless there are more perpetrators than the crime by definition logically requires. Requires one more person that essential to commit the crime (i.e. bribery needs 3)

Q. R*pe
Ans: unlawful s*xual intercourse with a woman without her consent

Q. Statutory Rape
Ans: sexual intercourse female under the age of consent with her consent

Q. Sodomy
Ans: Common law or state legislatures:
1. deviate
2. unnatural
3. sexual practices

Q. Mayhem
Ans: malicious, maiming or disfiguring

Q. False Imprisonment
Ans: intentional confinement against a person’s will

Q. Kidnapping
Ans: unprivileged movement from one place to another against a person’s will

Q. Voluntary intoxication – mitigating
Ans: may mitigate degree or severity negating criminal intent for specific intent crimes NOT a defense to a general intent crime

Q. M’Naghten Rule or Right vs. Wrong Test of Insanity
Ans: D has defense of insanity if mental disease of the mind:
(a) does not know what he is doing or;
(b) does not know what he is doing is wrong or;
(c) suffers from insane delusion and the notion believed to be a fact would excuse D if the notion were true

Q. Lack of Criminal Capacity – Defense
Ans: This includes the following:
1. Infancy – child under 7 does not have capacity, 7-14 rebuttable presumption of no capacity, 14+ has capacity
2. Unconsciousness
3. Involuntary intoxication – by force, fraud, medical Rx, reasonable mistake, allergic reaction or the like excused to same extent as mental disorder
4. Voluntary intoxication – excused only if intoxication is permanent mental disorder (mitigating)
5. M’Naghten Rule or The Right vs. Wrong Test of Insanity
6. Irresistible Impulse
7. Substantial Capacity Test or Model Penal Code Test
8. Durham Rule or Product Rule
9. Diminished Capacity Test or Wells-Gorshen Rule – not complete (mitigating re premeditation, deliberation, malice)

Q. Insane Delusion
Ans: this includes the following:
1. product of mental disorder
2. D’s false belief in something incredible
3. belief remains persistent despite proof to the contrary

Q. Irresistible Impulse Test
Ans: D defense of insanity if:
1. mental disorder
2. knows what he is doing is wrong
3. cannot control his behavior

Q. Substantial Capacity Test or Model Penal Code Test
Ans: insanity defense if:
1. at the time of the conduct
2. as a result of mental disease or defect
3. lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of conduct or
4. lacks the capacity to conform conduct to requirements of the law

Q. Durham Rule or Product Rule
Ans: insanity defense if D committed unlawful act because of mental disease or defect

Q. Diminished Capacity Test or Wells-Gorshen Rule
1. mental infirmity not insanity
2. mitigating – not complete defense
3. considered re-premeditation, deliberation, malice

Q. Defense of Others (defense)
Ans: objectively reasonable belief of threat to another of immediate bodily harm may use whatever degree of force apparently necessary to protect another

Q. Self-Defense (defense)
Ans: objectively reasonable belief of threat to self of immediate bodily harm may use whatever degree of force apparently necessary to protect himself
Majority – one attacked with “deadly force” reasonable under the circumstances. Minority – One attacked must retreat if a safe means available unless attacked in his “castle” (home).

Q. Step-In-Shoes Jurisdiction (Defense of Others)
Ans: In some jurisdictions – a person is not allowed to use the defense of “defense of others” unless the person defended was not the aggressor and had the right to use self-defense

Q. Reasonable Appearances Jurisdictions (Defense of Others)
Ans: In some jurisdictions – a person defending another in good faith, objectively reasonable ignorance that person defended was the aggressor (and not entitled to use self-defense) is justified. Sometimes – also required that defender is authorized by statute to protect person defended.

Q. Defense of Property (defense)
Ans: objectively reasonable and non-deadly force when D acts to protect property from being taken apparently by a trespasser.


>> Find all other California Bar Exam Questions and Answers Here << 


About California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam

The California Bar CRIMINAL LAW Exam is a comprehensive test that covers the fundamentals of criminal law.

It is designed to evaluate an applicant’s knowledge and understanding of the principles, procedures, and concepts inherent in criminal justice systems.

This exam tests an applicant’s comprehension of evidence, statutes, policies, legal reasoning, court procedures and other relevant topics.

The California bar exam under CRIMINAL LAW is a challenging topic but a rewarding experience.

By following the above answers, you can ensure you are well-prepared for the exam and have the best chance of success. Good luck!


Hope you got access to California Bar Exam CRIMINAL LAW Questions and Answers by following the above model papers that we shared. Share with other students if you find it helpful.

Leave a Comment