Evidence 2 Flashcards
Don is prosecuted for larceny. At trial, Juan testifies that Shaun said he saw Don leave a store without paying for the item in his hand. Whose out of court statement, if any, is repeated by Juan’s testimony?
a) Don
b) Juan
c) Shaun
d) None of the above
c) Shaun
Don is prosecuted for larceny. At trial, Juan testifies that Shaun said he saw Don leave a store without paying for the item in his hand. What fact, if any, is asserted by the out of court statement?
a) Don walked out of the store without paying for the item in his hand.
b) Shaun walked out of the store without paying for the item in his hand.
c) Shaun believes Don is guilty of larceny.
d) None of the above.
a) Don walked out of the store without paying for the item in his hand.
Don is prosecuted for larceny. At trial, Juan testifies that Shaun said he saw Don leave a store without paying for the item in his hand. To what issue, if any, is the fact asserted by the out of court statement relevant?
a) Whether Juan was in a position to see the larceny occur.
b) Whether Don committed the actus reus of larceny.
c) Whether Shaun believes Don is guilty of larceny.
d) None of the above.
b) Whether Don committed the actus reus of larceny.
Don is prosecuted for larceny. At trial, Juan testifies that Shaun said he saw Don leave a store without paying for the item in his hand. Is the out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted?
a) Yes, because it proves that Don is guilty.
b) Yes, because we are asked to consider whether the factual assertion is true for it to be relevant.
c) No, because it is offered to show only what Shaun believes, not what actually happened.
d) No, because it is an out-of-court statement.
b) Yes, because we are asked to consider whether the factual assertion is true for it to be relevant.
On the issue of identity of V’s shooter, testimony as to V’s statement, “D shot me, as he often threatened to do.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
a) Hearsay
On the issue whether D made threats to shoot V, testimony as to V’s statement, “D shot me, as he often threatened to do.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
a) Hearsay
On the issue of V’s consciousness after the attack, testimony as to V’s statement, “D shot me, as he often threatened to do.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
On the issue of whether Y raped V, testimony as to V’s statement to X, her husband, “Y ravished me.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
a) Hearsay
On the issue of X’s provocation for assaulting Y, testimony as to V’s statement to X, her husband, “Y ravished me.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
On the issue of X’s sanity, the testimony of X’s psychiatrist, “X has been confined in an insane asylum.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
On the issue of X’s knowledge of his impending death, testimony as to W’s statement to X, “You have only a few minutes to live.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
On the issue of X’s knowledge of his impending death, testimony as to X’s statement, “I realize that I am dying.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
a) Hearsay
On the issue whether X and D were engaged to be married, testimony as to D’s statement to X, “I promise to marry you on June 1, 2020.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
On the issue of D’s ill feeling toward X, testimony as to D’s statement, “X is a liar and a hypocrite.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
On the issue of reasonableness of D’s conduct in shooting V, testimony as to W’s statement to D prior to the shooting, “V has threatened to kill you on sight.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
On the issue of whether D killed X, testimony by Y, “D fled immediately after X’s murder.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
On the issue of whether D killed X, testimony by Y, “Z saw D flee immediately after X’s murder.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
a) Hearsay
In an action for personal injuries, on the defense of assumption of risk, testimony by W that an hour before the accident, in the presence of plaintiff, a mechanic said, “The spindle on that front wheel may break at any moment.”
a) Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
b) Not Hearsay
Out-of court statements that fall within a hearsay exception may be used for the truth of the matter asserted, whereas out-of-court statements that fall within a hearsay exclusion may only be used for some other purpose.
a) True.
b) False.
b) False.
It is more important to distinguish whether an out-of-court statement falls within a hearsay exception or exclusion than it is to determine whether the statement is admissible for the truth of the matter asserted.
a) True.
b) False.
b) False.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. In his case-in-chief, Dion calls Xavier, who testifies that Warren told him that Pia drafted the contract. Pia objects on hearsay grounds. In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible for the truth of the matter asserted and to impeach.
b) Admissible for the truth of the matter asserted but not to impeach.
c) Not admissible for the truth, but admissible to impeach.
d) Not admissible for the truth or to impeach.
c) Not admissible for the truth, but admissible to impeach.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. On cross-examination of Warren, Dion offers Warren’s deposition testimony, in which he claimed Pia drafted the contract. Pia objects on hearsay grounds. In federal court, the evidence is:
a) Admissible for the truth of the matter asserted and to impeach.
b) Admissible for the truth of the matter asserted but not to impeach.
c) Not admissible for the truth but admissible to impeach.
d) Not admissible for the truth or to impeach.
a) Admissible for the truth of the matter asserted and to impeach.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. In his case-in-chief, Dion calls Xavier, who testifies that Warren told him that he had no idea who drafted the contract. Pia objects on hearsay grounds. In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible for the truth of the matter asserted and to impeach.
b) Admissible for the truth of the matter asserted but not to impeach.
c) Not admissible for the truth, but admissible to impeach.
d) Not admissible for the truth or to impeach, because the statement is not inconsistent.
c) Not admissible for the truth, but admissible to impeach.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. On cross-examination of Warren, Dion offers Xavier’s deposition testimony, in which he testified that Warren claimed he had no idea who drafted the contract. Pia objects on hearsay grounds. In federal court, the evidence is:
a) Admissible for the truth of the matter asserted and to impeach.
b) Admissible for the truth of the matter asserted but not to impeach.
c) Not admissible for the truth but admissible to impeach.
d) Not admissible for the truth or to impeach.
d) Not admissible for the truth or to impeach.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. In his case-in-chief, Dion calls Xavier, who testifies that Warren told him Pia drafted the contract. In closing argument, Dion’s attorney argues, “We know that what really happened was that Pia drafted the contract, because that’s what Warren said to Xavier back when events were fresher in his memory.” Pia’s attorney objects as improper argument. How should the judge rule?
a) Sustained.
b) Overruled.
a) Sustained.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. On cross-examination, Dion asks, “Isn’t it true you told Xavier that you had no idea who drafted the contract?” Warren admits that is true. On re-direct, Pia asks, “Prior to telling Xavier that, did you tell anyone else that Dion drafted the contract?” Warren answers, “Yes, a month before I told that to Xavier, I told my boss that Dion drafted the contract.” Dion objects on hearsay grounds. In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible for the truth and to rehabilitate credibility.
b) Admissible for the truth but not to rehabilitate credibility.
c) Not admissible for the truth but admissible to rehabilitate credibility.
d) Not admissible for the truth or to rehabilitate credibility.
a) Admissible for the truth and to rehabilitate credibility.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. Pia’s attorney then asks, “Shortly after the contract was signed, did you tell anyone else that Dion drafted the contract?” Warren answers, “Yes, about a week later, I told my boss that Dion drafted the contract.” Dion objects on hearsay grounds. In federal court, the objection is:
a) Sustained, because the prior statement was not under oath.
b) Sustained, because the prior statement is not being used to rehabilitate credibility.
c) Overruled, because prior consistent statements do not need to be under oath.
d) Overruled, because because the prior statement need not relate to credibility.
b) Sustained, because the prior statement is not being used to rehabilitate credibility.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. On cross-examination, Dion asks, “Isn’t it true you told Xavier that you had no idea who drafted the contract?” Warren admits that is true. On re-direct, Pia asks, “Prior to testifying, did you tell anyone else that Dion drafted the contract?” Warren answers, “Yes, I told my boss that Dion drafted the contract.” Dion objects on hearsay grounds. In federal court, the objection is:
a) Sustained, because the prior consistent statement was under oath.
b) Sustained, because the prior statement does not predate the prior inconsistent statement.
c) Overruled, because there need not be an attack on credibility to use a prior consistent statement.
d) Overruled, because there has been no express or implied charge of improper influence or motive, but credibility has otherwise been attacked.
d) Overruled, because there has been no express or implied charge of improper influence or motive, but credibility has otherwise been attacked.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. On cross-examination, Dion asks, “Isn’t it true that you used to work for Dion but he fired you three months ago?” Warren admits that is true. On re-direct, Pia asks, “Just prior to testifying, did you tell anyone else that Dion drafted the contract?” Warren answers, “Yes, I told my new boss that Dion drafted the contract.” Dion objects on hearsay grounds. In federal court, the objection is:
a) Admissible for the truth and to rehabilitate credibility.
b) Admissible for the truth but not to rehabilitate credibility.
c) Not admissible for the truth but admissible to rehabilitate credibility.
d) Not admissible for the truth or to rehabilitate credibility.
d) Not admissible for the truth or to rehabilitate credibility.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. On cross-examination, Dion asks, “This contract was drafted almost two years ago?” Warren admits that is true. On re-direct, Pia asks, “Prior to testifying, did you tell anyone else that Dion drafted the contract?” Warren answers, “Yes, I told my boss that Dion drafted the contract.” Dion objects on hearsay grounds. In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible for the truth and to rehabilitate credibility.
b) Admissible for the truth but not to rehabilitate credibility.
c) Not admissible for the truth but admissible to rehabilitate credibility.
d) Not admissible for the truth or to rehabilitate credibility.
d) Not admissible for the truth or to rehabilitate credibility.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. On cross-examination, Dion asks, “Isn’t it true you told Xavier that you had no idea who drafted the contract?” Warren admits that is true. On re-direct, Pia asks, “Prior to telling Xavier that, did you tell anyone else that Dion drafted the contract?” Warren answers, “Yes, a month before I told that to Xavier, I told my boss that Dion drafted the contract.” In closing argument, Pia argues, “We know the truth is that Dion drafted the contract, because Warren not only testified to that in court, but because he said the same thing to his boss a month before he spoke to Xavier.” Dion objects as improper argument, asserting that it is unfair that Pia should be permitted to use the prior consistent statement not under oath for the truth, when Dion himself is not permitted to use the prior inconsistent statement not under oath for the truth. In federal court, the objection is:
a) Sustained.
b) Overruled.
b) Overruled.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he saw Dion draft up the contract. He also testifies that two days later, he was walking down the street and saw Dion, and said, “There’s the guy who drafted the contract.” Dion objects on hearsay grounds, arguing that there has been no attack on credibility and so this is impermissible bolstering with a prior consistent statement. In federal court, the objection is:
a) Sustained.
b) Overruled.
b) Overruled.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia first calls Xavier, who testifies that he was walking down the street with Warren and saw Dion, and Warren said, “There’s the guy who drafted the contract.” Dion objects on hearsay grounds. Pia responds that it is a statement of identification. In federal court, the objection is:
a) Sustained.
b) Overruled.
a) Sustained.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, and never asks him about who drafted up the contract. As her next witness, Pia calls Xavier, who testifies that he was walking down the street with Warren and saw Dion, and Warren said, “There’s the guy who drafted the contract.” Dion objects on hearsay grounds. Pia responds that it is a statement of identification. In federal court, the objection is:
a) Sustained.
b) Overruled.
b) Overruled.
Pia sues Dion for breach of contract. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pia calls Warren, who testifies that he Dion drafted the contract. He also testifies that a week later, he told his boss that Dion drafted the contract. Dion objects on hearsay grounds. Pia responds that it is a statement of identification. In federal court, the objection is:
a) Sustained.
b) Overruled.
a) Sustained.
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that after the accident, Dan jumped out of his car and said, “It was all my fault.” Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam calls Will, an eyewitness, who testifies that after the accident, Dan jumped out of his car and said, “It was all my fault.” Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that after the accident, Will said, “It was all Dan’s fault.” Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
a) Sustained
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that after the accident Dan jumped out of his car and said, “I can’t get this blindfold off.” Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds, arguing that it is not a party-opponent admission because Dan is not “admitting” to anything. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam’s attorney cross-examines Dan and asks, “Isn’t it true that after the accident you jumped out of your car and said that it was all your fault?” Dan’s attorney objects that the question calls for hearsay. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam’s attorney cross-examines Dan and asks, “Isn’t it true that after the accident, Pam jumped out of her car and said that it was all your fault?” Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
a) Sustained
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that Will informed her that after the accident, Dan jumped out of his car and said, “It was all my fault!” Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
a) Sustained
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that after the accident, Dan jumped out of his car and said, “It was all my fault.” Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds, arguing that the statement is not admissible because Dan has not yet testified. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that after the accident, Dan jumped out of his car and said, “I would say your injuries are going to be permanent.” Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds, arguing that the statement is not admissible because Dan has no expertise or basis in personal knowledge to make this statement. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Dan is prosecuted for reckless driving when he struck Pam with his car while crossing an intersection. Dan testifies that after the accident, Pam said, “I guess I shouldn’t have been texting.” The prosecution object on hearsay grounds. Defense counsel responds that it is a statement of a party opponent. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
a) Sustained
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that after the accident, she jumped out of her car and said, “I can’t believe you did that! Why weren’t you looking where you were going?” and that Dan said nothing in response. Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What is a judge’s likely ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that after the accident, she jumped out of her car and said, “I can’t believe you did that! Why weren’t you looking where you were going?” and that Dan responded, “You got me.” Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that after the accident, as Dan was being wheeled on a stretcher into an ambulance by paramedics, Pam said to him, “I can’t believe you did that! Why weren’t you looking where you were going?” and that Dan said nothing in response. Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What is a judge’s likely ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
a) Sustained
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that after the accident, after hearing Dan’s passenger, Ed, say to Dan, “Whatever you do, don’t say a word to anyone until the police arrive,” Pam said to Dan, “I can’t believe you did that! Why weren’t you looking where you were going?” and that Dan said nothing in response. Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What is a judge’s likely ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
a) Sustained
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Dan testifies that after the accident, Pam jumped out of her car and said, “I can’t believe you did that! Why weren’t you looking where you were going?” and that Dan said, “No I didn’t.” Pam’s attorney objects to the admission of Dan’s response on hearsay grounds. What is a judge’s likely ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
a) Sustained
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Dan testifies that Pam caused the accident. On cross-examination, Pam’s attorney gets Dan to admit that he did not tell the police who caused the accident. On re-direct examination, Dan testifies that immediately after the accident, Pam jumped out of her car and said, “I can’t believe you did that! Why weren’t you looking where you were going?” and that Dan said, “No I didn’t.” Pam’s attorney objects to the admission of Dan’s response on hearsay grounds. What is a judge’s likely ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that after the accident, she jumped out of her car and said, “I can’t believe you did that! Why weren’t you looking where you were going?” and that an eyewitness, Fred, responded, “You can say that again.” Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
a) Sustained
Patty sues OT&T for breach of contract. At trial, Patty testifies that when she called the phone number listed on OT&T’s website, a woman answered the phone and said, “This is Angie with OT&T Customer Service. Tell us what you’re paying for monthly phone service and we can beat it by 50%,” but that afterwards, OT&T starting sending her monthly bills 20% higher than what she was paying before. OT&T objects on hearsay grounds. What is a judge’s likely ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
In support of its hearsay objection in the previous question, OT&T makes an offer of proof that Angie’s supervisor instructed her to inquire as to potential customer’s current rates, but did not authorize her to bind the company to any discount offers. In light of this, what is a judge’s likely ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Patty sues OT&T for breach of contract. At trial, Patty testifies that while at a nightclub, she met a man who claimed that he was a human resources assistant for OT&T, and that he assured her would get her a rate with OT&T that was 50% lower than her current rate. OT&T objects on hearsay grounds. What is a judge’s likely ruling?
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
a) Sustained
D’Angelo is prosecuted for possession of narcotics with intent to distribute. D’Angelo testifies that he ran errands for Stringer Bell (who had been convicted of overseeing a drug smuggling operation), but denied that the work involved dealing drugs. The prosecution then calls Wallace and Bodie, two errand-runners for Stringer Bell, who both admit that they sold drugs for Bell. Wallace also testifies that Bell said, “There’s only one errand I ever need run for me: selling my drugs. Everyone who works for me knows that.” D’Angelo’s attorney objects on hearsay grounds. What is a judge’s likely ruling?
Question options:
a) Sustained
b) Overruled
b) Overruled
Dan is prosecuted for illegal possession of narcotics. At trial, the prosecution calls Al, who testifies that when the police approached Dan and him, he saw Dan toss a baggie of white powder into a nearby trashcan. Dan’s attorney objects on hearsay. How should the judge rule?
Question options:
a) Overrule.
b) Sustain.
a) Overrule.
Which of the following statement is true?
Question options:
a) A party is not generally bound by an admission in response to a request for admissions, since those documents are generally prepared by counsel, not the client.
b) A party may not be impeached by the fact that they amended an unverified answer to a complaint.
c) A party may not present evidence that contradicts an admission in a verified answer to a complaint.
d) A party may present evidence that contradicts a stipulation to a fact.
c) A party may not present evidence that contradicts an admission in a verified answer to a complaint.
Pam sued Dan for injuries allegedly sustained in a car accident between them. Al witnessed the accident, but died prior to trial. Pam testifies that when Dan heard that Al died, Dan said, “Good, I’m glad he’s dead, I would have done it myself if I could have.” Pam then wants to introduce a statement she heard Al say shortly after the accident, “Dan ran the red light.” Dan’s attorney objects to the latter statement on hearsay grounds. What ruling?
Question options:
a) Overruled.
b) Sustained.
b) Sustained.
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. At trial, Pam testifies that during the mediation, Dan said, “It was all my fault.” Over proper objection by the defense, should the statement be admitted?
Question options:
a) Yes.
b) No.
b) No.
In a sexual harassment suit by Typist against Boss, Typist alleged that promotions went to those who granted sexual favors to Boss and were denied to those who refused him such favors. On the question whether a former employee who was promoted, Secretary, had had sexual intercourse with Boss, Typist calls W to testify that Typist had said to Secretary in W’s presence, “Of course you were promoted instead of me. I didn’t sleep with Boss, like you did.” The evidence is
a) Not hearsay.
b) Hearsay but admissible as an adoptive admission.
c) Hearsay but admissible as an agent admission.
d) Hearsay, not within any exception or exclusion.
d) Hearsay, not within any exception or exclusion.
In a sexual harassment suit by Typist against Boss, Typist alleged that promotions went to those who granted sexual favors to Boss and were denied to those who refused him such favors. On the question whether Secretary had had sexual intercourse with Boss, W is offered to testify that when Typist made the statement, “Of course you were promoted instead of me. I didn’t sleep with Boss, like you did,” Secretary heard the statement and did not respond. Assume Secretary was no longer employed by Boss at the time. The evidence is
a) Not hearsay.
b) Hearsay not within any exception or exclusion.
c) Hearsay but admissible as an admission.
d) Hearsay, admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
b) Hearsay not within any exception or exclusion.
In a sexual harassment suit by Typist against Boss, Typist alleged that promotions went to those who granted sexual favors to Boss and were denied to those who refused him such favors. On the question whether a former employee, Secretary, had had sexual intercourse with Boss, Y is offered to testify that when Boss heard about the discussion between Typist and Secretary referenced in the prior question, Boss had mused, “I wonder how Typist found out.” The evidence is
a) Not hearsay.
b) Hearsay, but admissible as an admission.
c) Hearsay, but admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
d) Hearsay, not within any exception.
b) Hearsay, but admissible as an admission.
In a sexual harassment suit by Typist against Boss, Typist alleged that promotions went to those who granted sexual favors to Boss and were denied to those who refused him such favors. At trial, Boss denies having ever demanded sex from Typist. Typist then offers testimony that, at a settlement conference, Boss stated, “Look, I see you’re upset. Why don’t I pay you $10,000 and we can just forget about your turning me down or how badly I reacted at work, ok?”
a) Hearsay, but admissible as an admission by a party opponent.
b) Hearsay, but admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
c) Hearsay, not within any exception or exemption.
d) Inadmissible for reasons of public policy.
d) Inadmissible for reasons of public policy.
Joe tried to convince Vince to let him join Vince’s high-stakes poker game by telling Vince (falsely) that he had an original Delorean car that was worth six figures. Joe lost all his money in the game and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. In a hearing to determine the validity of Joe’s claim of insolvency, a creditor sought to introduce Joe’s claim to Vince that had an original Delorean car that was worth six figures. Over a hearsay objection by Joe’s counsel, the statement is
a) Admissible because it is not offered for its truth, but rather for its falsity.
b) Admissible for its truth.
c) Not admissible because Joe believed the statement was in his interest when he made it.
d) Not admissible because Joe lacked personal knowledge of the value of an original Delorean.
b) Admissible for its truth.
Deakins, an accountant, is on trial for money laundering. At trial, the prosecution calls Ward, who testifies, “I spoke to Eddie, who told me that Deakins had fired him a month earlier. He said that Deakins was a notorious money launderer, and that back when he worked for Deakins, Deakins routinely asked him to ‘cook the books.’” Over a hearsay objection by defense counsel, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a coconspirator admission.
b) Admissible as an agent admission.
c) Inadmissible if offered for its truth.
d) Inadmissible because, as an ex-employee of Deakins, his statement against Deakins is suspect.
c) Inadmissible if offered for its truth.
Sampson is on trial for murder. In its case in chief, the prosecution calls Park to the stand. Park lives next door to where the murders occurred. Park offers to testify that he heard the dog that lives in the house where the murders occurred howling at 10:15 on the night of the murders. The prosecution is offering the evidence to establish that the time of death was at 10:15 p.m. Sampson’s attorney objects. The court should:
a) Sustain the objection because Sampson’s attorney cannot cross-examine the dog.
b) Sustain the objection because the dog howling is an out-of court statement that does not fit within any hearsay exception.
c) Overrule the objection as an adoptive admission.
d) Overrule the objection as non-hearsay.
d) Overrule the objection as non-hearsay.
P Corp. sues D Corp. for breach of contract. To prove the intent of the parties to the contract, S, sales manager of P Corp., testifies extensively as to the negotiations. When asked by P Corp.’s attorney whether there had been any discussion of a discount for early delivery, S responded, “Yes, but I don’t recall all the details. I would have to check my negotiation notes to be sure of some of the details.” At this stage of the examination of the witness, to prove the details of the negotiations about the discount:
a) S must testify from his unaided memory.
b) S may read the relevant portion of his negotiation notes aloud but the notes may not be offered into evidence by P Corp.
c) The relevant portion of S’s negotiation notes may be offered into evidence if S first examines them, and identifies them as his own.
d) S may silently examine his negotiation notes, return them to the attorney, and testify from memory.
d) S may silently examine his negotiation notes, return them to the attorney, and testify from memory.
Suit by A Corp. against B Corp. for failure to deliver some of the items purchased by A Corp. under a contract. To prove delivery, B Corp. offers B Corp’s file copy of its invoice for the items, which contains the handwritten notation, “Received 8199. Ed Clark.” B Corp.’s truck driver, T, testified that Ed Clark, A Corp’s receiving clerk, made the handwritten notation on the invoice at the time T delivered the goods. On this foundation,
a) The copy of the invoice, including the handwritten notation, is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
b) The copy of the invoice, including the handwritten notation, is admissible as an admission.
c) The copy of the invoice, including the handwritten notation, is admissible as a prior recorded recollection of Clark.
d) The copy of the invoice is inadmissible unless the handwritten notation is masked out so the jury cannot see it.
b) The copy of the invoice, including the handwritten notation, is admissible as an admission.
To prove the temperature on May 10, 2018, D offers the detailed handwritten records of his friend E, a climatologist, of temperatures as measured by E’s sophisticated equipment, which E regularly keeps as a hobby. D does not call E. P objects on hearsay grounds. The records
a) Are hearsay and not within any exception.
b) Are not hearsay because inanimate equipment cannot make a “statement” within the meaning of the federal hearsay rule.
c) Are hearsay but within the exception for past recollection recorded.
d) Are not hearsay because they represent D’s present recollection refreshed.
a) Are hearsay and not within any exception
H and W were husband and wife, and their wills left everything to the other spouse if that spouse survived them, but in the event that the other did predecease, each left everything to their alma mater. H’s alma mater was UCLa. W’s alma mater was USc. H and W were killed in a car crash. In a petition to determine distribution of W’s estate, to prove that W survived H (and thus succeeded to H’s property, rather than it going to UCLa), USc introduces the testimony of the rescue worker who testifies that she first checked H, who had no pulse, and then checked W, who said, “Fight on, Trojans!” The evidence:
a) Is hearsay and not within any exception.
b) Is hearsay but admissible as an admission.
c) Is not hearsay.
d) Is not relevant to any material issue.
c) Is not hearsay.
Defamation suit by Secretary against Typist. On the issue of defamation, Secretary proffers W to testify that Typist had said to Secretary in W’s presence, “Of course you were promoted instead of me. I didn’t sleep with Boss, like you did.” The evidence is
a) Not hearsay.
b) Hearsay, but admissible as an admission.
c) Hearsay, admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
d) Hearsay, not within any exception.
a) Not hearsay.
W took a photo of the getaway car as it sped away from a robbery. At D’s trial for robbery, the prosecution offers the photo to prove that the car’s license number was XQZ 478. (Other evidence shows that D owned a car with that license number.) D objects on the ground of hearsay. The objection should be
a) Sustained.
b) Overruled as the evidence is not hearsay.
c) Overruled as the evidence is hearsay, but admissible as a prior recorded recollection.
d) Overruled as the evidence is hearsay, but admissible as present recollection refreshed.
b) Overruled as the evidence is not hearsay.
W observes the getaway car as it sped away from a robbery. W wrote the getaway car’s license plate down on a notepad as the car sped away to make sure he would have the information handy. At D’s trial for the robbery, W testifies but has no idea what the car’s license plate number was anymore. P offers to read the notation on W’s notepad into evidence. D objects on the ground of hearsay. The objection should be:
a) Sustained. The evidence is hearsay and not within any exception.
b) Overruled. The evidence is hearsay but admissible as a prior consistent statements.
c) Overruled. The evidence is hearsay but admissible as a prior recorded recollection.
d) Overruled. The evidence is hearsay but admissible as a statement of identification.
c) Overruled. The evidence is hearsay but admissible as a prior recorded recollection.
Action by S, former police sergeant of City, for wrongful termination. The City’s defense is that dismissal was justified by S’s failure to maintain proper control over officers under his command. To prove that the police chief acted reasonably in firing S, City proffers a report received by the police chief from the State Municipal Practices Board prior to the firing. According to the report, the Board had held hearings on citizen complaints of beatings by City’s police officers. The report says, in pertinent part, that after hearing from 15 witnesses the Board found that officers under S’s command made a regular practice of administering “street justice” (beatings) to persons suspected of, but not charged with, petty crimes. S objects on the ground that the report is hearsay. The objection should be
a) Sustained as the report is single hearsay and not within any exception.
b) Sustained as the report is double hearsay, only half of which is admissible.
c) Overruled as the report is not offered for a hearsay purpose.
d) Overruled as the report is multiple hearsay, all of which is admissible as an admission and as a prior consistent statement.
c) Overruled as the report is not offered for a hearsay purpose.
In a prosecution of Winston Wolfe for threatening to destroy a dwelling house, to prove the making of the threat, the prosecutor proffers First L. Pigg, the owner of the house, to testify that Wolfe said, “Let me in or I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down!” The proffered evidence is:
a) Hearsay and not within any exception.
b) Hearsay but admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
c) Hearsay but admissible as an admission.
d) Not hearsay.
d) Not hearsay.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime testifies that a teenager named Zeke, who since died of a drug overdose, told him the day after the accident, “I feel so bad that I shone my pen laser into your eyes on purpose and caused you to swerve into oncoming traffic.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Inadmissible because it is offered by the party proponent.
b) Inadmissible because there is no corroborating evidence.
c) Admissible as a statement against interest.
d) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
c) Admissible as a statement against interest.
Dime is prosecuted for reckless driving in connection with an incident in which Dime’s car allegedly veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime testifies that a teenager named Zeke, who since died of a drug overdose, told him the day after the accident, “I feel so bad that I shone my pen laser into your eyes on purpose and caused you to swerve into oncoming traffic.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Inadmissible because it is self-serving.
b) Inadmissible because there is no corroborating evidence.
c) Admissible as a statement against interest.
d) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
b) Inadmissible because there is no corroborating evidence.
Dime is prosecuted for reckless driving in connection with an incident in which Dime’s car allegedly veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime calls Wayne, a teenager who did not know Dime, who testifies that his friend Zeke, who since died of a drug overdose, told him an hour after the accident, “I feel so bad that I shone my pen laser into that man’s eyes on purpose and caused him to swerve into oncoming traffic.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
d) Inadmissible.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
Dime is prosecuted for reckless driving in connection with an incident in which Dime’s car allegedly veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime testifies that Wayne told Dime that his (Wayne’s) friend Zeke, who since died of a drug overdose, told Wayne two hours after the accident, “I feel so bad that I shone my pen laser into that man’s eyes on purpose and caused him to swerve into oncoming traffic.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime testifies that Zeke, who since died of a drug overdose, told Dime, “The accident was not your fault.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a statement of identification.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In her case in chief, Penny testifies that Dime’s passenger, Ed, who is now unavailable, told her, “Dime should not have been driving with his eyes closed.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a statement of identification.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In her case in chief, Penny calls Yale, who testifies when he saw Dime get out of his car after the accident, he said, “That’s the guy I saw driving with his eyes closed who then swerved into oncoming traffic.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a prior consistent statement.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a statement of identification.
d) Inadmissible.
c) Admissible as a statement of identification.
Pam sues Dan for breach of contract. In her case in chief, Pam calls Will, who testifies that Dan told him, “Pam was only paying 30 cents per widget, whereas I could get at least 50 cents elsewhere, so it made sense to roll the dice and cut her loose.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
b) Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
c) Admissible as a statement against interest.
d) Inadmissible.
a) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
Dan is charged with murdering Vera, whose body was cut up with a wood chipper. In his case in chief, Dan calls Gina, the girlfriend of Earl, who has left the country. Gina testifies that when she confronted Earl about coming home late that night of the murder and accused him of having an affair with Misty, Earl responded, “Honey, I wasn’t out sleeping with Misty. I was busy chopping up Vera’s body with a wood chipper.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Inadmissible, because it was not against Earl’s interest to make the statement.
b) Inadmissible, because a reasonable person would not believe it was against their interest to make the statement.
c) Admissible, because a reasonable person would believe it was against their interest to make the statement.
d) Admissible, because it was against Earl’s interest to make the statement.
c) Admissible, because a reasonable person would believe it was against their interest to make the statement.
Dime is prosecuted for reckless driving in connection with an incident in which Dime’s car allegedly veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime testifies that his passenger, Ed, who died minutes after the accident as a result of his injuries, told Dime as he lay on the pavement, “I’m sorry I grabbed the steering wheel and caused you to swerve into oncoming traffic.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a dying declaration.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
Dime is prosecuted for the negligent homicide of his passenger, Ed, in connection with an incident in which Dime’s car allegedly veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime testifies that Ed, who died minutes after the accident as a result of his injuries, told Dime as he lay on the pavement, “I’m sorry I grabbed the steering wheel and caused you to swerve into oncoming traffic.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a dying declaration.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
d) Inadmissible.
a) Admissible as a dying declaration.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime testifies that his passenger, Ed, who died minutes after the accident as a result of his injuries, told Dime as he lay on the pavement, “I’m sorry I grabbed the steering wheel and caused you to swerve into oncoming traffic.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a dying declaration.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
d) Inadmissible.
a) Admissible as a dying declaration.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime testifies that his passenger, Ed, told Dime as he lay dying on the pavement, “I’m sorry I grabbed the steering wheel and caused you to swerve into oncoming traffic.” Miraculously, Ed recovered from his injuries. In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a dying declaration.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime testifies that his passenger, Ed, told Dime as he lay dying on the pavement, “I’m sorry I grabbed the steering wheel and caused you to swerve into oncoming traffic.” Miraculously, Ed recovered from his injuries, but had moved out of the country by the time of the trial and before he could be deposed. In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a dying declaration.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
d) Inadmissible.
a) Admissible as a dying declaration
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In his case in chief, Dime testifies that his passenger, Ed, who died minutes after the accident as a result of his injuries, told Dime as he lay on the pavement, “My dying wish is that you don’t face any legal liability after I’m gone.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a dying declaration.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In her case in chief, Penny calls Yale, who testifies when he saw Dime get out of his car after the accident, he said, “That’s the guy I saw driving with his eyes closed who then swerved into oncoming traffic!” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Inadmissible because there has been no express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.
b) Inadmissible because it was not against Yale’s interest to make the statement.
c) Inadmissible because Yale is not unavailable.
d) Admissible.
d) Admissible.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In her case in chief, Penny testifies that when Dime got out of his car after the accident, she heard someone shout, “That’s the guy I saw driving with his eyes closed who then swerved into oncoming traffic!” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Inadmissible because she cannot identify the person who made the statement.
b) Inadmissible because the declarant was not under belief of impending death at the time.
c) Inadmissible because she has not established the declarant’s unavailability.
d) Admissible.
d) Admissible.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In her case in chief, Penny testifies that when she got home that night, she told her boyfriend, “You won’t believe what happened to me. A guy swerved into my lane and hit me.” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Inadmissible because the statement does not relate to the exciting event.
b) Inadmissible because Penny is not still under the stress of excitement from the exciting event.
c) Inadmissible as an excited utterance because she did not identify the person who hit her.
d) Admissible.
b) Inadmissible because Penny is not still under the stress of excitement from the exciting event.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In her case in chief, Penny calls Yale, who testifies that when he saw Dime get out of his car after the accident moments after the accident, he said, “That’s the guy I just saw driving with his eyes closed who then swerved into oncoming traffic!” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as a statement of identification.
b) Admissible as an excited utterance.
c) Admissible as a present sense impression.
d) All of the above.
d) All of the above.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car and nearly killing her. In her case in chief, Penny testifies that when she got home later that night, she told her boyfriend, “Get me my valium! You won’t believe what happened to me. A guy swerved into my lane and hit me; I almost died!” In federal court, the testimony is:
a) Admissible as a statement of identification.
b) Admissible as an excited utterance.
c) Admissible as a present sense impression.
d) All of the above.
b) Admissible as an excited utterance.
Penny sues Dime for personal injuries allegedly sustained when Dime’s car veered into oncoming traffic, striking Penny’s car. In her case in chief, Penny calls Yale, who testifies that, moments after the accident, he said, “I hope that guy has insurance.” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as a statement of identification.
b) Admissible as an excited utterance.
c) Admissible as a present sense impression.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
Avon is charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute. At trial, Avon testifies that Marlo, who has since fled the country, told him, “That brick of heroin they found in your office was really mine.” The prosecution objects on hearsay grounds and the defense responded that it falls within the exception for statements against interest. The prosecution’s strongest argument in support of their objection is:
a) That the statement is not against the declarant’s interest.
b) That the statement is not against the party’s interest.
c) That the declarant is not unavailable.
d) That there are no corroborating circumstances indicating its trustworthiness.
d) That there are no corroborating circumstances indicating its trustworthiness.
Joey Batz is charged with attempted murder of Luca Brasi. Brasi recovered from the stab wound inflicted on him, but then died of a heart attack two weeks before trial. The prosecution seeks to introduce the testimony of a paramedic who treated Brasi at the scene of the stabbing, to the effect that Brasi said while lying in a pool of blood, “It’s curtains for me because that ratfink Joey B. stuck a shiv in me.” The defense objects on hearsay grounds, and the prosecution respond that it falls within the hearsay exception for “dying declarations.” The defense’s strongest argument in support of their objection is:
a) The statement was not made under belief of impending death.
b) The statement is not available in a criminal prosecution for attempted murder.
c) The declarant is not unavailable because he did not die as a result of the stabbing.
d) The statement identifying Joey Batz as his attacker is not admissible because Brasi did not testify.
b) The statement is not available in a criminal prosecution for attempted murder.
Five Fingered Freddy, a redhead, is prosecuted for robbery for allegedly yanking a purse off of Vera’s shoulder on a crowded street. At trial, the prosecution calls a witness, Chet, who testifies that he heard his wife, Roweena, yell, “That redheaded man just took that lady’s purse!”, and then he turned around to see Freddy running away. Over a hearsay objection by the defense, the testimony about Roweena’s statement is
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a present sense impression.
c) Both a and b.
d) Neither a nor b.
c) Both a and b.
Five Fingered Freddy, a redhead, is prosecuted for robbery for allegedly yanking a purse off of Vera’s shoulder on a crowded street. At trial, the prosecution calls Roweena, who testifies that when she saw Freddie yank the purse off of Vera’s shoulder, she shouted, “That redheaded man just took that lady’s purse!” Over a hearsay objection by the defense, the testimony about Roweena’s statement is
a) Admissible as a statement against interest.
b) Admissible as a statement of identification.
c) Inadmissible, because Roweena is not unavailable to testify.
d) Inadmissible, because a reasonable person would not have been excited by a purse snatching.
b) Admissible as a statement of identification.
Avon is charged with possession of narcotics with intent to distribute. At trial, Avon denies having possessed the drugs. In rebuttal, the prosecution calls Marlo, who testifies that Avon told him, “That brick of heroin they found in your office was really mine.” Over a hearsay objection by the defense, the testimony a is
a) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
b) Admissible as a statement against interest.
c) Both a and b.
d) Neither a nor b.
a) Admissible as a party-opponent admission.
Five Fingered Freddy, a redhead, is prosecuted for robbery for allegedly yanking a purse off of Vera’s shoulder on a crowded street. At trial, the prosecution calls a witness, Chet, who testifies that he told the police during an interview later that day that he had heard his wife, Roweena, yell, “That redheaded man just took that lady’s purse!”, and then he turned around to see Freddy running away. The defense objects on hearsay grounds, and the prosecution respond that it falls within the hearsay exception for excited utterances. The defense’s strongest argument in support of their objection is:
a) Chet was not under the stress of excitement when he made his statement.
b) Chet did not make the statement at or immediately after the events.
c) Chet’s statement relates to but does not describe the events.
d) Roweena was not under the stress of excitement when she made her statement.
a) Chet was not under the stress of excitement when he made his statement.
Five Fingered Freddy, a redhead, is prosecuted for robbery for allegedly yanking a purse off of Vera’s shoulder on a crowded street. At trial, the prosecution calls a witness, Chet, who testifies that he heard his wife, Roweena, say, “Huh. Guess that lady’s gonna need to go purse shopping. Oh well, maybe I should, too,” and then he turned around to see Freddy running away. Over a hearsay objection by the defense, the testimony is
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a present sense impression.
c) Both a and b.
d) Neither a nor b.
d) Neither a nor b.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, her husband testified that the first time Pauline took a shower after moving into their new home, she said, “I feel nauseous.” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a present sense impression.
d) Inadmissible.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, her husband testified that after the first time Pauline took a shower after moving into their new home, he took one look at her and said, “You don’t look so good, honey.” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a present sense impression.
d) Inadmissible.
c) Admissible as a present sense impression.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, her husband testified that the first time Pauline took a shower after moving into their new home, she said, “I think I’m going to throw up!” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a present sense impression.
d) Both a and b.
d) Both a and b.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, Paula testified that a week after moving into their new home, she told her boss, “I’ve felt nauseous after taking showers here.” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a present sense impression.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, her husband testified that the day before Paula’s first blackout, she said, “I think I’ll go for a dip in the community pool tomorrow morning.” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a present sense impression.
d) Inadmissible.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, her husband testified that the day before Paula’s first blackout, he told his friend, “I think Paula and I are going to go for a dip in the community pool tomorrow morning.” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a present sense impression.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, her husband testified that after the first time Pauline took a shower after moving into their new home, she said, “Call a doctor; I think I’m going to throw up!” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment.
d) All of the above.
d) All of the above.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, Paula testifies that a week after moving into their new home, she told her doctor, “I’ve felt nauseous after taking showers here.” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment.
d) Inadmissible.
c) Admissible as a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, Paula calls her doctor, who testifies that a week after moving into their new home, she told him, “I’ve felt nauseous after taking showers here.” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment.
d) Inadmissible.
c) Admissible as a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, Paula calls her doctor, who testifies that a week after moving into their new home, she told him, “I’ve been feeling nauseous after taking showers here, because Chemical Co. is carelessly letting its waste run off into the reservoir.” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, in its case in chief, Chemical Co. calls Paula’s doctor, who testifies that after Paula complained about nausea after showers, he responded, “I think this is likely all in your head. You should try taking anti-anxiety medication.” The testimony is:
a) Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment.
d) Inadmissible.
d) Inadmissible.
C is incorrect because it is a statement OF diagnosis, not a statement FOR diagnosis or treatment.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, Paula calls Nurse, who testifies that when Paula woke up in the hospital after having blacked out, she said to Nurse, “Excuse me, nurse, could you please help me? The pain in my joints is killing me.” Which of the following hearsay exceptions would NOT apply?
a) Excited utterances.
b) Statements of then-existing state.
c) Statements for medical diagnosis or treatment.
d) None (they would all apply).
a) Excited utterances.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, Paula calls Nurse, who testifies that the moment Paula woke up in the hospital after having blacked out, she shrieked in pain. The testimony is admissible as:
a) An excited utterance.
b) A statement of then-existing state.
c) A statement for medical diagnosis or treatment.
d) Non-hearsay.
d) Non-hearsay.
Pauline sued for damages allegedly suffered as a result of Chemical Co. negligently allowing its waste products to poison the local water supply. At trial, Paula calls Expert, who testifies that when he examined Paula the month before trial, she told him that she had gradually been losing peripheral vision ever since she moved into her new home. The testimony is:
a) Admissible as an excited utterance.
b) Admissible as a statement of then-existing state.
c) Admissible as a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment.
d) Inadmissible.
c) Admissible as a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment.
At the trial of a personal injury action, the plaintiff claimed that he had sustained a shattered elbow when he was knocked from his bicycle by the defendant’s car. Dr. Withey testified for the plaintiff, stating that she examined him for the first time on the morning of trial and that her examination was made specifically in preparation for her testimony regarding his diagnosis. Dr. Withey stated that during the course of the examination, the plaintiff said, “When I was struck by the car my right elbow struck the ground so hard that I heard a sound like a gunshot.” If the defendant objects to this testimony, the court should
a) Sustain the objection, since the statement is hearsay.
b) Sustain the objection, since the examination was not performed for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment.
c) Overrule the objection, since the statement was part of a pertinent medical history.
d) Overrule the objection, since the statement described a former sense impression.
c) Overrule the objection, since the statement was part of a pertinent medical history.
At the trial of a personal injury action, the plaintiff claimed that he had sustained a shattered elbow when he was knocked from his bicycle by the defendant’s car. Dr. Withey testified for the plaintiff, stating that she examined him for the first time on the morning of trial and that her examination was made specifically in preparation for her testimony regarding his diagnosis. Dr. Withey stated that during the course of the examination, the plaintiff said, “Ever since I was struck by the car my arm has hurt so much that I don’t see how I’ll ever be able to go back to work; my life will never be the same.” Which of the following would be the defendant’s strongest argument in support of a motion to strike the testimony?
a) The plaintiff’s statement was made in contemplation of litigation.
b) The doctor was not examining the plaintiff for the purpose of treatment.
c) The plaintiff’s statement was self-serving.
d) Evidence of the plaintiff’s statement is substantially more prejudicial than probative.
d) Evidence of the plaintiff’s statement is substantially more prejudicial than probative.
Pastor was the spiritual leader of the First Drive-in Church of the Lord and conducted religious services in a drive-in theater every Sunday morning, with members of the congregation remaining in their cars during the entire service. Occasionally the services were televised. Pastor was a frequent guest on television talk shows, where he was known as a witty and entertaining speaker. Pastor usually spoke about what he termed “popular religion,” entreating television viewers to “Go to church for the fun of it!” which was the slogan of his congregation. Tribune, the publisher of a large daily newspaper, printed an article by Wright, one if its journalist. The article accused Pastor of misusing church funds. Pastor commenced a defamation action against Tribune. In its answer, Tribune affirmatively pleaded that Pastor was a public figure, asserting a constitutional privilege to print defamatory statements about him in the absence of malice. At the trial of the defamation action, Tribune’s attorney called Tender, who worked in a bar near the Tribune office. Tender stated that on the day after Wright’s article appeared in the Tribune, Wright told him, “When I wrote that piece on Pastor, I believed every word of it.” On objection by Pastor’s attorney, Tender’s testimony should be
a) admitted as evidence that the article was published without malice.
b) admitted as a declaration of Wright’s state of mind.
c) admitted as a self-serving declaration.
d) excluded as hearsay.
d) excluded as hearsay.
Pima sued Damian for fraud in connection with the sale of a defective car. At trial, in her case-in-chief, Pima calls Walenda, who testifies that on the morning of the transaction in question, he heard Damian say, “Gotta go. I’m gonna unload one of our worst lemons on this sucker I met.” Upon proper objection by the defendant, this testimony should be
a) Admitted as a statement of present state of mind.
b) Admitted as a statement of a party-opponent.
c) Both a and b.
d) Excluded as hearsay.
c) Both a and b.
Pert was injured when the ladder on which she was standing collapsed without warning. Immediately following the accident, Pert was taken to County Hospital, where she remained for approximately six hours. At the trial of Pert’s action against the manufacturer of the ladder, Nathan, a nurse employed by County Hospital, was called to the stand by Pert’s counsel. Nathan testified that he was on duty when Pert was brought into the hospital, and that Pert moaned and complained of pain almost continually from the time she arrived until the time she left. Upon proper objection by the defendant, this testimony should be
a) Admitted as a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
b) Admitted as a statement of present physical sensation.
c) Not admitted, since pain is a purely subjective matter, and not a proper subject of testimony by anyone but the injured party.
d) Not admitted, since it is hearsay.
b) Admitted as a statement of present physical sensation.
In an action by Peterson against Docker for personal injuries resulting from negligence, Peterson’s attorney called Melba as a witness on Peterson’s direct case. Melba testified that she was Peterson’s mother and that during the weeks following the accident, she observed Peterson taking pink pills on several occasions. Peterson’s attorney then asked Melba if she knew why Peterson was taking the pink pills. When Docker’s attorney objected, Peterson’s attorney withdrew the question and asked whether Melba was present when Dr. Treat examined Peterson the day after the accident. Melba responded that she heard Peterson say, “My neck hurts,” and that Dr. Treat handed Peterson the pink pills and said, “These pink pills are very effective for pain.” If Docker’s attorney moves to exclude Melba’s testimony about what Dr. Treat said, that testimony should be
a) Admitted as a declaration of present physical sensation.
b) Admitted as a declaration of past physical sensation.
c) Excluded as hearsay, not within any exception to the hearsay rule.
d) Admitted as evidence of a medical history.
c) Excluded as hearsay, not within any exception to the hearsay rule.
Sy was a sole-proprietor professional psychiatrist who sued a former client for failure to pay his bills. At trial, Sy sought to introduce his monthly billing statements for the client. Sy testified that at the end of each month, he would think back to how many sessions he had with each client over the prior month and generate the billing statement on that basis. What would be the defendant client’s best argument that the billing statements for his account do not meet the business records exception?
Question options:
a) The billing records were not the records of an organization.
b) The billing records were not made in the ordinary course of business.
c) The billing records were not made by someone within the business with knowledge.
d) The billing records were not made at or near the time of the events they recorded.
d) The billing records were not made at or near the time of the events they recorded.
Sy was a sole-proprietor professional psychiatrist who sued a former client for failure to pay his bills. At trial, Sy sought to introduce his monthly billing statements for the client. Sy’s attorney called Sy’s secretary, Seth, to lay the foundation for the billing statements as business records. The defense objects that Seth is not qualified to lay the foundation because Seth had no personal knowledge that the entries in the billing statements were accurate. How should the judge rule on the objection?
Question options:
a) Sustain.
b) Overrule.
b) Overrule.
Sy was a sole-proprietor professional psychiatrist who sued a former client for failure to pay his bills. At trial, Sy sought to introduce his monthly billing statements for the client. Sy’s attorney called Sy’s secretary, Seth, to lay the foundation for the billing statements as business records. Seth testified that he would review Sy’s appointment calendar at the end of the month, on which Sy would contemporaneously note whether a client had cancelled or showed up, and would use that to generate billing statements for each client. The defense objects that the billing statements are double hearsay, because they reflect information obtained from Sy’s appointment calendar. How should the judge rule on the objection?
Question options:
a) Sustain.
b) Overrule.
b) Overrule.
Sy was a sole-proprietor professional psychiatrist who sued a former client for failure to pay his bills. At trial, Sy sought to introduce his monthly billing statements for the client. Sy’s attorney called Sy’s secretary, Seth, to lay the foundation for the billing statements as business records. Seth testified that he would review Sy’s appointment calendar at the end of the month, on which Sy would contemporaneously note whether a client had cancelled or showed up, and would use that to generate billing statements for each client. The defense objects that Sy has not met his burden of showing that the billing statements do not lack trustworthiness. How should the judge rule on the objection?
Question options:
a) Sustain.
b) Overrule.
b) Overrule.
Sy was a sole-proprietor professional psychiatrist who sued a former client for failure to pay his bills. At trial, the client sought to introduce the monthly billing statements he had received from Sy, to prove that he was only billed at $100 per session, not $250 as Sy had claimed. Sy objects on hearsay grounds, arguing that the client is not a custodian or qualified witness for purposes of the hearsay rule. How should the judge rule on the objection?
Question options:
a) Sustain.
b) Overrule.
b) Overrule.
Paul, who was assaulted by Clint, sued Sy, Clint’s psychiatrist, for negligence for failing to warn Paul that Clint posed a dangerous of serious bodily injury to him. At trial, to prove that he was not negligent, Sy sought to introduce notes of one of his sessions with Clint, in which Sy wrote: “Patient reports having vivid dreams of pummeling Paul, and wants to know if relaxation techniques will be sufficient to quell his anger.” Sy testifies that he is obligated to promptly record anything related to potential criminal or dangerous conduct in his sessions notes, and that it is his routine practice to make and keep such notes. Paul objects to the admission of the session notes on hearsay grounds. (Assume there are no issues regarding privilege.) How should the judge rule on the objection?
Question options:
a) Sustain the objection, because a psychiatrist’s notes regarding a session with an individual client cannot be admitted as business records.
b) Sustain the objection, because the source of information did not have a business duty to report accurately.
c) Overrule the objection, because the source of information is trustworthy since it meets its own hearsay exception.
d) Overrule the objection, because it was made and kept in the ordinary course of business.
c) Overrule the objection, because the source of information is trustworthy since it meets its own hearsay exception.
Pam sues Dan for negligence for injuries allegedly sustained when Dan’s car crashed into Pam’s. At trial, Pam calls Officer Alpha, who testifies that he wrote up an incident report based on what another responding officer, Officer Beta, reported to him. Included in the report is the following: “Ofcr. Beta reports that in an eyewit, interview, 3d party Gamma noted that vehicle #2 (Dan) crashed into vehicle #1 (Pam).” If Dan objects to the admission of the incident report on hearsay grounds, and Pam argues it falls under the business records exception, which of the following would be Dan’s strongest argument in support of exclusion?
Question options:
a) Gamma reported the information to Beta minutes after the crash and was not excited.
b) The officer who reported the information (Beta) is not the same officer who recorded the information (Alpha).
c) The officer who recorded the information (Alpha) did not have personal knowledge of the events recorded.
d) Alpha did not testify to lacking recollection about the events in question.
a) Gamma reported the information to Beta minutes after the crash and was not excited.
Borizon, Inc. sues Doris for failure to pay her phone bill. At trial, during direct-examination of one of Borizon’s billing manager, Borizon offers into evidence their billing statement for Doris. Over a hearsay objection, the document could be:
a) Admissible as a public record.
b) Admissible as a business record.
c) Both a and b.
d) Neither a nor b.
b) Admissible as a business record.
California Deadison (“Cal”), a state public utility, sues Doris for failure to pay her electric bill. At trial, during direct-examination of one of Cal’s billing manager, Cal offers into evidence their billing statement for Doris. Over a hearsay objection, the document could be:
a) Admissible as a public record.
b) Admissible as a business record.
c) Both a and b.
d) Neither a nor b.
c) Both a and b.
California Deadison (“Cal”), a public utility, sues Doris for failure to pay her electric bill. At trial, Cal offers into evidence their billing statement for Doris. Over a hearsay objection, the document could be:
a) Admissible as a public record.
b) Admissible as a business record.
c) Both a and b.
d) Neither a nor b.
a) Admissible as a public record.
California Deadison (“Cal”), a public utility, sues Doris for failure to pay her electric bill. At trial, Cal offers into evidence their billing statement for Doris. Over an authentication objection, the document could be:
a) Admissible as a public record.
b) Admissible as a business record.
c) Both a and b.
d) Neither a nor b.
