Evidence - Missed Questions

Question 1

A criminal defendant may introduce evidence of her own good character to show her innocence of the alleged crime.

Under the Federal Rules, which of the following is an impermissible manner of showing the defendant’s good character?

A. Calling a witness to give his personal opinion concerning the trait in issue of the Defendant
B. Caling a witness to testify as to the defendant’s good reputation for the trait involved in the case
C. Calling a witness to testify to the defendant’s specific acts of conduc to prove the trait in issue
D. Calling a witness to testify that he has heard nothing bad regarding the defendant’s reputation for the trait involved in the case

Answer 1

C. Calling a witness to testify as to the defendant’s specific acts of conduct to prove the trait in issue.

Question 2

A pedestrian sued the driver of a car that hit him, alleging that the driver ran a stop sign. The driver denies this, maintaining that the pedestrian carelessly darted into the street. At trial, the pedestrian calls her husband to testify for her. The husband offers testimony that the pedestrian invariably looks both ways before crossing a street. The driver objects to the admission of this evidence.

How should the court rule on the driver’s objection?

A. Sustained, because there is no evidence to corroborate the husband’s testimony
B. Sustained, because it seeks to prove conduct in conformity with the character evidence
C. Overruled, because the pedestrian’s character is in issue
D. Overruled, because it tends to establish the pedestrian’s habit

Answer 2

D. Overruled, because it tends to establish the pedestrian’s habit.

Question 3

While a driver was driving someone else’s car, he hit a plaintiff who was walking in a pedestrian right-of-way. The plaintiff sued both the driver and the owner of the car, alleging that the driver had negligently driven the car and that the owner had negligently permitted an unfit driver to use her car. At trial, the plaintiff calls his first witness. The witness testifies that within the last several months he is aware of three instances in which the driver has engaged in reckless driving. Both the driver and the owner object to the admission of this evidence.

How should the court rule on the objection?

A. Sustained, because the driver’s character is not in issue
B. Sustained, because specific evidence of misconduct is not admissible to estbalish evidence of character
C. Overruled as to the case against the owner, but sustained as to the case against the driver
D. Overruled, because the evidence goes to the issue of the driver’s criminal negligence

Answer 3

C. Overruled as to the case against the owner, but sustained as to the case against the driver.

Question 4

A defendant is being tried for the murder of a victim, which occurred during the burglary of the victim’s house. In its case-in-chief, the prosecution seeks to offer evidence that the defendant, who was arrested several days after the crime, had been caught with several grams of cocaine in his car. All notice requirements have been met.

This evidence will most likely be:

A. Inadmissible, because the defendant has not offered evidence of good character
B. Inadmissible, because it has limited probative value and is unduly prejudicial
C. Admissible, because it tends to show what the defendant did with the money
D. Admissible, because it tends to show that the defendant is capable of committing serious crimes

Answer 4

B. Inadmissible, because it has limited probative value and is unduly prejudicial.

Question 5

The “recorded recollection” exception to the hearsay rule allows the offering party to:

A. Use a memo as a substitute for an unavailable declarant’s tesimony
B. Admit a memo into evidence as an exhibit
C. Introduce a memo into evidence by reading it aloud
D. Refresh the witness’s recollection with a memo but not read it to the jury

Answer 5

C. Introduce a memo into evidence by reading it aloud

Question 6

Which of the following statements regarding expert testimony is false?

A. The witness must have special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject
B. The witness’s opinoni must not embrace the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact in the case
C. The subject matter must be one where specialized knowledge would help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue
D. The witness must possess reasonable certainty or probability regarding his opinion.

Answer 6

B. The witness’s opinion must not embrace the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact in the case.

Question 7

At the trial of a lawsuit that arose out of a collision between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s cars, the plaintiff’s attorney calls an automobile mechanic as a witness, who testifies that he has 12 years’ experience and was the only witness to the accident. The witness also testifies that he arrived at the scene immediately after the accident, which caused both cars to overturn, and saw the wheels on both cars still spinning. He testifies that the wheels of the defendant’s car were spinning faster than the wheels of the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff’s attorney asks the witness to testify as to what speed the respective cars were traveling at the time of the accident based upon his observations of the spinning wheels. The defendant’s attorney objects.

Should the testimony regarding the speed of the cars be admitted?

A. Yes, as the witness’s personal opinion
B. Yes, as a matter based upon personal observation
C. No, because the witness has not been qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction
D. No, because there is not another witness to corroborate the witness’s presence at the accident scene

Answer 7

C. No, because the witness has not been qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction.

Question 8

A witness testified against a defendant in a contract action. The defendant then called the witness’s neighbor to the stand, who testified that the witness had a bad reputation for truth and veracity. The defendant then also called the witness’s employee to testify that the witness once perpetrated a hoax on an insurance company. The witness had in fact been convicted for perpetrating the hoax 20 years ago.

Is the employee’s testimony admissible?

A. No, because it is merely cumulative impeachment
B. No, because it is extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of misconduct
C. Yes, because the hoax resulted in a conviction of a witness
D. Yes, because a hoax involves untruthfulness

Answer 8

B. No, because it is extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of misconduct.

Question 9

The plaintiff sued a local restaurant, claiming that she injured her teeth, gums, and mouth when she bit into a hamburger that contained a large, jagged piece of glass. The plaintiff called to the stand a waiter for the restaurant, who testified that, when he heard the plaintiff scream, he looked in her direction and saw her remove a piece of glass from her bleeding mouth. On cross-examination, the defense asked the waiter, “Isn’t it a fact that three months ago you were fired by the restaurant for serving drinks to your friends and not charging for them?” The waiter responded, “Yes, but I wasn’t trying to steal anything. I just forgot to charge them.” The defense then asked, “Isn’t it a fact that last month you threw a rock through the plate glass window at the restaurant?” The waiter replied, “That’s not true; I was there but I didn’t throw the rock.” The defense then offered the testimony of a witness who was prepared to testify that she saw the waiter throw the rock through the restaurant’s window.

Assuming that there have been no criminal charges filed as a result of the broken window, is the witness’s testimony admissible?

A. No, because specific acts of misconduct that did not result in a conviction cannot be used to impeach a witness, either on cross-examination or through extrinsic evidence
B. No, because specific acts of misconduct that did not result in a conviction cannot be established through extrinsic evidence
C. Yes, as evidence of bias
D. Yes, to establish that the waiter lied under oath.

Answer 9

C. Yes, as evidence of bias.

Question 10

Under the Federal Rules, a statement by an opposing party offered for the truth of the matter asserted is:

A. Hearsay, and not admissible
B. Nonhearsay
C. Hearsay, but nonetheless admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule
D. Nonhearsay, but only if the party is testifying and subject to cross-examination about her prior statement

Answer 10

B. Nonhearsay

Question 11

In certain instances, a party may prove a witness’s prior inconsistent statement by use of extrinsic evidence.

Which statement regarding the permissibility of extrinsic evidence is false?

A. A hearsay declarant’s inconsistent statements may be used to impeach her despite the lack of a foundation
B. Generally, a witness must be given an opportunity to explain or deny her inconsistent statement
C. The prior inconsistent statement may concern any matter that casts doubt on the witness’s credibility, whether or not it is related to the case
D. The prior inconsistent statement must be relevant to the case

Answer 11

C. The prior inconsistent statement may concern any matter that casts doubt on the witness’s credibility, whether or not it is related to the case.

Question 12

Under the Federal Rules, when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, a testifying witness’s prior inconsistent statement made at a deposition is:

A. Hearsay, but admissible as an exception
B. Not hearsay, as long as the witness is subject to cross-examination
C. Inadmissible hearsay
D. Not hearsay, as long as the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement

Answer 12

B. Not hearsay, as long as the witness is subject to cross-examination

Question 13

Which of the following statements is true regarding the impeachment of a hearsay declarant who is not available to testify at trial?

A. An unavailable hearsay declarant may be impeached, but her credibility may not be rehabilitated
B. An unavailable hearsay declarant may be impeached, but not with prior inconsistent statements because there is no opportunity for the declarant to explain or deny the statement
C. An unavailable hearssay declarant may be impeached by evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness
D. An unavailable hearsay declarant may not be impeached by any method because she is not present at trial.

Answer 13

C. An unavailable hearsay declarant may be impeached by evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness.

Question 14

A woman was injured when the car she was driving was struck by a moving truck. The woman brings an action for personal injuries against the moving company. The complaint alleges that the driver was drunk at the time of the accident and that the moving company was negligent in hiring him and permitting him to drive knowing that he had a drinking problem and convictions for drunk driving. The driver is called as a witness by the moving company and is expected to testify that he was not drunk at the time of the accident. Instead, the driver states on direct examination that he had had several beers as he drove his truck that evening and was under the influence of drugs when his truck struck the woman’s car. The counsel for the moving company wants to confront the driver with his deposition testimony that he was completely sober at the time of the accident.

Will this evidence be permitted?

A. No,the statement is hearsay not within any recognized exception
B. No, the moving company cannot impeach its own witness
C. Yes, but it may be used only to impeach the driver
D. Yes, it can be used to impeach the driver and as substantive evidence that the driver was sober

Answer 14

D. Yes, it can be used to impeach the driver and as substantive evidence that the driver was sober.

Question 15

A defendant is on trial for robbing a liquor store. The store clerk testified that the defendant came into the store at about 11 p.m., pointed a black gun with a silver grip at him, and demanded that he give him all the money in the cash register. The clerk testified that the store was well lit and that the defendant was not wearing a mask. The defendant’s attorney called the clerk’s employer to testify that when the clerk gave her a report of the robbery, he told her that the defendant pointed a silver gun with a black grip at him.

How should the trial judge rule on the admissibility of this testimony?

A. Admissible, because it tends to show that the clerk is an unreliable witness
B. Admissible, because it has bearing on the clerk’s truthfulness and veracity
C. Inadmissible, because it is extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement on a collateral matter
D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not subject to any exceptions

Answer 15

C. Inadmissible, because it is extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement on a collateral matter.

Question 16

The plaintiff, an electrical contractor, sued the defendant homeowner for refusal to pay for extensive wiring repairs performed on his home by the plaintiff’s employee. The plaintiff called the employee to the stand. The employee, under oath, testified that he did not perform any work at the defendant’s home. The employee also denied writing a letter to a friend telling the friend that the employee was going to do electrical work on the home. Without releasing the employee as a witness, the plaintiff offers into evidence the letter written by the employee to his friend.

If the employee’s letter to his friend is properly authenticated, should the court admit the letter?

A. Yes, for impeachment purposes only
B. Yes, as both substantive and impeachment evidence
C. No, because a party may not impeach his own witness
D. No, because it is inadmissible hearsay

Answer 16

B. Yes, as both substantive and impeachment evidence.

Question 17

The defendant was being sued for striking and seriously injuring a child with his car one evening while the child was playing in the street near the curb. At trial, the attorney for the child’s parents seeks to have the defendant’s then wife testify that he had told her what had happened as soon as he had gotten home, and that he had said, “Between you and me, just before all this happened, I took a quick peek at the back seat to make sure I brought my briefcase home with me. If I had kept my eyes on the road, I never would’ve hit the kid.” The wife had become divorced from the defendant a week before trial and was eager to testify against him. The attorney for the child’s parents also presented evidence that, unknown to either the defendant or his wife, their neighbor overheard this conversation through her open window.

Assuming a proper objection by the defense attorney, will the wife be permitted to so testify?

A. Yes, because she and the defendant were divorced during the time between the making of the statement and the trial
B. Yes, because the fact that the neighbor heard the statement removes the privileged status of the statement
C. No, because the defendant’s statement was a confidential marital communication
D. No, because the privilege to foreclose such testimony belongs to the party-spouse

Answer 17

C. No, because the defendant’s statement was a confidential marital communication.

Question 18

The defendant was on trial for murder. The defendant called a witness to testify to an alibi. On cross-examination of the witness, the prosecutor asked, “Weren’t you on the jury that acquitted the defendant of another criminal charge?”

What is the best reason for sustaining an objection to this question?

A. The question goes beyond the scope of direct examination.
B. The probative value of the answer would be substantially outweighed by its tendency to mislead.
C. The question is a leading question.
D. Prior jury service in a case involving a party renders the witness incompetent.

Answer 18

B. The probative value of the answer would be substantially outweighed by its tendency to mislead.

Not unquestionably correct, the court would have to decide under rule 403 weighing test.

However, important to recognize that this question/answer would inevitably let the jury know that D had been previously charged with a crime. Therefore, could be highly prejudicial to his defense.

Question 19

The defendant was on trial for murdering his mother, who was found dead in her bathtub. At trial, the prosecutor called the nurse of the defendant’s aunt to testify to what the aunt told the nurse just before the aunt died of cancer. The nurse is prepared to testify that, shortly before she died, the aunt stated, “I know I don’t have much longer to live, so I must tell someone what my nephew said to me yesterday. He told me that he was very angry with his mother and that he wanted to kill her and make it look like an accident!”

Should this testimony be admitted?

A. Yes, because it is a statement by an opposing party.
B. Yes, because it falls within the hearsay exception for dying declarations.
C. Yes, because it is a statement by an opposing party and falls within the hearsay exception.
D. No, because it is inadmissible hearsay.

Answer 19

D. No, because it is inadmissible hearsay.

Hearsay within hearsay. Statement by aunt to nurse does not fall within any exception, regardless of whether the nephews statement does fall within an exception.

Question 20

A union filed suit against a corporation, known for its antiunion management, asserting that its members were being discharged in retaliation for membership in the union rather than for any failure to perform their jobs properly. Under the pretrial discovery orders, a union employee was allowed to examine all of the records held in the corporation’s files concerning discharge of employees for a seven-year period prior to the instigation of suit by the union. The employee sorted through this large volume of material and discovered that persons who were union activists usually had “lack of corporate spirit” listed as their reason for discharge, while other fired workers tended to have more specific grounds for discharge listed, e.g., persistent lateness. The employee developed a chart showing grounds for dismissal of union members versus nonmembers based on the data in the files. At the trial, the union placed the employee on the stand. She testified in some detail regarding how she had conducted her research. The employee brought out the chart and the union’s lawyer asked that the chart be admitted into evidence. The corporation’s attorney objected.

How should the court rule on the admissibility of the chart?

A. Admissible, because copies of the original documents upon which the chart was based were available to the corporation prior to trial.
B. Admissible, because the chart is helpful to the trier of fact.
C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, in the absence of the underlying records having been first introduced into evidence.

Answer 20

A. Admissible, because copies of the original documents upon which the chart was based were available to the corporation prior to trial.

Question 21

A defendant was charged with arson (a felony) of an antique shop. Only one corner of the shop was damaged before the fire was extinguished. Under a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty and received a suspended sentence. Because the owner of the shop had not yet insured a recently acquired 400-year-old refectory table that was destroyed by the fire, he sued the defendant for damages. At trial, the owner offers the properly authenticated record of the defendant’s conviction for arson.

Should the record be admitted into evidence?

A. Yes, as proof of the defendant’s character in order to infer liability.
B. Yes, as proof that the defendant set the fire.
C. No, because the conviction was not the result of a trial.
D. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

Answer 21

B. Yes, as proof that the defendant set the fire.

Question 22

While working on a construction project, a plaintiff was injured when a heavy object struck his knee. Although the plaintiff was fully compensated for his injuries at the time of the incident, he now seeks disability payments from the construction company because he has developed arthritis in the same knee. The construction company claims that the arthritis has nothing to do with the plaintiff’s on-the-job injury and refuses to pay him disability money. The plaintiff sues. A doctor takes the stand to testify for the plaintiff. He is qualified as an expert witness and during direct examination states that in his opinion the blow to the plaintiff’s knee caused his arthritis. On cross-examination, the construction company’s attorney produces a treatise on arthritis and asks the doctor if the treatise is considered to be authoritative. The doctor responds that the treatise is a standard authority in the field, but that he did not rely on it in forming his professional opinion regarding the plaintiff’s condition. The attorney then seeks to introduce into evidence a statement in the treatise that “the idea that arthritis can be caused by a single traumatic event is purely folklore, although it is widely believed by the ignorant who have no scientific basis for their beliefs.” The plaintiff’s attorney objects.

How should the court rule on the admissibility of the statement from the treatise?

A. Admissible, but only for the purpose of impeaching the doctor’s testimony.
B. Admissible, but only as substantive evidence.
C. Admissible, both as substantive evidence and for purposes of impeaching the doctor.
D. Inadmissible.

Answer 22

C. Admissible, both as substantive evidence and for purposes of impeaching the doctor.

Question 23

A defendant is on trial for murder. The only evidence linking the defendant to the crime is some blood found at the scene. The lead detective testifies that an officer took a vial containing a blood sample that had been retrieved by a crime scene technician and drove off with it. The officer is now dead. Next, the prosecution presents as a witness a crime lab chemist. The chemist will testify that he took a vial of blood that contained a label identifying it as having been retrieved from the subject crime scene, and that he performed tests that established a match between that blood and a blood sample taken from the defendant.

Is the testimony of the chemist admissible?

A. Yes, because there has been proper authentication.
B. Yes, because the chemist qualifies as an expert witness.
C. No, because there is an insufficent chain of custody.
D. No, because he did not take the original blood sample at the scene of the crime.

Answer 23

C. No, because there is an insufficient chain of custody.

Question 24

A defendant is on trial for manslaughter after he hit a victim in a bar, causing the victim to fall and hit his head on the marble bar top. The defendant claims that he hit the victim in self-defense after the victim lunged at him with a knife. During the prosecution’s case, a witness testifies that she heard the victim’s friend shout at the defendant, “You just killed a helpless man!” A defense witness is called to testify that he was there and does not remember hearing the victim’s friend say anything.

Should the defense witness’s testimony be admitted?

A. No, it is irrelevant to any issue in the case.
B. Yes, it is proper impeachment of the prosecution’s witness.
C. No, it is improper impeachment of the prosecution’s witness because it relates to a collateral matter.
D. No, it is improper impeachment because it does not positively controvert the prosecution witness’s testimony, as the defense witness merely says he does not remember.

Answer 24

B. Yes, it is proper impeachment of the prosecution’s witness.

Question 25

A plaintiff sued a defendant for damages suffered when a load of bricks fell off the defendant’s truck directly in front of the plaintiff while she was driving on a highway. The plaintiff charged that the defendant was negligent in supplying his truck with a defective load chain clamp, which helped tie the load to the bed of the truck, and in failing to secure the load properly on the truck. The plaintiff calls a witness who testifies that he was formerly employed as a truck driver and is an acquaintance of the defendant. The witness further testifies that immediately prior to the accident he had coffee with the defendant at a cafe, and mentioned to the defendant that the tie chains holding the load of bricks looked kind of loose.

Assuming proper objection by the defendant’s attorney, how should the court rule on the admissibility of such testimony?

A. Admissible under an exception to hearsay.
B. Admissible nonhearsay.
C. Inadmissible hearsay.
D. Inadmissible opinion evidence.

Answer 25

B. Admissible nonhearsay

Question 25

A beneficiary has filed a petition in the probate court to contest the validity of a testator’s will. The beneficiary contends that when the testator executed the will eight years before, he had a severe mental illness and was incapable of forming a valid testamentary intent. In support of this contention, the beneficiary seeks to offer an affidavit prepared by the testator’s former attorney, which states that she was asked to prepare a will for the testator just four months before this will was made. The attorney had refused to do so because it was her opinion that the testator seemed incoherent and paranoid.

How should the judge rule on the admissibility of this affidavit?

A. Admissible.
B. Inadmissible, as being violative of attorney-client privilege
C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible because it is improper opinion evidence.

Answer 25

C. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

Question 26

In a trial for bank robbery, a teller has identified the defendant as the robber. Defense counsel offers into evidence a still frame from a video taken by the bank security camera the day after the robbery to show that a column obstructed that teller’s view of the defendant.

Is such evidence admissible?

A. Yes, upon testimony by the camera operator that the still frame was developed from film that was taken from that camera the day after the robbery.
B. Yes, upon testimony by a bank employee that the photo accurately portrays the scene of the crime.
C. No, not admissible into evidence but usable by a witness for explanatory purposes.
D. No, if a still frame can be obtained from a video taken at the time of robbery.

Answer 26

B. Yes, upon testimony by a bank employee that the photo accurately portrays the scene of the crime.

Question 27

A victim was struck by a car in a hit-and-run accident. A police officer arrived half an hour after the accident. The victim was in shock and came in and out of consciousness. As the officer applied first aid, the victim muttered, “I know I’m going to die. Oh my, he ran the light!” The victim fell back into unconsciousness, but revived again and muttered, “Why didn’t he stop?” The officer heard the comments clearly and made a note of them. Good police work by the officer and others led to the discovery of the driver of the car that struck the victim. The victim survived and filed a tort action against the driver. Before the case came to trial, the victim died of a heart attack. The causes of the heart attack were totally unrelated to the accident. The laws of the jurisdiction allow for survival of personal injury actions. Thus, the victim’s estate is substituted for the victim as plaintiff.

If the plaintiff’s attorney seeks to have the officer testify to the victim’s statements at the time of the accident, how will the court rule?

A. Inadmissible, because the victim did not die as a result of accident.
B. Inadmissible, because this is a civil case and not a criminal matter.
C. Admissible, because the victims statements were present sense impressions.
D. Admissible, because the statements were made at a time when the victim feared impending death.

Answer 27

D. Admissible, because the statements were made at a time when the victim feared impending death.

Question 28

A plaintiff sued a defendant for defamation, asserting in her complaint that the defendant had called the plaintiff a thief in front of a number of business associates. The plaintiff calls two witnesses to the stand, both of whom testify that they heard the defendant refer to the plaintiff as a thief in front of the business associates. The plaintiff does not take the stand herself. The defendant pleads truth of the statement as an affirmative defense and calls a witness to the stand. The defense witness is prepared to testify that he was a co-worker of the plaintiff when the plaintiff supplemented her income by tending bar three nights a week. The witness will testify that he saw the plaintiff take a $20 bill from the tavern’s cash register and secrete the money in her pocket. The plaintiff’s attorney objects.

May the defense witness’s testimony be allowed?

A. Yes, as substantive evidence that the plaintiff is, in fact, a thief.
B. Yes, because theft is a crime indicating dishonesty.
C. No, because specific bad acts may not be used to show bad character.
D. No, because the plaintiff never took the stand.

Answer 28

A. Yes, as substantive evidence that the plaintiff is, in fact, a thief.

Question 29

A horse breeder offered to sell a colt to his neighbor and they agreed on a purchase price. The horse breeder subsequently received a letter from the neighbor thanking him for the sale and summarizing their agreement. The letter contained the neighbor’s alleged signature. When the horse breeder attempted to set up transfer of the colt, the neighbor denied that she agreed to purchase it. In a breach of contract action against the neighbor, the horse breeder offers into evidence the letter. The horse breeder testifies that he is familiar with the neighbor’s handwriting and recognizes the signature on the letter as being hers.

Assuming appropriate objection by the neighbor, who claims that she did not sign the letter, how should the trial court rule on the admissibility of the letter?

A. Exclude the letter for lack of foundation because lay opinion testimony regarding handwriting identification is not admissible.
B. Exclude the letter unless its authenticity is established by preponderance of the evidence.
C. Admit the letter as authentic and instruct the jury accordingly.
D. Admit the letter but instruct the jury that it’s up to them to decide whether the letter is authentic.

Answer 29

D. Admit the letter but instruct the jury that it’s up to them to decide whether the letter is authentic.

Question 30

A defendant is being prosecuted in federal court for illegally transporting persons across state lines for immoral purposes. The prosecutor alleges that her route was from New York to Tampa. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that it is impossible to get from New York to Tampa without crossing a state line.

What is the effect of the court’s action?

A. The fact judicially noticed is conclusively established.
B. The burden of persuasian is shifted to the defendant.
C. The burden of proof is shifted to the defendant.
D. The prosecutor’s burden of producing evidence on this point is satisfied.

Answer 30

D. The prosecutor’s burden of producing evidence on this point is satisfied.

Question 31

In a property dispute, a granddaughter claims that her grandfather gave her a deed to his home just before he died. The grandfather’s son claims that the property is rightfully his by a previously executed will. At issue is the authenticity and content of the deed. The granddaughter begins to testify as to the content of the deed, but the son’s attorney objects.

Should the court sustain the objection?

A. Yes, because only the original deed itself is admissible to prove its contents.
B. Yes, unless the court is satisfied that the granddaughter is accurately testifying as to its contents.
C. No, if the judge is satisfied that the deed could not be found after a reasonable search.
D. No, if the deed is recorded, because the court can take judicial notice of the recorded deed.

Answer 31

C. No, if the judge is satisfied that the deed could not be found after a reasonable search.

Question 32

The defendant, a used car seller, is on trial for criminal fraud, charged with selling used cars with major mechanical problems while representing to buyers that the cars were mechanically sound. The defendant claims that she had no knowledge the cars were not fit for sale. At trial, the prosecution offers evidence to show that, eight months prior, the defendant was fired from a different used car lot for knowingly selling defective automobiles with major mechanical problems.

What is the best basis for admitting this evidence?

A. As evidence tending to show the defendant’s criminal character.
B. As evidence of the defendant’s criminal intent.
C. To impeach the defendant’s credibility.
D. As evidence that the defendant is not a competent used car seller.

Answer 32

B. As evidence of the defendant’s criminal intent.

Question 33

A disgruntled student was charged with murder for poisoning his professor by allegedly sending her a box of chocolates laced with rat poison immediately after he received a failing grade in the professor’s class. At trial, he denied sending her anything. The prosecutor seeks to have a witness testify that, four years earlier, the student poisoned his girlfriend on Valentine’s Day by lacing a box of chocolates with rat poison after he discovered she was unfaithful.

A. No, because it is improper character evidence.
B. Yes, but only to impeach the student’s credibility.
C. Yes, as relevant evidence of the students identity, plan, or motive.
D. Yes, as evidence of defendant’s propensity towards violence.

Answer 33

C. Yes, as relevant evidence of the students identity, plan, or motive.

Question 34

A defendant charged with criminal battery testified on his own behalf at trial and asserted that he acted in self-defense.

Which of the following offered for impeaching the defendant’s credibility is most likely to be barred, if objected to by the defendant?

A. A public record showing that the defendant had been convicted of the felony of aggravated battery two years ago.
B. A public record showing that the defendant had been convicted of the misdemeanor of filing a false police report eight years ago.
C. Testimony from a competent witness that the defendant regularly cheats at cards.
D. Testimony from a competent witness that, in the opinion of the witness, the defendant is a habitual liar.

Answer 34

C. Testimony from a competent witness that the defendant regularly cheats at cards.

Question 35

A defendant charged with auto theft under a theory of accomplice liability testified at trial on his own behalf that although he was in the car when the police apprehended the driver, he was unaware that the car was stolen.

On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks the defendant whether he lied on an employment application three years ago when he falsely claimed to hold a college degree.

If the judge allows the question, what is the most likely reason?

A. The evidence may tend to establish that the defendant is a dishonest person and therefore may have committed the crime charged.
B. The prosecutor has a right to inquire about prior bad acts during cross-examination.
C. The evidence is relevant to the issue of credibility of the witness and the court determines that its value is not outweighed by other considerations.
D. The evidence may tend to establish the intent of the defednant to commit auto theft.

Answer 35

C. The evidence is relevant to the issue of credibility of the witness and the court determines that its value is not outweighed by other considerations.

Question 36

A defendant on trial for robbery took the stand in his own defense and testified that the robber was his neighbor. The jury acquitted the defendant based on this testimony. The neighbor was then indicted and brought to trial for the robbery. At that trial the prosecution called the defendant from the first trial to the stand, expecting him to incriminate the neighbor. Surprisingly, the defendant testified: “My neighbor didn’t have anything to do with that robbery, but I know who did! I committed the robbery myself.” When asked about the testimony he gave at his own trial, the defendant insisted he didn’t remember anything about it.

Finding her case in shambles, the prosecutor calls a juror from the first trial to the stand as a witness, who is prepared to testify that the defendant said at the first trial that the neighbor committed the robbery.

On objection by the defense, should the court admit the juror’s testimony?

A. Yes, to impeach the first defendant’s credibility as a witness, but not as substantive evidence of the neighbor’s guilt.
B. Yes, to impeach the first defendant’s credibility as a witness, and as substantive evidence of the neighbor’s guilt.
C. No, because former jurors are not competent to testify concerning cases upon which they sat as jurors.
D. No, because a transcript of the first defendant’s testimony at his robbery trial is the best evidence.

Answer 36

B. Yes, to impeach the first defendant’s credibility as a witness, and as substantive evidence of the neighbor’s guilt.

Question 37

A defendant is on trial for a murder that occurred during a robbery at the victim’s home. A witness helped the police artist compose an accurate depiction of the defendant. The witness was unavailable at the time of trial and the prosecutor offers the sketch into evidence.

Is the sketch admissible?

A. No, under the best evidence rule.
B. No, as hearsay not within any exception.
C. Yes, as a record by a public employee.
D. Yes, as prior identification.

Answer 37

B. No, as hearsay not within any exception.

Question 38

At a trial in which a pedestrian is suing a driver, a hospital record was admitted into evidence that included the following statement: “The pedestrian’s leg was run over by a car driven by a driver who blew through a red light while the pedestrian was crossing in a crosswalk.”

The driver’s attorney now wishes to admit the other portion of the hospital record, which says, “The pedestrian stepped off the curb without first looking both ways for traffic.”

How should the court rule?

A. Admit the statement on fairness grounds because the P has the other portion of the record.
B. Admit the statement as a past recollection recorded.
C. Exclude it because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. Exclude it because it is self-serving.

Answer 38

A. Admit the statement on fairness grounds because the P has the other portion of the record.

Question 39

A wife is on trial for murdering her husband. At trial, the prosecution entered into evidence the fact that the wife fired the gun which killed her husband. The wife testified in her defense that her husband was threatening her with a knife when she picked up the gun and shot him.

In rebuttal, the prosecution calls one of the officers who responded to the wife’s 911 call right after the shooting. The officer will testify that the wife said, “I accidentally dropped my gun on the floor and it went off, killing my husband.”

Is the officer’s testimony admissible?

A. Yes, as an excited utterance.
B. Yes, to impeach the wife and as evidence that she did not act in self-defense.
C. No, because of the wife’s privilege against self-incrimination.
D. No, for the purpose of impeaching the wife, because the prosecutor did not call her attention to her statement to the officer on cross-examination.

Answer 39

B. Yes, as to impeach the wife and as evidence that she did not act in self-defense.

Question 40

A camper sued the manufacturer of thermal underwear, alleging that while he was attempting to stomp out a fire, the camper’s underwear caught fire and burned in a melting fashion up to his waist because it was defective, and that, a half hour later, he suffered a heart attack as a result of the burns he suffered.

A physician hearing the camper testify to the events that occurred is called by the camper and asked whether the camper’s heart attack could have resulted from the burns.

Is his opinion admissible?

A. Yes, as a response to a hypothetical question.
B. Yes, because the physician’s expertise enables him to judge the credibility of the camper’s testimony.
C. No, because a hypothetical question may not be based on prior testimony.
D. No, because an expert’s opinion may not be based solely on information provided by lay persons.

Answer 40

A. Yes, as a response to a hypothetical question.

Question 41

A softball coach was charged with sexual assault of one of the players on the team. Three days before the start of trial, the prosecutor receives evidence that the coach sexually assaulted other players in the past. The coach was never criminally charged in connection with these incidents. The prosecutor immediately discloses the evidence to defense counsel.

What may the prosecutor do with this evidence?

A. Offer it at trial as substantive evidence in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.
B. Present it only for impeachment purposes if the coach testifies.
C. Request a delay to the start of trial to give defense counsel the required 15 days notice of the prosecution’s plan to use the evidence.
D. Nothing, because the accusations did not result in criminal charges.

Answer 41

A. Offer it at trial as substantive evidence in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.