February 2023 MEE Questions

Sep 18, 2026

February 2023 MEE Questions present copyrighted NCBE-reprinted exam-style legal hypotheticals. The materials include multiple essay questions that test doctrines related to wills, mental capacity, insane-delusion, and standing to contest. Subsequent questions address Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure issues, including entry, officer conduct during pat-downs, plain-view/records searches via apps, and admissibility of seized items. The document is structured as question prompts with subparts requiring legal analysis.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages94

Reading Time3 h 57 min

AccessFree to download

MEE Question 1

Wills, insane-delusion rule, and mental capacity

Standing to contest a will

MEE Question 2

Entry and exclusion of evidence

Admissibility of marijuana, computer, and narcotics

MEE Question 3

February 2023 MEE Questions These materials are copyrighted by NCBE and are being reprinted with permission of NCBE. For personal use only. May not be reproduced or distributed in any way. Copyright © 2023 by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. All rights reserved. MEE Question 1 One year ago, Joan executed a will in which she left her entire estate to her only daughter. At that time, Joan's daughter, Joan's granddaughter (the only child of Joan's daughter), Joan's only son, and Joan's three grandsons (children of her son) were living. Joan's son and her three grandsons had extensive criminal records for theft and burglary. Joan was not close to her children and grandchildren. She rarely saw any of them, even on holidays, although she regularly sent them birthday cards and inexpensive presents. Three years ago, Joan's doctor had prescribed her a drug that was known to produce hallucinations in some patients. Joan had difficulties with the drug and began to experience frequent hallucinations leading to her delusion that the male line of her family was "cursed" by Martians. Nonetheless, she continued taking the drug because it was the only medication available to control her medical condition. When she went to her lawyer to draft her will, she told her lawyer that she wanted to leave all her property to her daughter and nothing to her male line. She explained,"Leaving the males in my family anything valuable would be a complete waste on burglars and thieves." For the last five years, Joan had regularly had lunch with several friends. All of them were much wealthier than Joan. At these lunches, she often told her friends that she was a "multimillionaire" and owned both a "luxurious" home and a "very expensive" car. They had no reason to doubt Joan's claims because she had never invited them to her home and she took cabs to their lunches. In fact, Joan was never a millionaire, and she never owned either a luxurious home or an expensive automobile. She lived in a modest apartment, and her primary source of income was her Social Security benefits. She monitored her bank account regularly and reconciled her bank statement every month. One month ago, Joan died, survived by her daughter, her granddaughter, her son, and her three grandsons. At her death, Joan owned no significant assets other than her bank account containing $100,000 . 1. Under the insane-delusion rule, is Joan's will invalid? Explain. 2. Do these facts establish that Joan's will is invalid because she lacked the general mental capacity to execute a will? Explain. 3. Which, if any, of Joan's surviving relatives has standing to contest Joan's will? Explain. MEE Question 2 Homeowner ordered a pizza to be delivered to his house for lunch. When the pizza delivery driver (Driver) arrived, Homeowner invited him to step inside while Homeowner retrieved his wallet. A minute later, two police officers arrived at Homeowner's house to execute a valid warrant to search the house for counterfeit $100 bills. Although the warrant did not explicitly authorize a "no-knock" entry, the officers kicked open Homeowner's front door and entered the house without knocking and without announcing their identity and purpose. One officer detained Homeowner and Driver in the hall near the front door while the second officer began to search the house. The first officer saw a lump in the back pocket of Driver's pants, which she thought could be a handgun. Concerned that Driver might harm her if he had access to a handgun, the officer decided to pat him down. While patting him down, the officer discovered that the lump was not a weapon but a soft object. She could not determine what the object was by patting the outside of Driver's pants, so she reached into his pants pocket and retrieved a plastic bag containing marijuana. Possession of marijuana is a crime in the state. The officer seized the bag of marijuana. Meanwhile, the second officer, who was

FAQs

What doctrines are tested in MEE Question 1?

MEE Question 1 tests the insane-delusion rule for wills, whether general mental capacity existed to execute a will, and which surviving relatives have standing to contest the will.

Under MEE Question 2, how does the entry affect evidence admissibility?

MEE Question 2 asks whether evidence must be excluded when officers enter without knocking and without announcing their identity and purpose, despite a warrant that did not expressly authorize a no-knock entry.

Which evidence items are specifically evaluated in MEE Question 2?

MEE Question 2 evaluates admissibility of (a) marijuana seized from the delivery driver, (b) a computer seized from the homeowner’s kitchen counter, and (c) narcotics seized from the homeowner’s bedroom.

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by Quinn Holloway