CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE — ANNOTATED MODEL ESSAY
This essay models a typical two-part MEE that blends a common-law homicide question with a Fourth and Fifth Amendment procedure question. Read the black text as the answer you would actually write; read each gold box to see why the move earns points.
Dexter and Carl, longtime rivals, argued outside a bar. Carl shoved Dexter and walked away. Enraged, Dexter ran to his nearby truck, retrieved a baseball bat, sprinted back, and struck Carl once across the skull from behind. Carl collapsed. Believing Carl was dead, Dexter dumped Carl's unconscious body in a shallow river to hide it. A medical examiner later determined that the blow did not kill Carl; Carl drowned in the river while still alive but unconscious.
Two days later, officers without a warrant knocked on Dexter's apartment door. When Dexter opened it, an officer stepped across the threshold, said "We need to talk about Carl," and immediately asked, "Where is the bat?" Dexter blurted, "In the dumpster out back." Officers had not yet given Miranda warnings. Officers recovered the bat from the dumpster. Only afterward did they advise Dexter of his Miranda rights; Dexter then signed a written waiver and gave a full confession.
(1) Of what form of criminal homicide, if any, is Dexter guilty? (2) Is Dexter's statement "In the dumpster out back" admissible? (3) Is the recovered bat admissible? (4) Is the later written confession admissible?
Model Answer — with annotations
Black text is the answer you could realistically write under timed conditions. The gold boxes explain why each move earns points.
I. Form of Criminal Homicide
The threshold issue is whether Dexter committed murder and, if so, in what degree, or only some lesser homicide. At common law, murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice may be shown by (1) intent to kill, (2) intent to inflict great bodily harm, (3) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (depraved-heart), or (4) intent to commit a dangerous felony (felony murder).
Here, malice is easily established under the intent-to-inflict-great-bodily-harm theory: Dexter struck Carl across the skull with a baseball bat, a deadly weapon used on a vital part of the body. Use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death permits an inference of malice. Striking a person in the head with a bat reflects, at minimum, intent to cause serious bodily injury, satisfying malice.
The harder question is causation, because the blow did not kill Carl; Carl drowned. To convict, the prosecution must prove both actual (but-for) cause and proximate (legal) cause. But-for causation is satisfied: but for Dexter's attack and his subsequent act of dumping Carl in the river, Carl would not have drowned. Proximate cause is also satisfied. Dexter's own act of throwing Carl into the river is an unbroken, direct chain. Even treating Dexter's mistaken belief that Carl was already dead as a separate act, the death is still the foreseeable result of Dexter's conduct. An intervening cause breaks the chain only if it is unforeseeable; a defendant's own subsequent acts are not superseding.
Dexter may argue that because he believed Carl was already dead when he dumped the body, he lacked the intent to kill at the moment that actually caused death. This single-transaction problem is resolved against Dexter. Where a defendant inflicts a blow intending serious harm and then, as part of one continuous course of conduct, performs the act that actually kills, the requisite mens rea formed during the assault carries through to the fatal act. The two acts are treated as one transaction; the malice is not negated by Dexter's mistaken belief.
Degree and provocation. At common law there were no degrees, but most jurisdictions divide murder into first and second degree. First-degree murder typically requires premeditation and deliberation. Dexter's act may qualify: after Carl shoved him and walked away, Dexter ran to his truck, retrieved a bat, and returned to strike Carl. The time taken to arm himself and return supports a finding of premeditation; even a brief but real reflection suffices. Dexter will argue voluntary manslaughter, which reduces murder to manslaughter when the defendant killed in the heat of passion upon adequate provocation, before a reasonable cooling-off period. A mere shove is generally not adequate provocation (words and minor batteries usually are not), and in any event Dexter's act of retrieving the bat from his truck and returning provided a cooling-off opportunity. The provocation defense should fail; Dexter is guilty of murder, likely first degree.
II. Admissibility of "In the dumpster out back" (Miranda)
The Fifth Amendment, through Miranda v. Arizona, requires warnings before custodial interrogation. A statement obtained from custodial interrogation without warnings is inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief. Two elements must be met: custody and interrogation. Custody exists when a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the encounter and leave, considering the totality of the circumstances. Interrogation includes express questioning or its functional equivalent.
Here, an officer crossed the threshold into Dexter's home and stood inside while questioning him about a homicide. Although the encounter began at the door, the officer's entry and the accusatory focus ("We need to talk about Carl") could render the setting custodial; a reasonable person confronted inside his own doorway by police investigating a killing may not feel free to end the encounter. The officer's direct question, "Where is the bat?" is express interrogation. Because the question preceded any Miranda warning, Dexter's answer was the product of unwarned custodial interrogation and is inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
III. Admissibility of the Bat (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree)
The bat was located using Dexter's unwarned statement, raising the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree question. Critically, the exclusionary rule's fruits doctrine applies differently to mere Miranda violations than to actual Fourth Amendment or coerced-confession violations. Under United States v. Patane, physical evidence derived from a voluntary statement taken in violation of Miranda's prophylactic warning requirement is not subject to suppression. So long as Dexter's statement was voluntary (not coerced) and the only defect was the missing warnings, the physical bat is admissible even though the statement that led to it is not.
IV. Admissibility of the Later Written Confession
After recovering the bat, officers Mirandized Dexter, obtained a written waiver, and took a full confession. The issue is whether the earlier unwarned statement taints the later, warned confession. Under Oregon v. Elstad, a voluntary unwarned statement does not automatically taint a subsequent statement given after proper warnings and a valid waiver; the later confession is admissible if knowing and voluntary. The exception, under Missouri v. Seibert, bars a deliberate two-step "question-first, warn-later" strategy designed to circumvent Miranda. The facts here show a single isolated question, not a systematic interrogation followed by a midstream warning, so Elstad governs. Dexter's signed waiver and full confession appear knowing and voluntary, so the written confession is admissible.
- Opens each issue with a precise rule statement before applying facts (clean IRAC throughout).
- Spots the buried causation issue and the one-transaction problem, where most homicide points live.
- Raises the strongest defenses (provocation, "I thought he was dead") and defeats them with named doctrines.
- Avoids the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree trap by applying Patane to admit the physical bat.
- Distinguishes Elstad from Seibert rather than reflexively suppressing the second confession.
- Reaches a firm, defensible conclusion on every call of the question.
📝 Now make it yours. Learn the rules behind this essay in the Black Letter Law book and Essay Model Language bank, sharpen your radar with the Issue-Spotting Checklists, then write your own and get it AI-graded at BarExamNextGen.