Created by Emily Klein Alice, 2012

SAMPLE PROBLEM #1
FACTS:

Smith was driving down Beverly Hills Boulevard. As he approached the intersection of Beverly
Hills Boulevard and Star Lane, the signal intersection light turned yellow. Smith sped up to catch
the light. When Smith crossed over the white intersection line, the light was yellow. Smith was
in the middle of the intersection when the signal light turned red.

LAWS:

A driver is guilty of running a red light if the driver’s vehicle crosses over the white intersection
line when the signal light is red. Statute §23-3993.

SAMPLE ANSWER
[Broken down into sections] *

I Whether Smith is guilty of running the red light?

A driver is guilty of running a red light if the driver’s vehicle crosses over the white
R
intersection line when the signal light is red. Statute §23-3993.

Here, the signal light was yellow, not red, when Smith’s vehicle crossed over the white
A
intersection line. Smith’s vehicle was past the white intersection line when the signal
light turned red. The fact that the signal light turned red while Smith was still in the
intersection does not weigh into whether Smith is guilty of running a red light. Because
Smith’s vehicle was over the white intersection line when the signal light turned red,
Smith did not run the red light.

C
Therefore, Smith is not guilty of running the red light.

*
Section labels are for reference. Do not include section labels in IRACs.
 Created by Emily Klein Alice, 2012

SAMPLE PROBLEM #2
FACTS:

Joe picked up Sally for a blind date. Dinner did not go well. Instead of driving Sally back home,
Joe drove Sally to a park. Joe locked the doors. Only Joe could unlock the doors from the driver
side, which Joe knew. Joe began making passes at Sally. Sally stated repeatedly that she wanted
to go home. Sally tried to open her door but it was locked. Sally asked Joe to unlock the car
door. Joe eventually unlocked the car door and Sally walked home. Sally wants to sue Joe for
false imprisonment. Will she be successful?

LAWS:

To prove false imprisonment, a plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally inflicted
confinement. Smith v. Jones, 400 State Y 333,443 (2010). The plaintiff must show that: 1) there
was confinement; and 2) it was intentional. Id.

To be confined, a person must be held within certain limits. Id. Confinement does not include
prohibiting a person from entering a certain place. Id.

To prove false imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended to confine the
plaintiff. Smith, 400 State Y at 443. If clear intent cannot be proven, the plaintiff can prove that
the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would be confined the defendant’s
actions. Id.
 Created by Emily Klein Alice, 2012

SAMPLE ANSWER
[Broken down into sections] †

Overall Under State Y’s laws, did Joe falsely imprison Sally? ‡
Issue:

Overall Rule:
To prove false imprisonment, a plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally inflicted confinement.
Smith v. Jones, 400 State Y 333,443 (2010). The plaintiff must show that: 1) there was confinement; and
(Roadmap)
2) it was intentional. Id.

[IRAC for element #1- CONFINEMENT]

I Under State Y’s laws, did Joe confine Sally when he took her to the park and locked the car?

R To prove false imprisonment, a plaintiff must show that the defendant confined plaintiff. Smith,
400 State Y at 443. To be confined, a person must be held within certain limits. Id. Confinement
does not include prohibiting a person from entering a certain place. Id.

Here, Joe held Sally within his vehicle. He locked the doors to his car after taking Sally to the
A
park, instead of her house. Sally, as the passenger, could not unlock the doors. Because Sally was
unable to open the car door without Joe unlocking it, Sally was confined within the certain limits
of the car. One could argue that Sally was not confined within the car because Joe unlocked the
car when Sally requested. That argument fails, however, because Joe controlled the locks. Sally Counter-
Argument
was unable to open the locked door herself. Joe controlled whether Sally could leave the vehicle.

C Because Sally was held within certain limits, she was confined.

†
Section labels are for reference. Do not include section labels in IRACs.
‡
When is it proper to have an overall IRAC overriding the mini-IRAC? Answer: When you have elements within the
overall rule of law that have rule(s) of law specific to that one element and that element alone. In that case, you
can create mini-IRACs for those elements. In that scenario, it is helpful to create an overall IRAC to lay out the
general rules, overall analysis and final conclusion and let each element be analyzed in the mini-IRACs. Rule of
thumb: if you do not have a rule of law that is relevant to one element only (and therefore do not need individual
IRACs), then analyze with one IRAC and do not include an overall IRAC.
 Created by Emily Klein Alice, 2012

[IRAC for element #2-INTENTIONAL]

I Under State Y’s laws did Joe intend to confine Sally?

To prove false imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended to confine the
R plaintiff . Smith, 400 State Y at 443. If clear intent cannot be proven, the plaintiff can prove that
the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would be confined the defendant’s
actions. Id.

Here, Joe purposefully locked the car doors. Joe knew that Sally could not unlock the doors. Joe
A wanted Sally to stay in the vehicle so he could make a pass at her. Assuming Joe purposefully did
not intend to confine Sally, Joe reasonably should have known his actions would confine Sally.
One could argue that Joe locked the vehicle doors to keep them safe from others and not to
confine Sally. Even then, however, by prohibiting others from entering the vehicle, Joe Counter-
reasonably should have known his actions would confine Sally, especially given the Argument

relationship between them and the fact he attempted to make passes at her.

Therefore, Sally will be successful in proving Joe intended to confine Sally.

C

Sally will be successful in proving both elements necessary for false imprisonment. Namely, Sally will
Overall be successful in proving that Joe confined Sally and that the confinement was intentional.
Analysis:

Overall Because Sally will be successful in proving that she was confined by Joe and that the confinement was
Conclusion:
intentional, Joe will be liable for false imprisonment.
 Created by Emily Klein Alice, 2012

SAMPLE PROBLEM #3
FACTS:

A few days ago, Defendant shot and killed a seventeen year old male. Defendant was roaming
his gated neighborhood streets as a self-appointed neighborhood watchman when the incident
occurred. The seventeen year old male was walking on the sidewalk to his father’s house, which
was in the gated community. From the shooting, the minor died.

Defendant is a twenty-eight year old Caucasian male. The minor was a Black male.

When the police arrived at the scene, Defendant was standing over the minor with a gun.
Defendant had a bloody nose and wound on the back of his head; he was bleeding minimally.
The minor was dead on the asphalt with no weapon. The minor had candy, a bottled drink and a
cell phone.

There are no eye witnesses. Witnesses near the incident heard someone yell loudly and then
shots fired. Additionally, the minor was on the phone with his girlfriend before he was shot.
The girlfriend has told police that the minor told her some weird male was following him and
scaring him. The girlfriend heard, who she assumes was the Defendant, yell at the minor and
then heard the shots fired. The phone then went dead.

Defendant told police that he acted in self-defense. He stated that the minor aggressively
approached Defendant allegedly hitting Defendant in the face and smashing his head on the
pavement.

9-1-1 records indicate that the Defendant has called 9-1-1 over 150 times in the past two years.
Moreover, on the night the incident occurred, Defendant called 9-1-1 to report a suspicious
person, who was later identified as the minor. The 9-1-1 operator told the Defendant that police
were en route and told Defendant not to pursue the “suspicious person.” Defendant did not tell
police why he thought the minor was suspicious. Defendant never saw a weapon on the minor.

Defendant retained your firm this morning. He claims he acted in self-defense. Complete a
memorandum regarding the same.

LAW:

For a person to prove they acted in self-defense, they must show that at the time of the incident,
they: 1) had a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to defend themselves; 2)
against the immediate use of unlawful force. State X Revised Statute §24-333.
A defendant must prove that he reasonably believed that the force used in self-defense was
necessary to prevent the death or serious bodily harm threatened. Case X v. Z, 340 State X 344,
 Created by Emily Klein Alice, 2012

400 (2010); State X Revised Statute §24-333. To determine whether the defendant’s belief was
reasonable, the belief should be compared to a belief of an ordinary, prudent person in that same
or similar circumstances as the defendant. Case X , 340 State X at 400.

A defendant must prove that immediate use of unlawful force was threatened against them. Case
X , 340 State X at 400; State X Revised Statute §24-333. For self-defense to apply, the force
threatened must be both immediate and unlawful. Case X , 340 State X at 400.

SAMPLE ANSWER
[Broken down into sections] §

Overall Did Defendant act in self-defense against the minor?

Issue:

Overall Rule: For a person to prove they acted in self-defense, they must show that at the time of the incident,
they: 1) had a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to defend themselves; 2)
(Roadmap)
against the immediate use of unlawful force. State X Revised Statute §24-333. Both elements
must be met.

[IRAC for element #1-REASONABLE BELIEF]

Under State X’s law, was Defendant’s belief that the use of force was necessary to defend
I
himself reasonable?

A defendant must prove that he reasonably believed that the force used in self-defense
R was necessary to prevent the death or serious bodily harm threatened. Case X v. Z, 340
State X 344, 400 (2010); State X Revised Statute §24-333. To determine whether the
defendant’s belief was reasonable, the belief should be compared to a belief of an
ordinary, prudent person in that same or similar circumstances as the defendant. Case X ,
340 State X at 400.

A Here, Defendant, who had an unjustified suspicion, pursued the minor. Defendant could
not articulate why he pursued the minor other than he thought the minor was suspicious.
An ordinary, prudent person would most likely not have proactively pursued a person
walking openly on a sidewalk in a gated community without justifiable cause, which
Defendant did not have. A reasonable person would have considered that by pursuing the
§
Section labels are for reference. Do not include section labels in IRACs. Your paragraphs should label the sections with their content.
 Created by Emily Klein Alice, 2012

minor, the minor, acting in self-defense, may protect himself with aggression. Defendant
pursued the minor regardless. The minor did not have a weapon and, therefore, any belief
that Defendant had that shooting the minor was necessary to prevent the death or serious
bodily harm was unreasonable. A reasonable person would not have believed that deadly
force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm against an unarmed
pedestrian. Assuming arguendo the minor did pose some threat to Defendant, even
attacking Defendant, Defendant’s wounds, assuming the minor inflicted them, were Counter-
minimal and did not justify deadly force. However, if the minor was pounding Argument

Defendant’s head into the pavement, Defendant could have reasonably thought that
threat of death of serious bodily harm existed. Saying that, Defendant’s slight injuries
do not support the argument that the minor was pounding Defendant’s head into the
pavement.

C
Defendant’s belief that force was necessary to defend himself against the threat of death
or serious bodily harm was unreasonable.

[IRAC for element #2-IMMEDIATE, UNLAWFUL FORCE]

I Under State X’s law, did the minor threaten immediate use of unlawful force against
Defendant?

A defendant must prove that immediate use of unlawful force was threatened against
R them. Case X , 340 State X at 400; State X Revised Statute §24-333. For self-defense to
apply, the force threatened must be both immediate and unlawful. Case X, 340 State X at
400.

Here, the minor did not have a weapon. Moreover, the facts indicate that the minor was
A peacefully walking on the sidewalk before the events transpired. The minor was not
pursuing Defendant, Defendant was pursing the minor. The individual with the
unlawful force was Defendant, not the minor. One could argue that the events escalated
with the minor eventually attacking Defendant, as set forth by Defendant. If the minor
assaulted Defendant, that would constitute unlawful force and would be immediate. Counter-
Argument
However, Defendant’s slight injuries do not support that argument. Moreover, that
argument is based upon conjecture since no eye witnesses exist. Defendant’s wounds
could have just as plausibly resulted from the minor defending himself from
Defendant’s attack or could have been self-inflicted.

C Defendant cannot prove that immediate use of unlawful force was threatened against him.
 Created by Emily Klein Alice, 2012

Overall
Defendant’s belief that force was necessary to defend himself against the threat of death or
Analysis: serious bodily harm was unreasonable. Moreover, Defendant cannot prove that immediate use of
unlawful force was threatened against him. Defendant cannot prove either element required of
self-defense.

Overall
Conclusion: Therefore, Defendant will be unsuccessful in proving self-defense.

* Please note, whether you find Defendant acted in self-defense is not critical. The important thing
is the analysis and applying the facts to the law. Pick one side to argue and stick with it!