Show Me Yours And I Will Show You Mine
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-1225,single-format-standard,bridge-core-3.1.3,qi-blocks-1.2.6,qodef-gutenberg--no-touch,qodef-qi--no-touch,qi-addons-for-elementor-1.6.7,qodef-back-to-top--enabled,,qode-essential-addons-1.5.3,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,qode_grid_1300,qode-theme-ver-30.2,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,disabled_footer_bottom,e-lazyload,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-7.3,vc_responsive,elementor-default,elementor-kit-2686

Show Me Yours And I Will Show You Mine

Show Me Yours And I Will Show You Mine

The one thing I struggled with preparing for the Baby Bar was the unknown.  We can all easily go to the CalBar website and see the model answers but what grades did those students get?  If the model answers are just model answers, what does a 60 look like?  Can I write a 60?  What happens if I have to write the essay by hand?  These questions would swirl around in my head and drive me just as crazy as studying!

I felt like if I could see other people’s essays and the grades they received it would help me “crack the code.”  I  felt like if I knew what other people got on their essays I could answer all the other questions that ran through my mind: “Did I study enough?”, “Do I know enough?”, “Did I do enough MCQ’s?”, “Did I write enough essays?”

To help you answer the questions I couldn’t while preparing I have compiled a handful of essays and the grades those students received on those essays for you to see. I have also included a hand written essay; so if you’re a hand writer and worried, you don’t have to anymore.

We reached out to a handful of our readers and asked them to anonymously send us their past Baby Bar Essay’s (and their grades), so we could share them with you.  Hopefully, this will help you gauge where you need to focus on your essay writing.

We did not alter anything from these essays.  There may be spelling errors, there may be punctuation errors; but these are raw unadulterated Baby Bar essays.  The people who wrote these essays sat in the same places you will sat, rushed under the strict time constraint you are under, and these are their results.

Essays Which Received Grades of 55

I. Beth Theft/Robbery Liability


In order to identify the liability of Beth for theft, robbery, and murder it must first be established how she is connected to these crimes.  As Beth sat in the car while Al went into the store Beth will need to be found vicariously liable as a co-conspirator.  At common law a conspiracy was an agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act or lawful act in an unlawful manner.  Many jurisdictions now follow the Model Penal Codes approach to conspiracy of the Unilateral Conspiracy approach where only one guilty mind is required for the conspiracy.  Here, Beth was clearly involved in a conspiracy with Al.  Beth knew that Al did not have any money and she deliberately parked near an exit at the supermarket.  Al had already asked Beth for money so Beth knew that taking Al to a store was a waste of time without money.  A conspiracy can be express or implied. Beth did not expressly engage in a conspiracy with Al but her actions of complying with Al, driving to the supermarket parking in the back of the store near an emergency exit, and knowing that all of this was done under Al’s idea will show that her actions spoke to the implied conspiracy.  Beth knew that Al was going to steal beer and that is why she parked in the back of the supermarket near the emergency exit, so that she could be ready to drive off quickly.  She clearly was a co-conspirator to Al’s theft plan.

Once it is founds that Beth was involved in a conspiracy, a co-conspirator, to commit an unlawful act, the theft, then Beth will be found vicariously liable for all the crimes committed in furtherance of the theft which are reasonably foreseeable.

B.Theft/Robbery Liability

As a co-conspirator Beth will be vicariously liable for all crimes that Al are found guilt for.  As Beth was in the vehicle during the theft/robbery it will be necessary to establish that Al actually committed a theft/robbery to identify Beth’s liability.

Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive and robbery is a larceny committed with force or threat of force.  Al went into the supermarket and picked up the beer and began walking down the isle of the store with the intention of permanently depriving the store of the beer. The carrying away required for larceny only needs to be slight.  It is enough that Al picked up the beer with the intent of carrying it away that will satisfy the carrying away.  It doesn’t matter that Al put the peer down after Carla saw him stealing the beer or that he only moved it form the one area to another, the mere fact that he picked it up and moved it is a carrying away.  It is enough that he picked it up and carried it down the isle.  The beer was not his, the beer belonged to the store and he trespassorily took the beer.  Al clearly had the intent to commit the theft of the beer because he even said “I have an idea for how to get some beer without paying for it.”  Getting something from another person without consent and taking it with the intention of permanently depriving the other is a theft.  Al never implied he had any other intention than to permanently deprive the beer from the supermarket.  Al’s entire reason for going to the supermarket was to get “beer without paying for it” and take it home and keep it.

Al clearly is liable for larceny, theft, but in order to establish Beth’s liability as a co-conspirator for robberty it will need to be shown that Al took the beer with force or threat of force.  Here, we are told that Carla, the security guard, saw Al taking the beer and that is all.  Al never made contact with anyone else in the store and Al did not speak to anyone in the store.  Al will not be found to have used nay force in the commission of a larceny.

C.Murder Liablity

Here, Al did not kill anyone, Carla killed Al.  Most jurisdictions will not hold a co-conspirator responsible for the death of a fellow conspirator.

Carla Murder Liability

A.Murder is a homicide, the killing of another human being, with malice aforethought which is not mitigated, justified, or excused.  Here, Al is clearly dead; thus a homicide.

Malice can be shown through the intent to kill, the intent to seriously, wanton and willful (depraved heart), and through felony murder rule.  Carla clearly shot Al with the intent to seriously injure Al if not at least with wanton and willful disregard for human life.  Calra was acting as a security guard and was chasing after Al.  She clearly shot at him to make him stop, she clearly intended for him to be injured and thus quit moving.  We are told that she “took careful aim” which means that she deliberately and thoughtfully made the action of pulling the trigger to stop Al.  If her intent cannot be shown through intent to seriously injure then at the very least she will be found to be wanton and willful disregard for human life.  Firing a weapon in a public space, even an alley, creates an unreasonably and foreseeable high risk that someone will be hit by the bullet you are firing.  Delivery people, cars, passerby’s all use alleys and when Carla fired her weapon into the alley it is easy to foresee that someone would be going down the allery or delivering a package and be hit by a bullet.


Carla was acting as a security guard for the supermarket.  When she shot Al he was fleeing form the supermarket as a thief.  Carla may try to state that she was to apprehend a fleeing felon or the justification that she was stopping the commission of a dangerous felony but she will need to show that Al was a felon or committing a felony.  Here, Al was clearly a thief and theft is not a felony nor is it inherently dangerous.  Nothing about what Al was doing would be considered dangerous or cause apprehension. Al was running away, off the supermarket grounds, and clearly retreating when Carla shot him.  Carla may try to state that she was defending the property of the supermarket but you cannot use deadly force to protect property and this defense will not be applicable.  Carla’s reasonable but mistaken belief that Al was a felon will show she did not have specific intent but it will not help her in acting willful or wanton.


Here to be liable for first degree murder (see above) you msut have also premeditation and deliberation.  It can easily be argued that when Carla took her careful aim and shot at Al she was premeditated and deliberate.  The premeditation time required is just enough to think on.  Carla shot at Al once and missed, in this time between the first and last shot she had enough time to think on her actions.  The second time she shot at Al we are told she took careful aim, that she paused, this shows that she clearly knew what she was doing and intended to shoot Al.  If she is found to have premeditation and deliberation she will be liable for first degree murder.

If it is found that Carla acted wanton and willfully it will be clear that she did not have premeditation nor deliberation needed and will be liable for 2nd degree murder.  If it is not found that Carla was acting with Willful and Wanton disregard then she will be found criminally negligent and through committing a malum prohibitum she will be liable for voluntary manslaughter.

Essays Which Received Grades of 60

3)Can it be resonably argued that Tom is gulity of arson?

 State  v. Tom

Actus reus

The physical act of a crime

Mens Rea

The guilty mind of a crime


The requirement that both the mens rea and actus reus occur at the same time to prove a crime.

Arson Common Law

Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

Malicious is the mens rea of arson. It can mean reckless. The facts show that by Tom recklessly throwing the firecrackers into Heathers shed, it lit on fire. By throwing lit firecrackers at a building it can be reasonable to assume that it may catch on fire. The throwing of the firecrackers is the mens rea. However, the shed is not a dwelling.

Therefore, Tom cannot be charged with arson.

Arson Modern Law

Modernly, arson is the malicious burning of any structure. A charring of the material is required.

Under criminal law, the requirement of a dwelling has been replaced by any structure. Tom recklessly threw lit firecrackers into a shed which caused it catch on fire.  The facts tells us that Tom put out the fire before it spread and there was only smoke damage and not the required charring.

Therefore, Tom cannot be charged with modern law arson.

Does Tom have any defense?

 Tom cannot be charged with either common law or modern law burglary and therefore requires no defenses.

Can it be reasonably argued that Heather is guilty of any crimes?

 State  v. Heather

 Attempted Arson

Attempted arson is the taking of a substantial step that comes within close proximity of committing the crime of arson.

Specific Intent

The doing of a prohibited act with the aim of producing a specific result. Heather poured flammable liquid on her windowsill with the specific intent to light her house on fire.

Factual possibility vs. Legal possibility

While is was factually possible for Heather to burn down the house, under common law it was legally impossible to burn down your own home and claim arson since it was not of another.

Apparent ability

Heather squirted lighter fluid on the window sills in hopes of the shed fire spreading so she had the ability to have the house catch on fire.

Preparation  vs. Perpetration

The prep stage would have been when Heather decided to get the lighter fluid and open the windows. It became an actual perpetration when she squirted the lighter fluid in order to catch the house on fire.

Therefore, Heather cannot be charged with arson.

Attempted Insurance Fraud

An attempt is a substantial step taken that comes into close proximity of committing the target crime.

Specific Intent

Here, Heather poured flammable liquid onto her window sill with the specific intent that the shed fire would start her house to burn in order to collect insurance money.

Legal vs Factual possibility

Heather could not have factually claimed the insurance money since her house didnt burn down. However, Factual impossibility is no defense.

Apparent ability

Heather had the apparent ability to burn down her own house since she was able to pour the flammable liquid on the sills and tried to get the shed fire to burn her own house. .

Preparation  vs. Perpetration

Here Heather will argue that she was only in the prep staget since her house did not burn down and that she hadnt yet filed any insurance claim.

Therefore, Heather can be charged with attempted insurance fraud.

Essays Which Received Grades of 65

  1. Can Mary prevail on her lawsuit?

Governing Law: Uniform Commerical Code (UCC)

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs transactions for the sale of goods

$500 or more.

The contract is regarding a football valued at $10,000 so the UCC will govern this transaction.


Goods are moveable and tangible items identified at the formation of the contract.

The football is a tangible item and is a good for the reasons of this transaction.


A merchant is one that deals regulary in the type of goods of the kind in the contract or holds themself out to have special knowledge.

The football was found at a flea market and none of the parties in the contract appear to deal in this kind of deal or to have any special knowledge becuase they only assumed its value and upon research were abel to find out that it was not genuine which implies that they dont deal with or have any special knowledge in collectabel footballs.

Therefore, none of the parties will be considered merchants.

Mutual Assent

Mutual assent is a requirement that all parties to a contract intend to enter into a contract which can be shown by a valid offer and a valid acceptance.

Historically, the subjective use of meeting of the minds was used to determine mutual assent however modernly, the objective theory of contracts is typically used.


An offer is an outward manifestation of present contractual intent, with definite terms and conditions presented to the offeree, creating a power of acceptance in the offeree.

Dan made a valid offer to Mary when she wrote on a napkin “Dan agrees to buy Mary’s Bart Starr football for $10,000 on or before December 1, 2016” and then Dan signed it.    This express act showed that he had an intent to enter into a binding agreement. Under the UCC, the only required terms are quantity which was inferred as one by naming the collectable football, which was called the “old looking football”. By signing the offer in writing and presenting it to Mary and referring to the single (quantity) item, Dan created a power of acceptance in Mary.

Therefore, there was a valid offer.


An acceptance is an unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer.

Here, Mary will claim that u_nder UCC law, any reasonable means of acceptance in a timely manner will suffice.

Therefore, there was a valid acceptance.


Consideration is a bargained for exchange and includes a legal detriment. The promise must induce the detriment and the detriment must induce the promise.

Legal Detriment

A legal detriment is refraining from doing something one is legally privlegdged to do or to do something one is not leaglly obligated to do.

The football is the bargain and the $10,000 is the detriment.

There is legal consideration


An assignment is transfer of contractual rights

Here, Dan transferred his right to purchase the football to Ed. Since he sent Mary notification of his intent, it is a valid assignment.


A delegation is a transfer of contractual duties.

Dan transferred his duty to pay Mary and notified her in writing.

Therefore, its is a valid delegation

A novation may be an express agreement, or can be implied after a delegation if the original obligor repudiates liability to the original promise and the oblige subsequently accepts the performance due under the original agreement from the delegate without reserving rights against the obligor.

Defenses to enforcement


Adequate writing signed by the party to be charged.





A breach is a failure of a contractual duty that has become absolute. It occurs when all conditions have been satisfied or excused, time of performance is due and there has been no discharge of duty.

The date of tender for the football was December 1st, conditions and duties had not been discharged, satisfied or excused and as of December 2nd, Mary has not received payment.

Therefore there was a breach and under the UCC, Mary will be able to prevail on her lawsuit.

2.    What damages is Mary entitled to recoverm and from whom?

Damages are legal remedies for a breach of contract and are always money.

General damages

General damages are those which flow from the breach and are a result of the loss of the benefit of the bargain. Mary expected to get $10,000 for the football from Ed since he agreed to Dan’s duties will win that amount.

Special Damages

Special damages, in contract law, are pecuniary in nature and must be foreseeable as in the Hadley v. Baxendale case. The amount must be actual, foreseeable, unavowable and certain. Since Mary has no financial loss tied to the

sale of the football, she will be unable to collect any special damages.

3, What defenses may Dan and Ed reasonably assert and will they be successful.

Mutual mistake

A mutual mistake occurs when both parties to an agreement make an mistake that speaks to the benefit of the bargain and may be used to defeat the contract for lack of mutual assent or intent to contract.

Here, although Dan and Mary both “assumed” that the value of the football was

$10,000, a mistake in value does not satisfy the requirements for the defense of mutual mistake.

This defense will fail

Statue of Frauds

Under the statute of frauds, a contract for an item valued at $500 or over must be in writing to be valid. Since Mary did not sign her offer from Dan, she is not “the party to be charged”.

This defense will fail.

Essays Which Received Grades of 70


 Trespass to land (Cabin). A tresspass to land is an intentional tort whereby the

defedant volitionally acted with the requisite intent to physically enter on someone’s land without permission.

Intent. Intent is the concious desire to cause a result or substantially certain that the desired result will occur when the defendant commits the voluntary act.

Here, Dan consciously entered into Polly’s cabin becaue he was trying to get out of the storm that was threatening his life. Polly, the owner of the cabin did not give him permission to do so. Therefore, Dan trespassed onto Polly’s land.

 Trespass to chattel (Wooden Bookshelves & Book). Trespass to chattel is an intentional tort commited by the defendant’s volitional act which causes an interference or deprives another of his/her enjoyment of the personal property.

Intent. Supra.

Here, Dan conciously interfered with Polly’s personal property when he decided to take the bookshelves and books off of the wall to use it as firewood. He felt the need to do so in order to stay warm. Thus, Dan is liable for trespass to chattel.

 Conversion (Wooden Bookshelves & Books). Conversion is the intentional tort committed by a defendant’s volitional act which causes the substantial interference or destruction of another’s personal property.

Intent. Supra.

Here, Dan consciously removed Polly’s bookshelves & books to use them has firewood. His act of setting the property on fire caused the bookshelves and books to be permanently destroyed. Thus, Dan liable for the tort of conversion of Polly’s property.


 Mistake. Mistake is not a vaild defense for an intentional tort of trespass to land. Therefore, the fact that Dan thought that the cabin belonged to his friend Jill, it does not excuse his intentional act of trespass.

 Private Neccessity. Private necessity is a defense when the defendant reasonably beleive that it was necessary to commit the act in order to avoid greater harm. Here, Dan beleived that his life was in danger and he needed to go into the cabin and start a fire to keep warm. It’s reasonable to see that anyone in that same circumstance would do the same in order to save their own lives.

Therefore, Dan can effectively assert the deffense of private neccessity.


Although can cannot be charge for the intentional act that he committed, he is still liable to Polly for destroyed bookshelves and books. Therefore, Polly can recover for the reasonable cost of her bookselves and books.

Essays Which received Grades of 75


What crimes, if any, has Donna committed, and does she have any defense?

 State  v. Donna


Solicitation is the asking of another to commit a crime.  Express or implied; specific intent that the target crime be committed.

When Donna told Alice to go to the corner and notify her of any police, she committed solicitation through an innocent agent because she implied that she wanted Alice to do an illegal act.

Donna has committed solicitation.


A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to do an unlawful act or to commit a lawful act by unlawful means and is accompanied by an over act.

Donna directed Alice to go to the corner and even though she did not verbally agree, it can be inferred by her actions that Alice agreed to the request.

Therefore, Donna committed conspiracy

Attempted Burglary

An attempt is a substantial step taken which comes into close proximity of committing a crime.

Here, Donna directed Alice to go down the street to watch for any police which would allow her to commit a crime.

Donna committed attempted burglary but will merge with the committed crime of burglary (infra).

Burglary Common Law

Under criminal law, burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a felony inside.

Donna reached into a car which is not considered a breaking since the window was open. She did enter the car which did not belong to her but its not clear what time of day it was. She reached into the car to grab the purse which satisfies the intent to commit a felony (larceny) inside the car.

Donna did not commit common law burglary.

Burglary Modern Law

In criminal law, the requirement s of dwelling and night time have been removed and any structure or vehicle is sufficient to constitute burglary. Any trespassory entry will satisfy the breaking and entering requirements. Further, any crime will suffice.

Here, Donna trespassory entered the car when she reached through the window. The car satisfies the vehicle requirement. Her specific intent to commit a larceny is evidenced by her telling Alice to be a lookout for the police after being told there is a purse in a car with an open window.

Donna has committed modern law burglary.


Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive.

Here, Donna grabbed money form a purse that was not her own which implies a trespassory taking. For larceny, even the slightest movement will suffice so the asportation of the purse satisfies the carrying away element.  The cash in someone else’s purse was personal property of another.            It can be inferred that by reaching into someone else’s car and taking money from a purse, that there was a specific intent to permanently deprive the owner.

Donna has committed larceny.

Defenses: Donna


An entrapment defense is valid when an officer of the law or an agent is able to show that the accused will commit the crime given the chance as they are predisposed to criminal activity.

Donna will claim that she would have not taken the purse had it not been place in a car in an alley with an open window.   The state will counter that unless she was

predisposed to take the purse, she would not have taken it.

This defense will fail.

What crimes, if any, has Alice committed and does she have any defenses?

 State v. Alice


Defined supra

When Alice walked to the corner to look out for any police coming, she tacitly committed conspiracy through an overt act.

Accessory before the fact

An accessory before the fact aides, assists or encourages the criminal acts of another.

Here, Alice walked to the corner to act as a lookout which assisted Donna in stealing a purse.

Therefore, Alice has committed accessory before the fact.

Accomplice liability

Modernly, an accessory before the fact is called an accomplice. They will be held liable for all foreseeable criminal activity in relationship to the target crime.

Therefore Alice is an accomplice.

Defense: Alice


Those aged from 0-7 are held not liable for any crimes they may commit for lack of intent. Those 7-14 have a rebuttable presumption of innocense and those over 14 are held to adult standards.

Alice will content that due to her age (12) she was not able to apprecciate her actions and that she should not be held liable. However, the State will argue that Alice was participating in an adult acitivyt and should be held to an adult standard.

This defense will fail.

Essays Which received Grades of 80

This answer has to be downloaded because it was a hand written essay!  Click here for the Word document.

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.