Interviewers probe your grasp of criminal law's core doctrines, the ability to apply them to fact patterns, and your understanding of the underlying rationales and policy debates.
17 questions (3 easy · 10 medium · 4 hard), each with what a strong answer covers and where people lose the point. Free to read, no account.
1.Diana sees a stranger drowning in a lake. She does nothing, and the stranger dies. Can Diana be criminally liable for homicide? Explain the actus reus requirement and when an omission can satisfy it.
Warm-up
What a strong answer covers
State the general rule that criminal liability requires a voluntary act, and that a failure to act (omission) is not criminal unless there is a legal duty to act.
List the recognized legal duties: statute, contract, relationship (e.g., parent-child), voluntary assumption of care, and creation of peril.
Apply the rule to the facts: Diana is a stranger with no legal duty to rescue, so she is not liable for homicide.
Mention that some jurisdictions have 'Good Samaritan' statutes that impose a duty to rescue, but they are rare and typically only create a duty to call for help, not to render aid.
Conclude that without a legal duty, there is no actus reus, and thus no criminal liability.
Where people lose the point
×Assuming a moral duty to rescue creates a legal duty.
×Confusing the actus reus requirement with the mens rea.
×Failing to mention that omissions require a legal duty, not just a reasonable expectation.
2.Define the four culpable mental states under the Model Penal Code and provide an example of each.
Warm-up
What a strong answer covers
List the four states: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently.
Define purposely: conscious object to engage in conduct or cause result; example: shooting someone to kill them.
Define knowingly: aware that conduct is practically certain to cause result; example: setting a bomb in a building knowing people are inside.
Define recklessly: consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk; example: driving 100 mph in a residential area.
Define negligently: should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk; example: failing to check blind spot before changing lanes, causing an accident.
Where people lose the point
×Confusing recklessness and negligence: recklessness requires actual awareness of risk, negligence does not.
×Using 'intentionally' as a synonym for purposely, but not explaining the MPC's precise definition.
×Omitting the requirement that the risk be substantial and unjustifiable for recklessness and negligence.
3.What is a specific intent crime? Give three examples and explain why the distinction between specific and general intent matters for defenses like voluntary intoxication and mistake of fact.
Core
What a strong answer covers
Define specific intent: a crime that requires a further purpose or special mental element beyond the actus reus (e.g., intent to cause a specific result or to commit a future act).
Provide examples: larceny (intent to permanently deprive), burglary (intent to commit a felony inside), attempt (intent to complete the target crime), first-degree premeditated murder (intent to kill).
Explain that voluntary intoxication can negate specific intent but not general intent or recklessness.
Explain that mistake of fact can be a defense to specific intent even if unreasonable, whereas for general intent it must be reasonable.
Conclude that the distinction affects the availability of defenses and the prosecution's burden of proof.
Where people lose the point
×Listing crimes like rape or assault as specific intent when they are general intent.
×Saying voluntary intoxication is a defense to all crimes.
×Failing to mention that specific intent crimes require a purpose beyond the act itself.
4.A stabs B, inflicting a non-fatal wound. While B is in the ambulance, the ambulance is struck by a drunk driver, and B dies from the crash. Is A criminally liable for B's death? Discuss actual and proximate cause.
Core
What a strong answer covers
State that for result crimes, the prosecution must prove both actual cause (but-for) and proximate cause (legal cause).
Apply but-for: but for A's stabbing, B would not have been in the ambulance at that time, so actual cause is satisfied.
Discuss proximate cause: the question is whether the drunk driver's collision is a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation.
Define a superseding cause as an unforeseeable, independent intervening act that is so extraordinary that it relieves the defendant of liability.
Conclude that a drunk driver crashing into an ambulance is likely unforeseeable and thus a superseding cause, so A is not liable for B's death (though A may be liable for attempted murder or assault).
Where people lose the point
×Confusing actual cause with proximate cause.
×Arguing that any intervening cause breaks the chain; only unforeseeable and extraordinary ones do.
×Failing to consider that A might still be liable for other offenses.
5.During a bank robbery, the bank teller suffers a fatal heart attack from the stress. The robber is charged with felony murder. Is the robber liable? Discuss the elements and limitations of the felony murder rule.
Core
What a strong answer covers
State the felony murder rule: a defendant is liable for any death that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of an inherently dangerous felony.
Identify the predicate felony: bank robbery is an inherently dangerous felony.
Discuss causation: the death must be a foreseeable consequence of the felony; a heart attack from stress is a foreseeable result of a robbery.
Mention the agency theory: some jurisdictions require the death to be caused by the defendant or an accomplice, not by a third party or the victim; here the victim's own heart attack is not a 'killing' by the defendant, but many courts still impose liability if the death is a foreseeable result.
Conclude that in most jurisdictions, the robber is liable for felony murder, but some states require that the defendant or an accomplice directly cause the death.
Where people lose the point
×Assuming the felony must be violent; it must be inherently dangerous, but not necessarily violent.
×Ignoring the merger doctrine: if the underlying felony is assault, it merges and cannot support felony murder.
×Failing to discuss the foreseeability of the death.
6.Husband comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man. In a rage, he kills the lover. Can he be convicted of murder? Discuss the doctrine of adequate provocation.
Core
What a strong answer covers
State the general rule: murder requires malice aforethought, but adequate provocation can reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.
List the elements of voluntary manslaughter: (1) adequate provocation, (2) defendant was actually provoked, (3) did not cool off, and (4) a reasonable person would not have cooled off.
Apply to facts: discovering a spouse in adultery is generally considered adequate provocation in many jurisdictions, but not all; some states have abolished the 'spousal adultery' exception.
Discuss the objective standard: the provocation must be such that a reasonable person would lose self-control.
Conclude that if the jurisdiction recognizes adultery as adequate provocation, he may be guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not murder; otherwise, murder.
Where people lose the point
×Believing that any emotional distress is adequate provocation.
×Forgetting that the defendant must have actually been provoked and did not act after a cooling-off period.
×Failing to note that the 'reasonable person' standard is objective, not subjective.
7.A woman is intoxicated at a party. A man has sex with her. She claims she was too drunk to consent. Under modern rape statutes, what factors determine whether consent was valid? Discuss the role of incapacity and affirmative consent.
Hard
What a strong answer covers
State that consent must be freely given and that intoxication can vitiate consent if it renders the victim substantially incapacitated.
Explain the difference between voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication; voluntary intoxication may still negate consent if the victim is unable to understand the nature of the act.
Discuss the affirmative consent standard: many states require a clear, affirmative, and ongoing agreement; silence or lack of resistance is not consent.
Apply to facts: if the woman was so intoxicated that she could not knowingly consent, the man may be liable for rape, even if she did not say 'no'.
Mention that the defendant's mens rea matters: some statutes require knowledge of lack of consent, while others impose liability for negligence or strict liability.
Where people lose the point
×Assuming that voluntary intoxication always negates consent; it depends on the degree of incapacitation.
×Confusing the evidentiary issue of consent with the legal definition.
×Failing to discuss the defendant's mental state and whether a reasonable mistake is a defense.
8.A bank teller, while counting cash, decides to take $100 from the drawer and replace it with a fake bill. What crime has been committed? Distinguish larceny from embezzlement.
Core
What a strong answer covers
Define larceny: trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive.
Define embezzlement: fraudulent conversion of property of another by one who is already in lawful possession.
Apply to facts: the teller had lawful possession of the cash, so the initial taking is not trespassory; thus, it is embezzlement, not larceny.
Explain that the key distinction is whether the defendant had lawful possession at the time of the taking.
Mention that modern theft statutes often consolidate these offenses, but the distinction is still relevant for common law analysis.
Where people lose the point
×Calling it larceny because the teller took money.
×Failing to recognize that the teller had lawful possession.
×Confusing embezzlement with false pretenses, which involves obtaining title by fraud.
9.A pickpocket stealthily removes a wallet from a victim's pocket without the victim noticing. Is this robbery? Explain the force requirement.
Warm-up
What a strong answer covers
Define robbery: larceny from a person's presence by force or intimidation.
Explain that the force must be more than the minimal force needed to remove the property; it must be used to overcome resistance or to prevent resistance.
Apply to facts: pickpocketing involves no force or intimidation; the victim is unaware, so it is larceny, not robbery.
Contrast with purse-snatching: if the victim resists and the defendant uses force to wrench the purse away, it may be robbery.
Conclude that the absence of force makes it larceny, not robbery.
Where people lose the point
×Believing that any touching constitutes force for robbery.
×Confusing robbery with burglary.
×Failing to note that the force must be used to take the property from the person's presence.
10.A man buys a gun and drives to his enemy's house, but changes his mind and goes home. Has he committed attempted murder? Discuss the actus reus requirement for attempt.
Core
What a strong answer covers
State that attempt requires specific intent to commit the target crime and an act that is a substantial step beyond mere preparation.
Explain the various tests: dangerous proximity, physical proximity, and MPC's substantial step test.
Apply to facts: buying a gun and driving to the victim's house may be preparation, but not a substantial step because he has not engaged in conduct that strongly corroborates the criminal purpose.
Mention that under the MPC, a substantial step must be strongly corroborative of the criminal purpose; mere preparation is insufficient.
Conclude that he is not guilty of attempted murder because he did not take a substantial step, though he may have committed other offenses like stalking.
Where people lose the point
×Confusing preparation with attempt.
×Failing to recognize that attempt is a specific intent crime.
×Assuming that abandonment is a defense after a substantial step has been taken.
11.A and B agree to rob a bank. During the robbery, A shoots and kills a guard. B was outside as the getaway driver. Can B be convicted of murder under the Pinkerton doctrine? Discuss the requirements and limitations.
Hard
What a strong answer covers
State the Pinkerton doctrine: a conspirator is liable for substantive crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy and foreseeable.
Apply to facts: B is a member of the conspiracy to rob the bank; the shooting occurred during the robbery and in furtherance of it.
Discuss foreseeability: a shooting during an armed robbery is foreseeable, so B may be liable for murder.
Mention limitations: the crime must be within the scope of the conspiracy and foreseeable; if A acted on a frolic of his own, B would not be liable.
Conclude that B can be convicted of murder under Pinkerton, but some jurisdictions have rejected or limited the doctrine.
Where people lose the point
×Believing that mere membership in a conspiracy is enough for all crimes; the crime must be foreseeable and in furtherance.
×Confusing Pinkerton liability with accomplice liability.
×Failing to note that withdrawal from the conspiracy before the crime may be a defense.
12.A man tries to steal a wallet from a pocket, but the pocket is empty. Can he be convicted of attempted larceny? Discuss factual and legal impossibility.
Core
What a strong answer covers
Define factual impossibility: when the defendant's intended result is impossible due to facts unknown to him, but the conduct is still criminal.
Define legal impossibility: when the defendant's intended conduct is not a crime, even if he believes it is.
Apply to facts: the wallet is empty, so the theft cannot be completed, but the defendant intended to steal and took a substantial step; this is factual impossibility.
State the general rule: factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt; legal impossibility may be a defense.
Conclude that he can be convicted of attempted larceny.
Where people lose the point
×Confusing factual and legal impossibility.
×Believing that impossibility is always a defense.
×Failing to note that some jurisdictions have abolished the distinction.
13.A man believes that it is legal to hunt on a certain property because he saw a sign that said 'No Trespassing' but thought it meant hunting was allowed. He is charged with trespass. Can he raise a mistake of law defense? Explain when mistake of law is a defense.
Core
What a strong answer covers
State the general rule: ignorance of the law is no excuse; mistake of law is not a defense.
List exceptions: (1) reliance on an official statement of the law (e.g., a statute later declared invalid), (2) lack of fair notice (e.g., vague statute), (3) mistake of law that negates a specific intent element (e.g., larceny requires intent to permanently deprive, and if the defendant believed the property was his, he lacks that intent).
Apply to facts: the man's mistake is about the law (whether hunting is allowed), not a fact; he did not rely on an official statement, and trespass is a general intent crime, so mistake of law is not a defense.
Conclude that he cannot raise a mistake of law defense.
Mention that if he had a reasonable belief that he owned the property, that would be a mistake of fact, which could negate the intent to trespass.
Where people lose the point
×Believing that mistake of law is a defense when it is not, except in narrow circumstances.
×Confusing mistake of law with mistake of fact.
×Failing to recognize that some crimes require knowledge of the law (e.g., tax evasion).
14.A defendant with schizophrenia kills his neighbor, believing the neighbor was a demon. He is charged with murder. Discuss the various tests for insanity and whether he would be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Hard
What a strong answer covers
List the major insanity tests: M'Naghten (did not know the nature/quality of the act or that it was wrong), irresistible impulse (unable to control conduct), Durham (product of mental disease), and MPC (lacks substantial capacity to appreciate criminality or conform conduct).
Apply to facts: under M'Naghten, if he did not know that killing a demon was wrong, he may be insane; but if he knew it was legally wrong, he may not.
Discuss the burden of proof: in most jurisdictions, the defendant must prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence; some require clear and convincing evidence.
Mention the verdict options: guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, or guilty but mentally ill (in some states).
Conclude that the outcome depends on the jurisdiction and the specific test applied.
Where people lose the point
×Assuming that a mental illness automatically results in an insanity acquittal.
×Confusing the insanity defense with incompetency to stand trial.
×Failing to discuss the different tests and their application.
15.A woman is attacked by a man with a knife. She shoots and kills him. She claims self-defense. What elements must she prove? Discuss the duty to retreat and the Castle Doctrine.
Core
What a strong answer covers
State the elements of self-defense: (1) reasonable belief that force is necessary to prevent imminent unlawful harm, (2) the force used is proportional to the threat, (3) the defendant was not the initial aggressor.
Explain that deadly force is only justified when the defendant reasonably believes that death or serious bodily harm is imminent.
Discuss the duty to retreat: at common law, a person must retreat before using deadly force if safe to do so, except in one's own home (Castle Doctrine).
Apply to facts: the woman was attacked with a knife, so deadly force is proportional; she may not need to retreat if she is in her home or if retreat is unsafe.
Conclude that she likely has a valid self-defense claim if her belief was reasonable.
Where people lose the point
×Believing that self-defense requires actual attack; it requires reasonable belief of imminent harm.
×Failing to mention the proportionality requirement.
16.A man is forced at gunpoint to rob a bank. He is charged with robbery. Can he raise the defense of duress? Discuss the elements and limitations of duress.
Core
What a strong answer covers
Define duress: an unlawful threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury that causes a person to commit a crime.
State the elements: (1) threat of imminent harm, (2) reasonable fear of death or serious injury, (3) no reasonable escape, (4) the defendant did not intentionally place himself in the situation.
Apply to facts: the man was threatened with a gun, so the threat is imminent and serious; he may have no reasonable escape, so duress may apply.
Mention limitations: duress is not a defense to homicide (murder), and some jurisdictions do not allow it for any offense involving the death of another.
Conclude that he may have a duress defense to robbery, but not to any homicide charges.
Where people lose the point
×Believing duress is a defense to murder.
×Failing to note that the threat must be imminent, not future.
×Assuming that duress requires the defendant to be innocent of any fault.
17.An undercover officer repeatedly offers to sell drugs to a man, who finally agrees. The man claims entrapment. What is the test for entrapment? Discuss the subjective and objective approaches.
Hard
What a strong answer covers
Define entrapment: when law enforcement induces a person to commit a crime that he was not predisposed to commit.
Explain the subjective test (federal): the defendant's predisposition is the key; if he was ready and willing to commit the crime, entrapment is not a defense.
Explain the objective test (some states): focuses on the government's conduct; if it would induce an ordinary law-abiding person, entrapment exists.
Apply to facts: if the man had no prior history of drug dealing and only agreed after repeated pressure, he may be able to show lack of predisposition.
Conclude that the outcome depends on the jurisdiction and the evidence of predisposition.
Where people lose the point
×Believing that any police undercover operation constitutes entrapment.
×Confusing entrapment with due process violations (e.g., outrageous government conduct).
×Failing to discuss the burden of proof: the defendant must prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.
A question a Criminal Law panel actually asks, answered out loud, scored on what you said and how you said it. Under two minutes, and nothing to sign up for.
“Diana sees a stranger drowning in a lake. She does nothing, and the stranger dies. Can Diana be criminally liable for homicide? Explain the actus reus requirement and when an omission can satisfy it.”
We never store the audio. Your answer is deleted within 24 hours unless you save the result.
How Criminal Law answers get judged
The weights a Criminal Law interviewer is holding, whether or not they say so out loud. Round Zero scores your practice answers against exactly these, and quotes your own words back as the evidence for each.
Legal Accuracy
40%
Correctly states and applies legal rules, elements, and doctrines without material errors.
Analysis and Application
30%
Applies law to facts logically, considers multiple issues, and reaches a well-reasoned conclusion.
Conceptual Depth
20%
Demonstrates understanding of underlying rationales, policy debates, and nuances beyond rote memorization.
Communication
10%
Organizes answer clearly, uses precise terminology, and articulates reasoning concisely.
You have read what strong Criminal Law answers contain. The next thing that moves the needle is producing one under time, out loud, and finding out where it falls apart.
What Criminal Law interview questions should I practice?
Start with the core areas Criminal Law interviewers probe: Diana sees a stranger drowning in a lake. She does nothing, and the stranger dies. Can Diana be criminally liable for homicide? Explain the actus reus requirement and when an omission can satisfy it.; Define the four culpable mental states under the Model Penal Code and provide an example of each.; What is a specific intent crime? Give three examples and explain why the distinction between specific and general intent matters for defenses like voluntary intoxication and mistake of fact.. This page outlines strong answers and common mistakes, and the scored path drills each one with follow-ups.
Is the Criminal Law practice free?
Yes. The Criminal Law path runs free inside Round Zero: lessons, practice questions and flashcards. Drills are unlimited on every plan, free included. So is the full scorecard. Free also covers 3 complete scored interviews, no card.
How is this different from a Criminal Law question list?
A static list gives you questions with no feedback. Round Zero runs a live scored practice that probes your actual answers, rotates difficulty, and tells you exactly what to fix, grounded in a Criminal Law rubric.
How should I prepare for a Criminal Law interview?
Learn the concepts, drill the questions until answers come fast, then prove it in a scored mock. Round Zero sequences all three so you know you are ready, not just that you read about Criminal Law.
How is a Criminal Law answer scored?
Criminal Law answers are scored on legal accuracy, analysis and application, conceptual depth, communication, with evidence quoted from what you actually said, so feedback is specific instead of generic praise.
More free tools
Try everything. Sign up only when you want the full version.