Set 4 pairs Criminal Law and Evidence, a combination that fits the NextGen emphasis on applying law in realistic legal problems. You get 25 Criminal Law and constitutional-protection questions followed by 25 Evidence questions, each with one best answer and a focused explanation.
An important NextGen detail is built into this revision: the current NCBE scope says the elements of crimes and defenses are tested on the basis of provided statutes. Where the elements matter, these questions therefore use short statutory rules instead of asking you to memorise old common-law labels that may not control the official task.
The Evidence half assumes the Federal Rules of Evidence and concentrates on hearsay, confrontation, privileges, opinion testimony, authentication, and the exclusionary rules that commonly turn an otherwise plausible answer into the wrong one.
Want to test yourself? Select one answer for each question and avoid opening the optional explanations while you play. At the end, tap “See Answers & My Score” to reveal the correct answers, explanations, and your result automatically.
Format note: These are original four-choice, single-best-answer doctrine drills, not official NCBE questions or a full NextGen simulation. The official NextGen UBE also uses select-two-of-six standalone items, integrated question sets, and performance tasks. Pair this quiz with the official NCBE sample questions and current content scope.
- ✔ Statutory mens rea, actus reus and homicide
- ✔ Theft, robbery, burglary, attempt and conspiracy
- ✔ Self-defense and other criminal defenses
- ✔ Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections
- ✔ Brady disclosure and search exceptions
- ✔ Hearsay exceptions and opposing-party statements
- ✔ Privileges, lay and expert opinions
- ✔ Authentication, Rule 403-related exclusions and other FRE rules
Criminal Law: Mens Rea, Homicide & Offenses (Q1–13)
CRIMINAL LAW — PART 1Apply stated criminal statutes to mental states, omissions, homicide, theft-related offenses, conspiracy, attempt, and merger.
1. A criminal statute uses the mental states purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and criminal negligence. Which represents the highest level of culpability?
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — Purpose is the most culpable of these listed mental states, followed by knowledge, recklessness, and criminal negligence. NextGen questions may present these mental states through the language of a specific statute.
2. Criminal liability for an omission generally requires more than a failure to help. The prosecution ordinarily must show that the defendant:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — An omission can satisfy the act requirement when the defendant had a legal duty to act, had the ability to act, and failed to perform that duty. Mere moral blame is not enough by itself.
3. A homicide statute recognizes provocation as a basis for reducing intentional murder to manslaughter. Which fact most strongly supports that reduction?
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — Where the governing statute recognizes provocation, a genuine heat of passion triggered by legally adequate provocation and occurring before reasonable cooling can reduce the level of homicide. The precise elements are controlled by the provided statute.
4. A statute defines negligent homicide as causing death when the defendant should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Which mental state is the statute describing?
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — Criminal negligence focuses on a substantial and unjustifiable risk the defendant should have perceived. Recklessness is different because it generally requires conscious awareness and disregard of the risk.
5. A felony-murder statute makes a defendant guilty of murder when a death occurs during the commission of a listed felony. Under that statute, the prosecution ordinarily need not prove:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — Felony-murder liability is statutory on the NextGen UBE. If the statute makes a qualifying felony the substitute for a separate intent-to-kill requirement, the prosecution must prove the statutory felony-murder elements but need not independently prove an intent to kill.
6. A robbery statute requires a taking of property from another person or the person's presence by force or threat of immediate force. Which additional fact most clearly distinguishes robbery from ordinary theft under that statute?
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — Robbery is an aggravated property offense because the taking is accomplished by force or intimidation. The exact elements on a NextGen question should be drawn from the provided robbery statute.
7. A burglary statute makes it a crime to knowingly enter or remain unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime inside. Which fact is NOT required by the stated statute?
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — The stated statute does not require the old common-law limitations of a dwelling or nighttime entry. On the NextGen UBE, burglary elements are tested from the statute supplied with the question.
8. A theft statute prohibits knowingly taking another person's property with the purpose of depriving the owner of it. Which fact best satisfies the required purpose?
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — The purpose to deprive is satisfied when the defendant intends a loss of the owner's property interest as defined by the statute. An innocent mistake or authorized use does not establish that purpose.
9. A statute makes it a crime to knowingly possess prohibited contraband. Which fact is most important to the required state of mind?
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — Possession offenses may require proof that the defendant knowingly possessed the item and possessed the statutory knowledge specified by the law. The exact requirement depends on the provided statute.
10. A conspiracy statute requires an agreement to commit an offense, intent to achieve the unlawful objective, and an overt act by any conspirator. Which combination is sufficient under that statute?
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — Because the stated statute expressly requires all three elements, the prosecution must prove an agreement, the required intent, and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
11. A person who, after a completed crime, knowingly helps the offender avoid arrest or punishment is most likely classified as:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — Assistance first provided after the completed offense is generally analyzed as accessory-after-the-fact liability rather than accomplice liability for the completed crime. The governing statute controls the precise elements.
12. A statute follows the substantial-step approach to attempt. Attempt liability generally requires:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — Under a substantial-step formulation, attempt requires the culpable intent specified by the law and conduct that goes beyond mere preparation and strongly corroborates the criminal purpose.
13. If a defendant completes the target offense, the lesser offense of attempt generally:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — Attempt is generally a lesser included offense that merges into the completed target crime, preventing separate punishment for both based on the same completed offense.
Criminal Law: Defenses & Constitutional Protections (Q14–25)
CRIMINAL LAW — PART 2Review defenses, burdens of proof, search-and-seizure rules, self-incrimination, Brady disclosure, and consent searches.
14. Voluntary intoxication may be legally relevant to a criminal charge when the governing law allows it to:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — Voluntary intoxication is not a blanket defense. Its effect depends on the governing law and the mental state required for the charged offense; a provided statute may make it relevant to a particular intent element.
15. Defense of others generally allows a person to use force when the person reasonably believes:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — Defense of others generally parallels self-defense: the defender's belief in the need for protection must satisfy the governing rule, and the amount of force must be proportionate to the threatened harm.
16. Deadly force in self-defense is generally justified only when the defendant reasonably believes:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — Deadly force ordinarily requires a reasonable belief in an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm and must satisfy the jurisdiction's proportionality, retreat, and initial-aggressor rules.
17. Where a valid 'stand your ground' rule applies, its principal effect is to:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — Stand-your-ground rules alter the retreat component of self-defense; they do not erase requirements such as imminence, proportionality, or limits on an initial aggressor.
18. A person generally may use reasonable nondeadly force to defend property when:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — Defense of property generally permits proportionate force to prevent or terminate an unlawful interference. Deadly force ordinarily cannot be used solely to protect property in the absence of a threat that independently justifies deadly force.
19. In a criminal prosecution, the Due Process Clause generally requires the government to prove:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — The prosecution bears the burden to prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are lower standards used at earlier stages of investigation and prosecution.
20. The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — The automobile exception permits a warrantless search of a vehicle when there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence, justified by the vehicle's mobility and the reduced expectation of privacy in cars.
21. Under Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may briefly stop a person when the officer has:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — A Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion supported by specific, articulable facts. A protective frisk is a separate step and requires reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous.
22. Under the plain-view doctrine, police may seize an item without a warrant when they are lawfully in a position to see it and:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — Plain view generally requires a lawful vantage point, lawful access to the object, and probable cause that its incriminating character is immediately apparent.
23. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects a person from being compelled to:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — The privilege protects only testimonial or communicative evidence — oral or written statements that reveal the contents of the mind. It does not protect physical evidence like blood, handwriting samples, or physical characteristics.
24. Under Brady v. Maryland and related due process doctrine, the prosecution must disclose to the defense:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — Due process requires disclosure of material evidence favorable to the accused, including exculpatory and impeachment evidence. The duty is not limited to evidence the prosecution intends to introduce at trial.
25. Under the "consent" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, a search is valid if:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — Consent must be voluntary — the totality of circumstances determines voluntariness. The government doesn't need to inform someone they can refuse, but actual or threatened coercion makes consent invalid. Third parties with apparent authority may also consent.
Evidence: Hearsay & Confrontation (Q26–38)
EVIDENCE — PART 1Classify out-of-court statements carefully and distinguish exceptions, exclusions, unavailability rules, and Confrontation Clause limits.
26. A statement offered NOT for its truth, but to show its effect on the listener, is:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — Hearsay is defined by the purpose for which a statement is offered. A statement offered to show its effect on the listener (like proving the listener was on notice of a danger) is not offered for its truth and is therefore not hearsay.
27. A "present sense impression" is admissible as a hearsay exception when:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — Present sense impression covers contemporaneous descriptions of events — made while perceiving the event or immediately after. Unlike the excited utterance, no startling event is required; the immediacy alone provides reliability.
28. A "dying declaration" is admissible as a hearsay exception when the declarant:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — Under FRE 804(b)(2), the declarant must be unavailable, and the statement must have been made while the declarant believed death was imminent about the cause or circumstances of the expected death. The exception applies in homicide prosecutions and civil cases.
29. The business records exception to the hearsay rule (FRE 803(6)) requires that the record be:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — Business records gain reliability from the regular practice of creating them in the normal course of business, near the time of the event. Records prepared primarily in anticipation of litigation do not qualify.
30. Under FRE 804(b)(3), a statement against interest may be admissible when the declarant is unavailable and the statement, when made, was so contrary to the declarant's:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — FRE 804(b)(3) covers statements sufficiently contrary to proprietary or pecuniary interests, statements that tend to invalidate the declarant's claim, and statements exposing the declarant to civil or criminal liability. In a criminal case, a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability also requires corroborating circumstances indicating trustworthiness.
31. A party admission under FRE 801(d)(2) is defined as:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — Party admissions are a unique category: the FRE classifies them as "not hearsay" (rather than a hearsay exception) and allows a party's own prior statement to be used against them regardless of whether it was against their interest at the time.
32. Statements made by a co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy are admissible against the defendant as:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — A coconspirator statement made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy is treated as an opposing-party statement under FRE 801(d)(2)(E), so it is not hearsay under the rule. Confrontation Clause analysis is separate; the hearsay classification alone does not decide whether a statement is testimonial.
33. Former testimony given under oath at a prior proceeding is admissible as a hearsay exception when:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — FRE 804(b)(1) admits former testimony when the declarant is unavailable and the opposing party had a prior opportunity and similar motive to examine the witness — ensuring the testimony was developed with appropriate adversarial testing.
34. A witness's prior consistent statement can qualify as non-hearsay under FRE 801(d)(1)(B) when the witness testifies, is subject to cross-examination, and the statement is offered:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — FRE 801(d)(1)(B) permits specified prior consistent statements when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination. A statement used to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence must satisfy the rule's timing requirement; the rule also covers certain statements offered to rehabilitate credibility after another attack.
35. A statement of the declarant's then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition (like "I intend to meet John tomorrow") is admissible under:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — The state of mind exception admits contemporaneous statements of the declarant's then-existing mental state, emotion, or physical condition, including intent to do a future act (as in Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon).
36. Under the Confrontation Clause (Crawford v. Washington), "testimonial" hearsay statements by an unavailable declarant are generally:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — In a criminal case, testimonial hearsay is generally barred by the Confrontation Clause when the declarant is unavailable unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, subject to recognized constitutional exceptions. Whether a statement is testimonial is a constitutional question distinct from ordinary hearsay analysis.
37. Under FRE 803(8), qualifying public records may be admitted as a hearsay exception when they set out matters observed or factual findings within the rule and:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — FRE 803(8) covers specified public-office records and reports. For factual findings from a legally authorized investigation, the rule includes qualifying findings in civil cases and against the government in criminal cases, unless the opponent shows a lack of trustworthiness.
38. Under FRE 803(4), a statement may qualify for the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment hearsay exception when it:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — FRE 803(4) covers statements made for and reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment that describe medical history, past or present symptoms or sensations, their inception, or their general cause. Statements assigning fault ordinarily fall outside the rationale unless the fault information itself is pertinent to treatment.
Evidence: Privileges, Opinions & Proof Rules (Q39–50)
EVIDENCE — PART 2Finish with marital privileges, opinion testimony, expert reliability, best evidence, remedial measures, settlements, pleas, authentication, judicial notice, and other-acts evidence.
39. The marital communications privilege generally protects:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — The marital communications privilege protects confidential spousal communications during a valid marriage. Under the FRE approach, both spouses may claim it — unlike the spousal testimonial privilege (which only the witness-spouse holds).
40. The spousal testimonial privilege (as distinct from the marital communications privilege) generally allows:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — Under Trammel v. United States, the federal approach vests the testimonial privilege solely in the witness-spouse, who may choose whether to testify. The defendant-spouse cannot block the willing testimony of their partner.
41. A lay witness may offer opinion testimony when the opinion is:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — FRE 701 permits lay opinion when it is rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to understanding the testimony or deciding a fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within FRE 702.
42. Under current FRE 702, expert testimony is admissible only if the proponent demonstrates to the court that the expert's specialized knowledge will help the factfinder and that:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — FRE 702 places a gatekeeping obligation on the court. The proponent must establish the rule's admissibility requirements, including sufficient factual basis, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application to the case.
43. When a party seeks to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the best-evidence rules generally require:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — The rules generally call for an original when proving content, but duplicates are ordinarily admissible under FRE 1003 and other evidence of content may be used when an exception such as FRE 1004 applies.
44. Under FRE 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken after an accident is generally inadmissible to prove:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — FRE 407 generally excludes subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product defect, or a need for a warning. The rule can permit them for another purpose, such as impeachment or—when disputed—ownership, control, or feasibility.
45. Under FRE 408, evidence of an offer to compromise or settle a disputed claim is generally inadmissible to prove:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — Settlement offers are excluded to encourage out-of-court resolution — using them as admissions of liability would chill good-faith settlement negotiations. They may still be admissible for other purposes like proving a witness's bias.
46. Under FRE 410, statements made during plea discussions with a prosecutor are generally:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — Plea discussions are protected to encourage honest negotiation — statements made during them (and withdrawn guilty pleas or nolo contendere pleas) are generally inadmissible against the defendant in later proceedings.
47. The Rape Shield rule (FRE 412) generally prohibits introducing evidence of:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: D — FRE 412 protects alleged victims in sexual misconduct cases from having their prior sexual history or reputation used against them, with narrow exceptions like evidence of prior sexual behavior with the defendant relevant to consent.
48. To authenticate a document under the FRE, the proponent must produce:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: C — Authentication only requires evidence sufficient to support a jury finding that the item is genuine — it's a conditional relevance standard, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury ultimately decides authenticity.
49. Judicial notice under FRE 201 is appropriate for an adjudicative fact when the fact is:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: A — FRE 201 permits judicial notice of adjudicative facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute. In a civil case the jury must accept a judicially noticed fact as conclusive; in a criminal case the jury may, but is not required to, accept it.
50. Under FRE 404(b), evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts is inadmissible to prove propensity to commit the charged crime, but may be admissible to prove:
View Answer & Explanation Optional
Correct Answer: B — FRE 404(b) bars prior act evidence to prove criminal propensity, but the rule carves out a non-exclusive list of permissible purposes — often remembered with the mnemonic MIMIC (Motive, Intent, Mistake/absence, Identity, Common plan/scheme).
When you review a miss, separate the rule from the fact that triggered it. That is especially useful in Criminal Law and Evidence, where two answer choices can sound correct until one statutory element or evidentiary purpose changes the result.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Criminal Law topics are in the current NextGen bar exam content scope?▾
The current scope includes mental states and act requirements, statutory homicide and other listed offenses, attempt, conspiracy, parties to crime, defenses, and constitutional protections of accused persons. The official exam tests elements of crimes and defenses from provided statutes.
What Evidence rules should I assume for NextGen practice?▾
The NCBE content scope directs candidates to assume the Federal Rules of Evidence apply unless a task provides otherwise. This set therefore uses the FRE for its Evidence questions.
Are these official NCBE Criminal Law or Evidence questions?▾
No. These are original practice questions for study. They are not NCBE questions and do not reproduce the official NextGen exam.
How should I use this set for NextGen preparation?▾
Use the Criminal Law half to practise applying stated statutory elements and the Evidence half to practise classification and rule selection. Then use official NCBE samples for integrated sets and performance-task practice.
Educational practice only. These original questions are not official NCBE materials and do not predict a bar-exam score. Rules can be tested through supplied legal resources and may vary by jurisdiction; use the current NCBE content scope and your jurisdiction’s official guidance as your controlling sources.
