Evidence Flashcards
ALA quizzes, Kaplan Quizzes, Kaplan Qbank
A plaintiff brought suit against a car owner for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The car was driven by a neighbor, who was angry that the plaintiff would not allow him to date the plaintiff’s daughter. Liability is based on a statute that assesses liability on the automobile owner for the negligent actions of those driving with the owner’s consent. The plaintiff offers the testimony of his chiropractor’s receptionist that the plaintiff told her he needed an appointment for the neck and back pain he has had for several days. The car owner’s lawyer objects.
Which of the following is most accurate?
A The court should overrule the objection, because the evidence is admissible as a present sense impression.
B The court should overrule the objection, because the evidence is admissible as a statement for purposes of medical treatment or diagnosis.
C The court should sustain the objection, because a statement of personal history is not appropriate if the declarant is available.
D The court should sustain the objection, because the receptionist is not a medical professional.
The correct answer is: The court should overrule the objection, because the evidence is admissible as a statement for purposes of medical treatment or diagnosis.
Discussion of correct answer: The statement appears to be hearsay–an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. However, it should be admissible under the exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. Note that this exception does not apply only to physicians or other licensed practitioners; it also applies to their agents.
The defendant is on trial for battery. His defense is self-defense. In his case-in-chief, he offers the testimony of a witness who testifies as follows: “I have known the victim for 25 years and in my opinion the victim is a violent man.” The prosecutor objects to the testimony.
Is the testimony admissible?
A No, because it is improper character evidence.
B No, because it is improper lay opinion evidence.
C Yes, to show the victim acted in conformity with his character for violence.
D Yes, because it is circumstantial evidence of the peaceful character of the defendant.
The correct answer is: Yes, to show the victim acted in conformity with his character for violence.
Discussion of correct answer: Although it is the general rule that character evidence is inadmissible, there are instances when character evidence is admissible to prove a relevant character trait of the victim of a battery or some other violent crime with which a defendant is charged, often to support a claim of self-defense. Here, the defendant has offered evidence of a relevant character trait of the victim of the alleged battery. It is admissible in the form of an opinion or reputation evidence. It is a proper offer of character evidence, which the prosecutor is free to rebut, if she so chooses.
A musical instrument company is sued when one of its delivery trucks is involved in an accident with a passenger car. At trial, the plaintiff asserts that the company failed to properly maintain the brakes on the delivery truck. The company calls its head mechanic to testify that all of the company’s delivery trucks undergo a safety inspection, including an inspection of the brakes, every morning before the trucks leave the yard. He supervises the inspectors, but does not perform the inspections himself, and was not present in the yard on the morning of the accident. Is the head mechanic’s testimony admissible?
a. Yes, because it is evidence of the routine practice of a business.
b. Yes, because it is evidence of the company’s propensity for safe conduct.
c. No, because the head mechanic does not have personal knowledge that the vehicle was inspected that morning.
d. No, because only personal habits are admissible to show that a defendant acted according to habit on a particular occasion.
a. Yes, because it is evidence of the routine practice of a business.
A young husband and wife were going through a divorce. While the divorce was pending, the wife moved out, and the husband remained in the marital home. During the divorce negotiations, the wife sent the husband an email that stated: “You can have all of our furniture, but remember that the bedroom and kitchen furniture belongs to my parents, and they were just letting us use it temporarily.” In the stipulated divorce decree, the wife was awarded the marital home. After the divorce was finalized, the wife returned to the home and discovered that the husband had taken all of the furniture that belonged to her parents. The husband refused to return the furniture, claiming that the furniture was a gift from the wife’s parents and was awarded to him in the divorce. The wife’s parents sued the husband for conversion of the furniture. At trial, the parents’ attorney calls the wife as a witness to testify that the furniture was not a gift to the couple. On cross-examination, the husband’s attorney asks the wife: “Why did you suddenly claim that the furniture belonged to your parents after the divorce was final?”
On redirect, may the parents’ attorney question the wife about the email that the wife sent to the husband during the divorce negotiations?
A No, because the email is inadmissible hearsay.
B No, because the wife is not a party to the litigation.
C Yes, because the email is a recorded recollection.
D Yes, because the wife’s prior consistent statement is not hearsay.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the wife’s prior consistent statement is not hearsay.
Discussion of correct answer: A statement is not hearsay when the declarant testifies about the prior statement, and the statement is a prior consistent statement that is offered to rebut a claim that the declarant recently fabricated his/her testimony. The wife testifies at trial that the furniture was not a gift and belonged to her parents. On cross-examination, the husband’s attorney implies that the wife only claimed that the furniture belonged to her parents after the divorce was final. The wife’s email to the husband during the divorce negotiations is a prior statement that is consistent with the wife’s testimony that the furniture was her parents’. Thus, the wife’s prior consistent statement in the email is not hearsay and is admissible to rebut the charge that the wife fabricated the story after the divorce.
The plaintiff owned a very successful seafood restaurant. At the end of the previous season, the plaintiff became concerned about competition from a new restaurant approximately two miles away, and so he decided to hire a quality-control administrator who would help increase customer satisfaction and profitability. As one of his first new directives, the quality-control administrator created a spreadsheet and instructed the staff to keep tallies of any service-related issues. He had three headings on the spreadsheet: (1) food sent back based on quality; (2) complaints about service in general; and (3) comments about price.
About three months later, the plaintiff learned that his seafood supplier was being paid by the competitor to deliver subpar seafood to the plaintiff and keep the best product for the competitor. The plaintiff then brought suit against the competitor for intentional interference with a business relationship. In order to prove damages, the plaintiff called the quality-control administrator to testify as to the column on the spreadsheet that showed the number of meals that were send back due to food quality.
Is the quality-control administrator allowed to testify as to the spreadsheet?
A No, because the purpose of keeping the record was not sufficiently business-related.
B No, because the spreadsheet constitutes hearsay not within any exception.
C Yes, because the spreadsheet constitutes a past recollection recorded.
D Yes, because the spreadsheet is a business record.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the spreadsheet is a business record.
Discussion of correct answer: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here, the tallies are clearly written testimony being presented for the purpose of proving that the supplier was supplying the plaintiff’s restaurant with inferior seafood. Therefore, the spreadsheet is inadmissible hearsay unless it falls within a recognized hearsay exception. Because the spreadsheet was created for the purpose of improving the plaintiff’s business and not to further his litigation, it was made in the ordinary course of the plaintiff’s business. As such, it comes within the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
A homeowner purchased a lounge chair from a furniture store. Unfortunately, the chair collapsed while the homeowner was sitting on it, and he suffered a broken arm. The homeowner brought an action against the furniture store for negligence and breach of warranty.
At trial, the homeowner testified that one of the furniture store’s sales representatives told him, “We’re the only retailer of these lounge chairs that sells each chair with a money back guarantee on all parts and workmanship. The furniture store is confident in making this guarantee because specially-trained employees assemble and give each chair a 10-point inspection before delivery to the customer.”
The furniture store’s attorney called the homeowner’s aunt to the stand. On direct examination, the homeowner’s aunt testified that she happened to be at the store when the homeowner purchased the chair, that she did not recall whether or not the salesman made the warranty statement, and that she was not biased against the homeowner. The homeowner’s attorney then questioned the aunt about a bitter family dispute occurring several years ago between the aunt and her sister, the homeowner’s mother. The aunt has not spoken to her sister or her sister’s children, including the homeowner, since the dispute arose. The furniture store’s attorney objects to this line of questions by the homeowner’s attorney. Will the furniture store’s attorney succeed with his objection?
a. Yes, because this testimony addresses a collateral issue.
b. Yes, because this testimony does not have a tendency to prove or disprove any material fact.
c. No, because this testimony tends to establish the aunt’s bias.
d. No, because the testimony would be a statement of family history which fits within an exception to the hearsay rule.
c. No, because this testimony tends to establish the aunt’s bias.
A heartsick lover knew he was being foolish, but he just could not stop himself. The woman he was in love with was so beautiful, and she was so lonely with her husband in prison. She had told the lover that her husband was extremely jealous. She said that her husband was in prison because he had shot her last lover when he learned of their affair. About four months after he started seeing the woman, the lover received a telephone call from her. She seemed distraught, and cried, “My husband escaped from prison this evening, and he knows about us!” As expected, the husband called on the lover that evening. The lover shot the husband and was prosecuted for his murder. The lover claims self-defense. At trial, he attempts to testify to the woman’s statement that her husband was in prison because he had shot her last lover when he learned of the affair.
If the statement is offered to prove that the husband was in prison because he had shot the woman’s lover when he learned of the affair, should the statement be admitted?
A Yes, under the state-of-mind exception.
B Yes, as nonhearsay.
C No, as hearsay not within any exception.
D No, because it is self-serving.
The correct answer is: No, as hearsay not within any exception.
Discussion of correct answer: Under FRE 801(c), hearsay is: (1) any statement other than a statement made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing in which the statement is proffered; (2) which is offered into evidence in order to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here, this is hearsay because the question tells us that the lover offers the statement for the express purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that the husband had killed his wife’s prior lover. The statement does not fall within any exception, thus it is not admissible.
The defendant is on trial for battery. His defense is self-defense. In his case-in-chief, he offers the testimony of a witness who testifies as follows: “I have known the victim for 25 years and in my opinion the victim is a violent man.” The prosecutor objects to the testimony. Is the testimony admissible?
a. No, because it is improper character evidence.
b. No, because it is improper lay opinion evidence.
c. Yes, to show the victim acted in conformity with his character for violence.
d. Yes, because it is circumstantial evidence of the peaceful character of the defendant.
c. Yes, to show the victim acted in conformity with his character for violence.
During a farmer’s trial for theft by deception, the State calls a farmhand to testify. The farmhand is the farmer’s co-defendant, who pleaded guilty and received probation for his testimony against the farmer. If the defense attorney has a good-faith basis for the question, which of the following questions may he properly ask the farmhand?
a. Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
b. Have you ever been arrested for a felony?
c. Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor?
d. Have you ever been convicted of perjury or disorderly conduct (a misdemeanor)?
a. Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
A criminal defendant was on trial for fraud. The defense called the defendant’s friend as a character witness. He testified that he had known the defendant for 11 years and that he had a good reputation for honesty. After testifying on direct, the prosecution did not cross-examine the witness, and he was excused from the courtroom. On rebuttal, the prosecution sought to admit into evidence an investigative report by the FBI which outlined facts that tended to show that the friend was involved in two unlawful money-laundering operations. The defendant’s attorney objected. Is the report admissible?
a. No, because the witness was not questioned about the matter on cross-examination and was excused after testifying.
b. No, because the report constitutes an improper method of impeachment by attempting to prove specific instances of conduct by extrinsic evidence.
c. Yes, because a witness may be attacked by introducing evidence of prior bad acts that bear directly on dishonesty or untruthfulness.
d. Yes, because the defendant opened the door by calling the friend as a character witness.
b. No, because the report constitutes an improper method of impeachment by attempting to prove specific instances of conduct by extrinsic evidence.
A man was driving to work when his truck collided with a car driven by a woman, who was backing out of her driveway very quickly without looking or yielding to oncoming traffic. The man subsequently filed suit to recover damages from the woman, asserting that he had severely injured his left arm in the accident and that this injury had rendered him unable to work, as he was left-handed. The woman, in turn, claimed that the man’s injury was completely unrelated to the car accident and was the result of repetitive-motion syndrome. The man’s employer required its employees to have an annual examination. The previous year, three months before the accident, the man had visited the doctor for his yearly exam. During the trial, the man testified that his injury had caused him severe pain and left him physically unable to work. He then called the doctor to the stand to testify that the man had told him during the annual exam that his previous arm problems had gone away.
Should the doctor’s testimony be admitted over the woman’s objection?
A No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
B No, because the man did not make the statement for the purpose of medical treatment.
C Yes, because the man made the statement for the purpose of medical treatment.
D Yes, as a statement by a party-opponent.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the man made the statement for the purpose of medical treatment.
Discussion of correct answer: Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) allows the admission into evidence of a statement made to a healthcare professional for the purpose of a present medical diagnosis or treatment, describing past symptoms or history, as an exception to the rule excluding hearsay evidence. Here, the man visited the doctor for his general physical examination, to ensure that he was healthy and able to work. As such, his statement to the doctor would probably be regarded as one made for the purpose of treatment. Therefore, the statement should be admitted pursuant to this exception to the hearsay rule.
A realtor is arrested and charged with the arson of a house. On cross-examination of the realtor, the prosecution asked the realtor whether he had been convicted of fraudulent business practices four months earlier. The defense objects to the question. Assuming that the realtor was, in fact, convicted of fraudulent business practices, will the objection be sustained?
a. Yes, because the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
b. Yes, because the conviction of fraudulent business practices is unrelated to a charge of arson.
c. No, because the conviction can be used to show that the realtor has the propensity to lie.
d. No, because the conviction may serve as character evidence.
c. No, because the conviction can be used to show that the realtor has the propensity to lie.
A girlfriend and boyfriend, out to dinner at a restaurant, got into a heated argument. The boyfriend stood up angrily, and the woman stood up and started to leave. He followed her out, and they continued yelling at each other. They began walking on the street, where she tried to get away from him. She walked faster and faster, but he continued to follow her, yelling and gesticulating angrily. A stranger on the street saw her approaching in a panic. The girlfriend grabbed the stranger in a frenzy and begged for help, saying her boyfriend had just hit her and was chasing her.
The boyfriend was later arrested for assault. At trial, the girlfriend called as witnesses both the stranger and the girlfriend’s own best friend. The stranger planned to testify that the girlfriend had told him that her boyfriend had hit her that night. The best friend, with whom the girlfriend had been staying since the incident, planned to testify that the girlfriend had recently told her that the boyfriend had hit her. The boyfriend’s attorney objects to the testimony of both witnesses.
How is the court likely to rule?
A The testimony of both the stranger and the best friend will be admissible.
B The testimony of neither the stranger nor the best friend will be admissible.
C The testimony of the best friend will be admissible and the testimony of the stranger will be inadmissible.
D The testimony of the stranger will be admissible and the testimony of the best friend will be inadmissible.
The correct answer is: The testimony of the stranger will be admissible and the testimony of the best friend will be inadmissible.
Discussion of correct answer: A general rule of evidence is that any out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is inadmissible hearsay, unless an exception applies. Here, the state is trying to prove that the boyfriend assaulted his girlfriend that night after they left the restaurant, and among the evidence it seeks to introduce are two pieces of testimony concerning what the girlfriend said. Both statements, the one made to the stranger and the one made to the best friend, were made out of court, and both are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that the boyfriend hit his girlfriend. Unless an exception applies, neither will be admitted. The excited utterance exception will apply to the stranger’s testimony, but not to that of the best friend. Under the excited utterance exception, a statement that would otherwise be hearsay will be admissible if it was made under the stress of a startling or exciting event. The primary requirement is that the declarant was still under the influence of the emotional stress of the event when the statement was made. Here, the girlfriend was clearly under stress when she made the statement to the stranger, as she was running from her boyfriend, frantic. When she made the statement to her best friend, however, it was many days or even weeks later, after the stress of the incident had passed. Therefore, the statement to the best friend will not qualify as an excited utterance.
A restaurant patron sued a fast-food restaurant, alleging that she slipped and fell on a grease puddle on the floor that the restaurant had negligently failed to clean up within a reasonable time. As part of her case, to show the extent of damages, the restaurant patron offered the following testimony of her boyfriend: When he asked the restaurant patron to go sailing with him the day after the accident, she replied, “Sailing, no way! It will be a wonder if I can even stand up; my backside is killing me!” Opposing counsel objects to this testimony.
Should the trial court rule that the evidence is admissible or inadmissible?
A Inadmissible, because the declarant must be unavailable for a declaration of present bodily condition to be admitted.
B Inadmissible, because a recorded recollection must be in writing.
C Admissible, as an excited utterance.
D Admissible, as a declaration of present bodily condition.
The correct answer is:Admissible, as a declaration of present bodily condition.
Discussion of correct answer:This statement about the restaurant patron’s pain is within the hearsay exception for statements of present bodily condition. The present bodily condition exception is separate from the Federal Rule of Evidence exception for statements for the purpose of medical treatment, so it need not be to a medical provider or her agent to be admissible. The declarant’s availability is immaterial for both exceptions.
A woman called 911, telling the operator that her husband had hit her, threatened her children, and was now breaking objects in the living room. Once the husband saw her calling 911, he fled, and the caller told the operator where he went. The husband was arrested and charged with assault. At trial, the woman did not testify. Instead, the prosecution called the 911 operator to play the recording of what the woman said in her call. The husband’s attorney objected to the admission of the wife’s call to the police.
How should the trial court rule?
A The statement is inadmissible, because in criminal cases, all evidence presented against the defendant must be subject to cross-examination in front of the trier of fact.
B The statement is inadmissible, because it was testimonial in nature.
C The statement is admissible, as a statement made while under the stress of a startling event.
D The statement is admissible, because it was not testimonial in nature and qualifies as an excited utterance.
The correct answer is: The statement is admissible, because it was not testimonial in nature and qualifies as an excited utterance.
Discussion of correct answer: This call would be nontestimonial in nature (it is describing current events to help police deal with an emergency), and so everything the wife said, including the identity of the attacker, would be admissible in court. Therefore, even if she does not show up in court, the prosecutor can play the tape in order to get a conviction.
A college professor is on trial for the murder of her husband. The prosecution alleges that the professor paid one of her students to kill the victim. The student told his girlfriend the day after the husband’s death, “We’re rich! I just knocked off the old man and made $100,000 for five seconds’ work.” The student was a bit too exuberant, however, and a neighbor outside overheard every word. The student mysteriously disappeared before trial. Over the professor’s objection, the neighbor testified at trial as to the student’s remarks.
Why is the neighbor’s testimony regarding the student’s remarks admissible despite the professor’s objection?
A It is a statement with circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.
B It is a statement by an opposing party.
C It is a statement against penal interest.
D It is an excited utterance.
The correct answer is: It is a statement against penal interest.
Discussion of correct answer: If a declarant makes a statement against his penal interest and is unavailable for trial, the statement will qualify as a statement against interest and will be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule. The facts indicate the student has mysteriously disappeared. The student’s statement also meets this exception’s criteria that it was against the student’s penal interest when he said it and that a reasonable person would not have made the statement if it were not true. Therefore, this is the best answer.
While driving her company vehicle near a pedestrian mall, a woman came upon the scene of a three-car accident. She was so busy gawking at the damaged vehicles that she failed to see one of the victims lying on the road in front of her car. She hit and ran over the victim, who survived and sued the woman’s company. The victim offers the testimony of a witness to the incident. Referring to the woman, the witness stated, “The driver of that car ran over the victim as he was lying on the ground awaiting an ambulance, and said ‘It is all my fault, I should have been paying more attention to my driving.’” Assume for this question that the woman is available to testify.
How should the trial judge rule on the admission of the testimony?
A Admissible, as a statement against interest.
B Admissible, as a present sense impression.
C Admissible, as a statement by a party-opponent.
D Inadmissible, as hearsay not within any recognized exception.
The correct answer is: Admissible, as a statement by a party-opponent.
Discussion of correct answer: A statement will not be barred from admission by the general rule against hearsay where the statement is offered against an opposing party and was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed. Indeed, there is a substantial trend favoring the admission of statements relating to matters within the scope of the agency or employment. Therefore, this answer is correct, because the statement will be admitted as a vicarious statement by a party-opponent.
A woman sued her former employer for wrongful termination. During discovery, the woman’s attorney found out that the woman’s former supervisor, a key witness for the woman’s case, was terminally ill. The woman’s attorney deposed the supervisor. The employer’s attorney attended the deposition but did not cross-examine the supervisor.
If the supervisor dies prior to trial, is the supervisor’s deposition testimony admissible as substantive evidence?
A No, because the employer’s attorney did not cross-examine the supervisor.
B No, because the supervisor’s deposition is hearsay.
C Yes, because the supervisor’s deposition is former testimony.
D Yes, because the supervisor’s deposition was under the belief of imminent death.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the supervisor’s deposition is former testimony.
Discussion of correct answer: There is a hearsay exception for former testimony that applies when the declarant is unavailable to testify at trial. This exception requires that the testimony was given at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, and it is offered against a party who had an opportunity to develop the former testimony. The supervisor’s deposition is former testimony, and the supervisor is unavailable because she passed away. The employer’s attorney had the opportunity to cross-examine the supervisor at the deposition, and it is immaterial that the employer’s attorney chose not to do so. The supervisor’s deposition is therefore admissible substantively at trial as former testimony.
A brother and a sister were arguing about their parents’ estate, and it became a heated exchange where many long-simmering resentments exploded. The sister grabbed a lamp and threw it at her brother, and her brother then grabbed his sister and began choking her in anger and frustration. She collapsed and, realizing he had gone too far, he called 911. When the ambulance arrived, the sister was barely conscious. She was trying to speak, but the medic told her to stay calm and quiet until they could get her to the hospital or she risked death.
Moments later her neighbor came rushing in and dropped to the sister’s side, asking what happened and if she was ok. The sister mustered up every bit of energy she could and whispered to her neighbor, “Don’t worry about me, I need to tell someone that I saw my brother burn his house down last week.”
The sister was taken to the hospital and made a full recovery. Indeed, the brother’s house had burned down the week before, and he had submitted a claim with his insurance company. When the neighbor told the police about the sister’s statement, the prosecutor filed an arson charge against the brother.
At the arson trial, will the sister’s statement be admissible against the brother?
A No, because her statement does not concern the cause of her belief of imminent death.
B No, because she did not die.
C Yes, because she made the statement believing her death was imminent.
D Yes, because it is being offered in a criminal action.
The correct answer is: No, because her statement does not concern the cause of her belief of imminent death.
Discussion of correct answer: In general, a statement made out of court that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is considered hearsay and will be inadmissible. There are certain exceptions, however, where testimony that is considered hearsay will be admitted. One such exception is a statement made under a belief that death is imminent. If a declarant makes an out of court statement under such a belief, and the statement is about the cause or circumstances leading to that belief, it will be admitted in a homicide or civil case if the declarant is unavailable to testify. Here, the state is seeking to admit a statement made by the sister out of court to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that the brother burned down his house. Her testimony is therefore inadmissible hearsay unless an exception applies. Although she was under a belief that her death was imminent, her statement made under that belief was not about the cause or circumstances surrounding her present condition. She made it clear that she was speaking about another incident entirely. Therefore, her statement will not qualify for this exception and will be inadmissible.
At a defendant’s trial for intoxication manslaughter, which of the following is admissible if offered to show she was intoxicated?
A The defendant’s bar receipt which was found in her car.
B The defendant’s statement to a bystander that the defendant didn’t realize how many drinks she had consumed.
C Testimony from a witness that the witness told the defendant after the accident that the defendant smelled like alcohol.
D Testimony from the bartender that the bartender told the defendant that the defendant was too intoxicated to drive.
The correct answer is: The defendant’s statement to a bystander that the defendant didn’t realize how many drinks she had consumed.
Discussion of correct answer: FRE 801 defines what constitutes hearsay and what statements are not considered hearsay. This is slightly different from the exceptions to hearsay contained in FRE 803 and FRE 804 because non-hearsay statements don’t go through the initial step of being classified as hearsay and then the second step of satisfying an exemption. One statement that is defined as non-hearsay is a statement by a party opponent if the statement is being offered against a party and was made by that party. Here, the defendant made the statement to a witness about how many drinks she had consumed. If it is being offered to show that she was intoxicated, it would be being offered by the prosecution, to which she is the party opponent. Her statement would therefore be non-hearsay and admissible at trial.
A heartsick lover knew he was being foolish, but he just could not stop himself. The woman he was in love with was so beautiful, and she was so lonely, with her husband in prison. She had told the lover that her husband was extremely jealous. She said that her husband was in prison because he had shot her last lover when he learned of the affair. About four months after he started seeing the woman, the lover received a telephone call from her. She seemed distraught, and cried, “My husband escaped from prison this evening, and he knows about us!” As expected, the husband called on the lover that evening. The lover shot the husband and was prosecuted for his murder. The lover claims self-defense. At trial, he attempts to testify to the woman’s statement that her husband was in prison because he had shot her last lover when he learned of the affair.
If the statement is offered to prove that the husband was in prison because he had shot the woman’s lover when he learned of the affair, should the statement be admitted?
a. Yes, under the state of mind exception.
b. Yes, as non-hearsay.
c. No, as hearsay not within any exception.
d. No, because it is self-serving.
c. No, as hearsay not within any exception.
A woman served for several years as the CEO of a successful Fortune 500 company until she was forced out by the board of directors. The company was involved in some environmental litigation against a group of public interest plaintiffs. Shortly after her resignation, and after she had moved to a different job, she wrote a letter to one of the plaintiffs that contained the following language, “We both know this litigation has dragged on too long. I’ve kept a secret for a long time, but I think it’s time you should know. Our company was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the protected wetland. We did everything we could to hide it from you, but it’s time you knew the truth. We did it, and we knew what we were doing.”
Is the woman’s letter admissible against the company in the environmental litigation?
A Yes, because it is a statement against interest.
B Yes, because it is a statement by a party-opponent.
C No, because the statement was not made at or near the time of the incident.
D No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
The correct answer is: No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Discussion of correct answer: While it is tempting to claim that this is a vicarious statement by a party-opponent by an authorized agent, the problem with that theory is that the woman did not make the statement while she was employed by the company. In fact, she made it after her employment had ended. The statement might well be true, but she cannot bind the company by her statements the way that she could while she was still acting as CEO. The law permits agents of a company to bind the company with their statements while they are still an agent or employee. Once that relationship has ended, the person no longer has the ability to make a vicarious statement on behalf of the company. In this case, the woman was forced out as CEO and could have an incentive to be untruthful so as to hurt the company.
A plaintiff sued a defendant for injuries suffered in a fall on the sidewalk of the defendant’s home. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the walk was covered by a thick sheet of ice, which had been negligently left there for several days by the defendant. In his answer, the defendant set forth that the ice formed overnight and that the plaintiff fell before the defendant had a chance to remove it. During the trial, a physician, whose office was next door to the defendant’s home, testified that he saw the plaintiff fall and that the ice, which had been there for several days was at least two inches thick. On cross-examination, counsel for the defendant asked the physician the following question: “During your treatment of the plaintiff on the day in question, is it not true that he told you his fall resulted from a loss of equilibrium after he suffered from dizziness?”
Upon objection by the plaintiff’s attorney, how should the court rule on the physician’s testimony?
A Admissible, because it is reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
B Admissible, because the physician had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s injuries.
C Inadmissible, because the defendant’s counsel failed to lay a proper foundation.
D Inadmissible, because the physician’s testimony is not relevant to prove that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries are false or exaggerated.
The correct answer is: Admissible, because it is reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion of correct answer: The Federal Rules of Evidence allows not only statements of past symptoms and medical history as exceptions under the hearsay rule, but also the cause or source of a patient’s past physical condition, insofar as it is reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. In this regard, the plaintiff’s statements to the physician would be admissible as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis and/or treatment regarding the cause or source of his injuries.
A husband and his wife recently put a down payment on a plot of land on which a developer planned to construct new homes. The contract between the husband and wife and the developer contained a “satisfaction guarantee” clause. Upon closing, the husband discovered that the house did not meet their specifications. The husband and wife brought suit against the developer, seeking specific performance. At trial, the developer’s attorney sought to question the wife as to whether she and her husband ever discussed any details of their soon-to-be home. The wife’s attorney objected to this question. Assuming that the state in which this trial is being held recognizes a privilege by one spouse not to testify against another spouse in a civil action, how should the judge rule on the objection?
a. Overruled, because the privilege of marital communications is lost when both the husband and the wife are parties to a suit.
b. Overruled, because the wife waived any objection to such testimony by taking the stand.
c. Sustained, because the question solicited information concerning private conversations between the husband and the wife.
d. Sustained, because the wife cannot be compelled to testify against the husband under any circumstance.
c. Sustained, because the question solicited information concerning private conversations between the husband and the wife.