Evidence Flashcards
Does the hearsay exception for “official or public records” under the Federal Rules or California law automatically exclude records regarding police observations in criminal cases?
A. The automatic exclusion applies under the Federal Rules only.
B. The automatic exclusion applies under California law only.
C. The automatic exclusion applies under both.
D. The automatic exclusion applies under neither.
A. The automatic exclusion applies under the Federal Rules only.
Unlike its federal counterpart, the California hearsay exception for “official or public records” does not automatically exclude police observations in criminal cases.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Hearsay - Hearsay Exceptions—Declarant’s Availability Immaterial
Does California and/or federal law include statements against the declarant’s “social” interest in the hearsay exception for statements against interest?
A. California does, federal law does not.
B. Federal law does, California does not.
C. Both do.
D. Neither does.
A. California does, federal law does not.
Under the Federal Rules, a statement by an unavailable declarant is admissible as a “statement against interest” if, at the time it was made, the statement was against the declarant’s pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest. This includes statements against financial interest and statements that subject the declarant to criminal liability. California law is generally the same (including the unavailability requirement), but also includes statements against social interest.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Hearsay - Hearsay Exceptions—Declarant Unavailable
Do the California Evidence Code or the Federal Rules of Evidence specifically require that evidence go to a “disputed” fact in order to be deemed “relevant”?
A. Only California requires this.
B. Only the Federal Rules require this.
C. Both California and the Federal Rules require this.
D. Neither California nor the Federal Rules require this.
A. Only California requires this.
Under the Federal Rules, evidence is logically relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. California is the same, but also requires that the evidence goes to a disputed fact.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Relevance - Definition
Under the California Evidence Code and the Federal Rules of Evidence, does the hearsay exception for “statements against interest” require corroborating circumstances in order for a statement to be admissible in a criminal case?
A. Federal, yes; California, no.
B. Federal, no; California, yes.
C. Both Federal and California, yes.
D. Both Federal and California, no.
A. Federal, yes; California, no.
Unlike federal courts, California does not require corroborating circumstances in a criminal case indicating the trustworthiness of the declarant’s statements.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Hearsay - Hearsay Exceptions—Declarant Unavailable
Under California law, the rule of evidence that creates a preference for original documents over other evidence of a writing is called:
A. The photocopy rule.
B. The best evidence rule.
C. The secondary evidence rule.
D. The original document rule.
C. The secondary evidence rule.
California has a “secondary evidence rule,” which serves the same purpose as the Federal Rules’ “best evidence rule” (i.e., to guard against unreliable or fraudulent secondary evidence of a writing).
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Documentary Evidence - Best Evidence Rule
Which of the following best describes the types of statements that fall within the California “learned treatise” hearsay exception?
A. Statements from authoritative works, if called to the attention of an expert witness and established as reliable authority.
B. Facts of general interest and notoriety found in published maps or charts, or books of history or science.
C. Statements from texts or materials currently in use in post-secondary education.
D. The published work of a doctor of arts or sciences, or any publication of an academic institution of good repute.
B. Facts of general interest and notoriety found in published maps or charts, or books of history or science.
The California hearsay exception for learned treatises applies to facts of general interest and notoriety found in published maps or charts, or books of history or science. This is narrower than the federal exception, which covers statements from authoritative works if called to the attention of an expert witness and established as reliable authority.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Hearsay - Hearsay Exceptions—Declarant’s Availability Immaterial
Under California law, which of the following statements regarding a past physical or mental condition is admissible under a hearsay exception, irrespective of the declarant’s availability?
A. Statement of past physical condition, only if made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.
B. Statement of past mental condition, only if made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.
C. Statement of past physical condition by a child-abuse victim under age 12, if made to a doctor for the purpose of medical treatment.
D. Statement of past physical or mental condition, made for any purpose.
C. Statement of past physical condition by a child-abuse victim under age 12, if made to a doctor for the purpose of medical treatment.
Under California law, a statement of past physical or mental condition–regardless of whether the declarant is available–is admissible under a hearsay exception if made by a child-abuse victim under age 12 to a doctor for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. (Note: There is another exception in California for a statement of past physical or mental condition when such condition is at issue in the case, but that exception applies only when the declarant is unavailable.) This differs from the Federal Rules, which apply a broader exception that encompasses any statement of physical or mental condition made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Hearsay - Hearsay Exceptions—Declarant’s Availability Immaterial
Which of the following falls within a specific hearsay exception under California law?
A. A statement by a declarant explaining his conduct, made while the declarant was engaged in that conduct.
B. A statement describing an event, made while the declarant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter.
C. A sworn statement of personal observations made within five days of the event in question.
D. A statement of the declarant’s impressions based solely on physical senses.
A. A statement by a declarant explaining his conduct, made while the declarant was engaged in that conduct.
California law has a hearsay exception for “contemporaneous statements” that applies only to statements explaining the declarant’s conduct made while the declarant was engaged in that conduct. The federal exception for “present sense impressions” is broader, and includes statements describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Hearsay - Hearsay Exceptions—Declarant’s Availability Immaterial
In a California civil case, which statement is true regarding the admissibility of a witness’s prior act of misconduct that relates to untruthfulness (and that did not result in a conviction), when offered to impeach the witness?
A. The witness may be asked about the act on cross-examination, but the act may not be proven by extrinsic evidence if the witness denies it.
B. The witness may be asked about the act on cross-examination, and the act may be proven by extrinsic evidence only if the witness denies it.
C. The act may be asked about on cross-examination and/or proved by extrinsic evidence without restriction.
D. The act may not be introduced to impeach the witness.
D. The act may not be introduced to impeach the witness.
In California civil cases, a witness may not be impeached with a prior act of misconduct not resulting in a conviction. Under the Federal Rules, this type of evidence is admissible, but only cross-examination is allowed (the act may not be proven by extrinsic evidence if the witness denies it).
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Testimonial Evidence - Impeachment Methods
A plaintiff who was injured after her chair broke files a products liability lawsuit against a manufacturer, alleging that the chair had a design defect. She wants to introduce evidence that the manufacturer changed the design of the chair following the accident. Which of the following statements is true under California law?
A. The evidence may be offered to prove that the chair had a design defect at the time of the accident.
B. The evidence is barred for public policy reasons because it constitutes a subsequent remedial measure.
C. The evidence may be offered only to prove that the design correction was feasible at the time of the accident.
D. The evidence may be offered to prove that the defendant was negligent.
A. The evidence may be offered to prove that the chair had a design defect at the time of the accident.
Generally, subsequent remedial measures are barred for public policy reasons (unless offered only to show ownership or control, feasibility of repair, or to prove destruction of evidence). However, in California, this rule does not apply in products liability cases. Thus, evidence that a product was redesigned following an accident is admissible to prove the original design was defective. Note that such evidence is not admissible to prove negligence.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Relevance - Subsequent Remedial Measures
A driver hits a biker with her car. At the scene, the driver talks with the biker and says: “I’ll pay all your medical bills; serves me right for running that stop sign.” The next day, the driver visits the biker at the hospital and says: “I’m so sorry for your suffering; it was all my fault.” Under California law, which of the following statements is admissible at trial to prove the driver’s liability for the biker’s injuries?
A. “I’ll pay all your medical bills.”
B. “Serves me right for running that stop sign.”
C. “I’m so sorry for your suffering.”
D. “It was all my fault.”
D. “It was all my fault.”
Under the Federal Rules, evidence of payments or offers to pay medical expenses (e.g., “I’ll pay all your medical bills”) are inadmissible to prove liability for the injuries in question, but accompanying admissions of fact are admissible. Under the California Evidence Code, payments, offers to pay and accompanying admissions of fact (e.g., “Serves me right for running that stop sign”) are inadmissible. The California Evidence Code also makes expressions of sympathy relating to the pain, suffering, or death of an accident victim (e.g., “I’m so sorry for your suffering”). However, in this situation, accompanying statements of fault are admissible. Thus, based on these facts, “It was all my fault” is the only statement that is admissible at trial to prove the driver’s liability.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Relevance - Offers to Pay Medical Expenses
In a California criminal case, which of the following types of evidence of a victim’s character may be introduced by the defendant to prove the victim’s conduct?
A. Opinion testimony and reputation testimony only.
B. Opinion testimony and specific instances of conduct only.
C. Opinion testimony, reputation testimony, and specific instances of conduct.
D. Reputation testimony only.
C. Opinion testimony, reputation testimony, and specific instances of conduct.
Under California law, the defendant may introduce evidence of the victim’s bad character by opinion testimony, reputation testimony, and specific instances of conduct. Under the Federal Rules, the defendant may introduce only reputation and opinion testimony.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Character Evidence - Offered in Criminal Case to Prove Victim’s Conduct—Generally
Under California law, documents may be presumed authentic if they are at least:
A. 15 years old.
B. 30 years old.
C. 20 years old.
D. 40 years old.
B. 30 years old.
Under the California Evidence Code, documents that are over 30 years old may be presumed authentic if certain other requirements are met. Under the Federal Rules, documents must be 20 years old.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Documentary Evidence - Authentication
Under California law, the admissibility of expert testimony based on a new or novel scientific theory or technique is determined by the ____________________ standard, under which ____________________.
A. Daubert; The testimony will be deemed reliable and admissible only if it is based on scientific principles that are “generally accepted” in the relevant field.
B. Kelly-Frye; The testimony will be deemed reliable and admissible only if it is based on scientific principles that are “generally accepted” in the relevant field.
C. Daubert; The factors of publication/peer review, low error rate, testable/tested results, and a reasonable level of acceptance among scientists are all considered.
D. Kelly-Frye; The factors of publication/peer review, low error rate, testable/tested results, and a reasonable level of acceptance among scientists are all considered.
B. Kelly-Frye; The testimony will be deemed reliable and admissible only if it is based on scientific principles that are “generally accepted” in the relevant field.
California applies the Kelly-Frye standard, under which scientific expert testimony is deemed reliable and admissible only if based on scientific principles that are “generally accepted” in the relevant scientific field. Federal courts apply the Daubert standard, which considers the factors of publication/peer review, low error rate, testable/tested results, and a reasonable level of acceptance among scientists.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Testimonial Evidence - Expert Opinion Testimony
Under California law, a prior inconsistent statement is admissible for impeachment purposes:
A. But is never admissible as substantive evidence.
B. And is admissible as substantive evidence under a hearsay exception, as long as it was made under oath at a prior proceeding.
C. And is admissible as substantive evidence under a hearsay exception, regardless of whether it was made under oath.
D. In civil cases only.
C. And is admissible as substantive evidence under a hearsay exception, regardless of whether it was made under oath.
A prior inconsistent statement of a witness is admissible in both criminal and civil cases to impeach the witness, and as substantive evidence (i.e., for its truth). Unlike the Federal Rule, the California Evidence Code allows a prior inconsistent statement to be introduced as substantive evidence even if it was not given under oath at a prior proceeding.
Recommended Activity: Read CA Evidence Distinctions - Testimonial Evidence - Impeachment Methods
