Sample questions: MPRE Practice Questions

0
112

Are you ready for MPRE? Try to answer these easy MPRE Practice Questions to ascertain where to concentrate your effort to study. Answers are in the end and these questions will help you understand how and in what context questions in your real test are going to come.

MPRE Practice Questions #1

In court proceedings, a doctor’s testimony was sought in respect of a case involving injury. His testimony concentrated on two aspects, treatment and refusal of patient to take advised medicines regularly. During doctors cross examination and testimony, it became evident that he was not present when medicines were refused by the patient.

In chart of the patient, nurses handling the medicine distribution pointed out about refusals. These charts of refusal were not presented as evidence in court proceedings. The defense protested and requested for striking down this part of testimony by the doctor. What would be the likely stand of trial judge regarding objections raised on testimony of the doctor, with regard to denial to taking medicines?

  1. Sustained. The testimony is found to be immaterial and irrelevant.
  2. Overruled. Since doctor was doctor of the patient, he is permitted to believe the remarks of nurses given on chart of patient.
  3. Overruled. The doctor knew about the high reliability of medical recordings on the charts of patient at his hospital. Being an expert, doctor is permitted to depend on these comments to arrive at his finding and give testimony accordingly.
  4. Sustained. The testimony was a rumor. The doctor did neither noted incidents nor was he present when the patient refused. Hence, the doctor did not have in hand knowledge about these facts, and he testified on the basis of false medical reports which were not recorded as evidence.

MPRE Practice Questions #2

Firefighters and police were present at the site where fire broke in a house. As the fireman were handling fire, the area was being maintained by the police, ensuring that onlookers were at a distance to keep them safe from the fire.

A car came and was parked near the site curious to see the efforts being made to extinguish fire. But, very noisy music was being played in the car and it contributed to chaos all over. One of police officers went to the car and requested the driver to switch off the music to which the driver agreed. While communicating, the officer observed that a handgun was placed on the front passenger seat. However, under such circumstances, it was legally permitted to carry a gun, whether covered or not, officer took out his gun and asked the driver to come out of the vehicle.

The action of first officer drawing his gun was seen by other policemen, therefore they ran for his support, pulling their guns out while approaching. They encircled the driver and car, the driver now stood out of car holding his hands at back of his head. The police told the driver to face towards car., and he was handcuffed and was made to sit down. A complete check of car was carried out, during which illegal amphetamines and cocaine were found. He was taken in to custody, and imposed charges of drug possession. On the base of violation of fourth amendment, his lawyer filed a submission to suppress. What will be the most likely ruling of the court?

  1. Suppression of drugs will be there. The officer’s reaction to stop was over exaggerated, which was on the basis of noisy music only. He arrested under those circumstances, where probable cause did not exist.
  2. The drugs are permitted. The action of driving near the house on fire, already in disorderly condition, with noisy music blast which indicated explosive behavior. When the gun was seen by the officer on front seat; that aggravated the situation.
  3. The suppression of drugs will be there. Just noticing a gun placed on front passenger seat cannot be taken to stipulate any illegality because the state permitted carrying of guns by people, as such there was no need to take the driver in to custody or check the vehicle.
  4. The drugs are permitted. As a safeguard for everybody involved, the officer had authority to take this driver away from the gun – and other things that occurred were properly motivated and expected as duty of the officer for safety of everyone nearby.

MPRE Practice Questions Answers #1The correct answer is option 4

Sustained. The testimony was a rumor. The doctor did not note the incidents nor was he present when the patient refused. Hence, the doctor did not have in hand knowledge about these facts, and he testified on the basis of false medical reports which were not recorded as evidence.

Federal rule no. 602 of evidence doesn’t allow witnesses to testify for matters without them having personal knowledge about it. Normally the procedure will include calling the nurse who was there supervising the charts of patients and other nurses and by calling the nurse who formed all notes. The exception foundation of business records would have established that the supervisor or nurse “kept the records” and those records were formed in the usual course of work, etc. After this, records would have been accepted and offered into evidence. Only then, the doctor would have been able to testify after properly relying on records. In fact, a better way would be to make nurse who formed the records testify for two things, the fact where she witnessed refusal by patient and their authenticity.

MPRE Practice Questions Answers #2The correct answer is option 1

 Suppression of drugs will be there. The officer’s reaction to stop was over exaggerated, which was on the basis of noisy music only. He arrested under the circumstances, where probable cause did not exist.

The officer gave unreasonable actions. It was an appropriate step, but as per instructions, the driver turned the volume down of music, which was the very first reason of stopping the car. But, after seeing a gun lying on the seat, officer got the reason to make the driver come out of the car and hence moving him away from the gun. It’s a dangerous weapon and it doesn’t matter how legal it is. All of this was the justification for everyone’s safety.

Although, every officer gave an excessive action. There wasn’t any proof of driver breaking any law because guns in that state were legal. It isn’t reasonable for all officers to approach a person with guns pointing at him for no ascertained crime. Especially when the first stop was for a different reason. The arrest wasn’t expected by the citizens nor was it reasonable. The subsequent searching of car was not legal neither was the arrest.

I hope you got both answers correct.

In the end, I wish you luck for the exam and make sure you keep a track with MPRE Practice Questions in order to perfect yourself and get a good score in the main exam. Keep looking for MPRE Practice Questions and practice for improving your speed and accuracy.

Comments are closed.