Evidence Flashcards
P sues D’s Bar for injuries suffered in an auto accident caused by C, who had been a patron of D’s Bar. P claims that C was permitted to drink too much liquor at D’s Bar before the accident.
P offers evidence that , after the accident the manager of D’s Bar established house rules limiting all customers to two drinks per hour, with the maximum limit of four drinks per night.
This evidence is:
(A) admissible to show that the prior conduct of D’s bar was negligent.
(B) admissible to show that D’s Bar was aware of the need to taking precautionary measures.
(C) inadmissible, because subsequent measures by an employee are not binding on D’s Bar.
(D) inadmissible, because its admission would discourage the taking of such remedial measures.
D
A Plaintiff sued D for injureis suffered in the crash of a small airplane. The P alleged that the D owned the plane and negligently failed to have it properly maintained. The D asserted in defense that he never owned the plane or had any responsibility to maintain it. At trial, the P called a witness to testify that the witness had sold the D a liability insurance policy on the plane.
Is the witness’s testimony admissible?
(A) No, because if the rule against proof of insurance where insurance itself is not an issue.
(B) No, because the policy itself is required under the original document title.
(C) Yes, because it tends to show that the defendant had little motivation to invest money in maintenance of the plane.
(D) Yes, because it is evidence of the D’s ownership or responsibility for the plane.
D
D was charged with attempted murder of V in a sniping incident in which D allegedly shot at V from ambush as V drove his car along an expressway. The prosecutor offers evidence that seven years earlier D had fired a shotgun into a woman’s home and that D had once pointed a handgun at another driver while driving on the street.
This evidence should be
(A) excluded, because such evidence can be elicited only during cross-examination
(B) excluded, because it is improper character evidence.
(C) admitted as evidence of D’s propensity toward violence.
(D) admitted as relevant evidence of D’s identity, plan, or motive.
B
D was charged with battery for allegedly attacking a man as they left a local bar together. No one else witnessed the fight. At trial, each testified that he had acted only in self-defense. The defendant called his next-door neighbor as a witness to testify as to the defendant’s reputation both for truthfulness and for peacefulness. The government objected to the testimony in its entirety.
How should the court proceed?
(A) Admit the evidence in its entirety.
(B) Admit the evidence regarding the defendant’s reputation for peacefulness, but exclude the evidence regarding his truthfulness.
(C) Exclude the evidence regarding the D’s reputation for peacefulness, but admit the evidence regarding his truthfulness.
(D) Exclude the evidence in its entirety.
B
At a civil trial for slander, the P showed that the D called the P a thief. In defense, the D called a witness to testify, “I have been the plaintiff’s neighbor for many years, and people in our community generally have said that he is a thief.”
Is the testimony concerning the P’s reputation in the community admissible?
(A) No, because character is an essential element of the defense, and proof must be made by specific instances of conduct.
(B) Yes, to prove that the plaintiff is a thief, and to reduce or refute the damages claimed
(C) Yes, to prove that the plaintiff is a thief, but not on the issue of damages.
(D) Yes, to reduce or refute the damages claimed, but not to prove that the plaintiff is a thief.
B
Deben was charged with using a forged prescription from a Dr. Kohl to obtain Percodan® from Smith’s Drugstore on May 1. At trial, Smith identified Deben as the customer, but Deben testified that he had not been in the store. In rebuttal, the prosecutor calls Wallman and Witler to testify that on May 1, a man they identified as Deben had presented prescriptions for Percodan® from a Dr. Kohl at, respectively, Wallman’s Drugs and Witler’s Drugstore.
Wallman’s and Witler’s testimony is
(A) admissible, to prove a pertinent trait of Deben’s character and Deben’s action in conformity therewith.
(B) admissible, to identify the man who presented the prescription at Smith’s Drugstore.
(C) inadmissible, because it proves specific acts rather than reputation or opinion.
(D) inadmissible, because other crimes may not be used to show propensity.
B
A defendant is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant’s defense is that he shot his father accidentally. The prosecutor calls a police officer to testify that on two occasions in the year prior to this incident, the police officer had been called to the defendant’s home because of complaints of loud arguments between the defendant and his father, and had found it necessary to stop the defendant from beating his father.
Is officer’s testimony admissible?
(A) No, because it is improper character evidence.
(B) No, because the police officer lacks firsthand knowledge of who started the quarrels.
(C) Yes, to show that the defendant killed his father intentionally.
(D) Yes, to show that the defendant is a violent person.
C
Defendant is charged with murder in connection with a carjacking incident during which Defendant allegedly shot Victim while attempting to steal Victim’s car. The prosecutor calls Victim’s four-year-old son, whose face was horribly disfigured by the same bullet, to testify that Defendant shot his father and him.
The son’s testimony should be
(A) admitted, provided there is sufficient basis for believing that the son has personal knowledge and understands his obligation to testify truthfully.
(B) admitted, provided the prosecutor first provides evidence that persuades the judge that the son is competent to testify despite his tender age.
(C) excluded, because it is insufficiently probative in view of the son’s tender age.
(D) excluded, because it is more unfairly prejudicial than probative.
A
At a defendant’s trial for mail fraud, the defendant calls his wife to testify that she committed the fraud herself without the defendant’s knowledge. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks the wife, “Isn’t it true that you have fled your home several times in fear of your husband?”
Is this question proper?
(A) No, because it is leading a witness not shown to be hostile.
(B) No, because its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.
(C) Yes, because by calling his wife, the defendant has waived his privilege to prevent her from testifying against him.
(D) Yes, because it explores the wife’s possible motive for testifying falsely.
D
At Devlin’s trial for burglary, Jaron supported Devlin’s alibi that they were fishing together at the time of the crime. On cross-examination, Jaron was asked whether his statement on a credit card application that he had worked for his present employer for the last five years was false. Jaron denied that the statement was false.
The prosecutor then calls Wilcox, the manager of the company for which Jaron works, to testify that although Jaron had been first employed five years earlier and is now employed by the company, there had been a three-year period during which he had not been so employed.
The testimony of Wilcox is
(A) admissible, in the judge’s discretion, because Jaron’s credibility is a fact of major consequence to the case.
(B) admissible, as a matter of right, because Jaron “opened the door” by his denial on cross-examination.
(C) inadmissible, because whether Jaron lied in his application is a matter that cannot be proved by extrinsic evidence.
(D) inadmissible, because the misstatement by Jaron could have been caused by misunderstanding of the application form.
C
The defendant, a young doctor, is charged with falsely claiming deductions on her federal income tax return. At trial, a witness testified for the defendant that she has a reputation in the community for complete honesty. After a sidebar conference at which the prosecutor gave the judge a record showing that the defendant’s medical school had disciplined her for altering her transcript, the prosecutor proposes to ask the witness on cross-examination: “Have you ever heard that the defendant falsified her medical school transcript?”
Is the prosecutor’s question proper?
(A) No, because it calls for hearsay not within any exception.
(B) No, because its minimal relevance on the issue of income tax fraud is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
(C) Yes, because an affirmative answer will be probative of the defendant’s bad character for honesty and, therefore, her guilt.
(D) Yes, because an affirmative answer will impeach the witness’s credibility
D
A college student sued an amusement company for injuries he sustained when the amusement company’s roller coaster allegedly malfunctioned so that the student fell out. At trial, after the student presented his case, the amusement company called a witness who testified that just before the accident he heard a bystander say to the bystander’s companion, “That crazy fool is standing up in the car.”
The student then offered the testimony of another witness who would testify that the day after the accident she was with the same bystander, and that in describing the accident, the bystander told her that the car jerked suddenly and “just threw the guy out of his seat.”
How should the court rule with respect to this offered testimony?
(A) Rule it admissible only to impeach the bystander’s credibility.
(B) Rule it admissible to impeach the bystander’s credibility and to prove the amusement company’s negligence.
(C) Rule it inadmissible, because the bystander was given no opportunity to deny or explain her apparently inconsistent statement.
(D) Rule it inadmissible, because the bystander herself was not called as a witness
A
A defendant has pleaded not guilty to a federal charge of bank robbery. The principal issue at trial is the identity of the robber. The prosecutor calls the defendant’s wife to testify to the clothing that the defendant wore as he left their house on the day the bank was robbed, expecting her description to match that of eyewitnesses to the robbery. Both the defendant and his wife object to her testifying against the defendant.
Should the wife be required to testify?
(A) Yes, because the wife’s viewing of the defendant’s clothing was not a confidential communication.
(B) Yes, because the interspousal privilege does not apply in criminal cases.
(C) No, because the wife has a privilege not to testify against her husband in a criminal case.
(D) No, because the defendant has a privilege to prevent his wife from testifying against him in a criminal case.
C
In a suit based on a will, inheritance of $1 million depended upon whether the wife had survived her husband when both died in the crash of a small airplane. The husband and wife were the only occupants of the plane when it crashed. An applicable statute provided that, for purposes of distributing an estate after a common disaster, there was a rebuttable presumption that neither spouse had survived the other. A witness was called by the wife’s estate to testify that as she approached the plane she heard what she thought was a woman’s voice saying, “I’m dying,” although by the time the two occupants were removed from the wreckage they were both dead.
Is the witness’s testimony admissible?
(A) No, because the matter is governed by the presumption that neither spouse survived the other.
(B) No, because the witness’s testimony is too speculative to support a finding.
(C) Yes, because the hearsay rule does not apply to statements by decedents in actions to determine rights under a will.
(D) Yes, because it is relevant and not otherwise prohibited.
D
A plaintiff sued a building owner for injuries received when the plaintiff fell down a stairway in the building owner’s apartment building. The plaintiff alleges that she caught the heel of her shoe in a tear in the stair carpet. The plaintiff calls a witness to testify that a week before the accident she overheard another tenant in the building tell the building manager: “you should fix the torn carpet on the stairway.”
Is the tenant’s statement admissible?
(A) Yes, to prove that the carpet was defective.
(B) Yes, to prove that the building owner had notice of the defect.
(C) Yes, to prove both that the carpet was defective and that the building owner had notice of the defect.
(D) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
B
