Crim drills should straddle lines on purpose, because the exam will: killings built between rungs, helpers whose knowledge is ambiguous, defenses that half apply. Two original questions below, the ladder question with a full model answer and the group crime with a self grading key. Doctrine in the hub, execution in the exam guide, protocol in how to use practice exams.

Drill one: the parking lot (25 minutes)

At a party, Rae's ex spends an hour loudly mocking her late brother. Rae leaves, drives fifteen minutes home, takes her roommate's handgun, saying she wants to scare him, and drives back. In the parking lot, the ex lunges toward her, laughing.

The gun fires once, killing him. Rae insists she never meant to shoot. Analyze Rae's homicide liability and any defenses, at common law and under the MPC where they diverge.

Model answer

The elements framework first: the actus reus is the shooting; causation is direct; the case is entirely about mens rea, which is the ladder. Second degree murder: malice can be inferred from pointing a loaded firearm at a person, intent to kill or at minimum a depraved heart, conscious disregard of a grave risk to life, and Rae's I only meant to scare him concedes the pointing while contesting the intent. Arguing up: the prosecution will say premeditation, she left, drove thirty minutes round trip, armed herself, and returned, which is textbook opportunity to deliberate, threatening first degree; the defense answers that deliberation requires a cool mind and hers never cooled.

Arguing down: voluntary manslaughter requires adequate provocation without cooling, and at common law it struggles twice, words alone are generally inadequate provocation, and thirty minutes is classic cooling time; under the MPC, extreme mental or emotional disturbance judged from the actor's situation, an hour of mockery about a dead sibling, is a far stronger mitigation case, and the divergence is worth naming as the question's built point. If the jury credits the accident account entirely, involuntary manslaughter, criminal negligence in handling a loaded gun, is the floor. Self defense: the lunge gives Rae an argument, but it fails or degrades to imperfect self defense where recognized, deadly force against a laughing unarmed lunge is disproportionate, and arriving armed complicates her status as a non aggressor.

Likeliest outcomes: second degree murder at common law, with a live EED mitigation under the MPC. Both directions, both regimes, the framework run before the grading: that is the full paragraph the rubric wants.

Drill two: the driver (15 minutes)

Kim asks Jo for a ride to pick something up. Jo drives Kim to a pharmacy and waits outside with the engine running. Inside, Kim robs the register at knifepoint.

Fleeing, Kim shoves a customer, who falls, strikes her head, and dies. Analyze Jo's liability.

Self grading key

Full credit runs Jo separately from Kim, with headers, and turns on Jo's mental state. Conspiracy: agreement plus intent to achieve the object, and the fight is what Jo knew, pick something up against the engine left running and the wait, argued both directions; mere presence and transportation without purpose is not agreement. Accomplice liability: aid is clear, the ride and the getaway posture, so the issue is intent to promote the offense, with the knowledge versus purpose split named, knowing assistance suffices in some formulations, purpose required in most.

Felony murder for the customer's death: robbery is an enumerated inherently dangerous felony, the death occurred in flight, squarely within the res gestae, and it reaches Kim directly; it reaches Jo only through accomplice liability to the robbery or, where the course taught Pinkerton, through conspiracy for foreseeable acts in furtherance, and full credit says which vehicle and flags the jurisdiction dependence. Close with merger, conspiracy does not merge and survives alongside, and a sentence on Jo's exposure range depending on how the mental state resolves. Deduct if Jo's analysis borrowed Kim's mens rea, or if felony murder was applied to Jo without a stated route.

Where to find more, in order

Your professor's past exams, whose signatures, the annual felony murder, the conspiracy sprawl, the insanity essay, are the most predictable in the 1L canon. Then Dressler's problems and the MPC's own illustrations, then released exams from other sections, each rep feeding the ladder and the reach matrix of the outline through the error log.

FAQ

How do I drill the both directions habit?

Take any homicide fact pattern and write only two paragraphs, the argue up and the argue down, ten minutes, no conclusion required. Five reps make the bidirectional reflex automatic, and it is the single most valuable reflex in this course.

Should I practice MPC and common law separately?

No, together, at the divergence points, because the exam lives in the gaps. The drill is writing the one sentence that names the split and states each regime's outcome; that sentence is the built point.

What does a good group crime answer look like structurally?

Headers per defendant, elements per crime per defendant, the liability routes named for the non principal, and merger at the close. If your answer analyzed the driver inside the robber's paragraphs, log it as the structural miss it is.

Written by Ali, Georgetown Law, founder of Lovare Institut.

Book a call