Evidence

Question 1

Admissibility of Prior Crimes or Bad Acts for noncharacter purposes

Answer 1

MIMIC
Motive 
Intent 
Absence of Mistake (i.e. you don't shoot your wife twice)
Identity 
Common plan/scheme 

Can be for other noncharacter purposes as well

Question 2

Child Witnesses

Answer 2

A child’s competency to testify depends on

1. intelligence
2. ability to tell the difference between truths and lies
3. understanding the importance of telling the truth

Question 3

Best Evidence Rule

Answer 3

Best Evidence Rule provides that an original or reliable duplicate must be admitted to prove contents of the document if:

1. a witness relies on the document and
2. the contents of the document are at issue

Exceptions:

1. Original is unavailable
2. Admission by party as to contents
3. Public record

Question 4

Former Testimony Hearsay Exception

Answer 4

Former testimony is admissible despite qualifying as hearsay if:

1. declarant is unavailable
2. declarant had given testimony at a prior proceeding/deposition
3. the party it is admitted against had the opportunity to cross declarant on a similar issue with similar motive

Question 5

Opposing Party Statement Hearsay Exclusion

Answer 5

A statement that might otherwise qualify as hearsay is NOT hearsay if it

1. is the party’s own statement OR one the party has adopted in some manner
2. the out of court statement is offered against the party-declarant

Question 6

Stipulated Fact Evidence

Answer 6

Evidence is still relevant even if it goes solely to a stipulated fact. However, its probative value for the purpose of the Rule 403 Balancing Test is very minimal.

Question 7

Hearsay within Hearsay

Answer 7

Hearsay within hearsay is admissible if each component has its own valid exception.

Question 8

Then-Existing State of Mind

Answer 8

Hearsay may qualify as admissible if it falls within the then-existing state of mind exception. This exception provides that a statement that demonstrates the declarant’s intent, motive, or plan can be used to prove that he acted in conformity with that state of mind. (Note that the plan is an inherently FUTURE looking inference, but still qualifies as THEN-EXISTING STATE OF MIND).

Question 9

Excited Utterance

Answer 9

Hearsay may qualify as admissible if it falls within the excited utterance exception. This exception provides that a statement made by the declarant about a startling even/condition while the declarant is still under the stress/excitement of that event/condition is admissible. The statement must RELATE to the event, but the declarant could have been a mere observer

Question 10

Present Sense Impression

Answer 10

Hearsay may qualify as admissible if it falls within the present sense impression exception. This exception provides that a statement is admissible if it is made while or immediately after perceiving the content of the statement.