Florida State Exam Missed Questions Evidence Distinctions Flashcards
Bill was charged with sexual battery of Jane. Bill’s defense is that Jane consented to sexual intercourse with him in exchange for money. Bill called Ian to testify that Jane is known in the community as a prostitute. Which of the following statements is true regarding this testimony?
Answer Choices:
Ian may not testify as to Jane’s reputation as a prostitute.
At least 14 days before trial, Bill must file a motion requesting a hearing.
The court must conduct an in camera hearing on the admissibility of this evidence.
Ian’s testimony need not be corroborated.
Ian may not testify as to Jane’s reputation as a prostitute.
Under the Florida Rape Shield Statute, reputation evidence relating to a victim’s prior sexual conduct is not admissible in a prosecution for sexual battery.
A bank initiated an interpleader action with respect to a decedent’s account. The form for designating the beneficiaries of the account had been lost by the bank. One of the claimants to the account introduced a photocopy of the form, but a witness called into question the authenticity of the photocopy. Is evidence of a notation in the bank’s records of the beneficiaries of the account admissible?
Answer Choices:
Yes, because a duplicate of a form that evidences a right to the payment of money is not treated as an original document.
Yes, because the original form had been lost by the bank.
No, because the photocopy, as a duplicate, is treated as the original.
No, because the notation is not the best evidence.
Yes, because the original form had been lost by the bank.
The best evidence rule requires that the original document be produced in order to prove the contents of a writing when the contents are at issue. Since the original document has been lost and is unavailable, the best evidence rule permits the introduction of secondary evidence, such as the notation in the bank’s records, to prove the contents of the original document.
Plaintiff, in a civil battery action against Defendant based on an alleged sexual assault, offered evidence that Defendant had been convicted of two prior sexual batteries. She argued that the evidence demonstrated that Defendant had a compulsion to commit such acts. This evidence is
Answer Choices:
admissible.
admissible if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm and unfair prejudice to Plaintiff.
inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of harm and unfair prejudice to Plaintiff.
inadmissible.
inadmissible.
Use of a defendant’s prior bad act to show the defendant’s propensity for committing the act in question is generally not admissible in a civil action. Answer choice A is incorrect because this is the standard applied under the Federal Rules of Evidence to determine whether evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual behavior or predisposition is admissible.
In a civil action, the defense attorney questioned a witness who was then cross-examined by opposing counsel. During the cross-examination, the plaintiff’s attorney may ask which of the following types of questions? I. Questions asked in the form of leading questions. II. Questions pertaining to the credibility of the witness. III. Questions related to the subject matter of the witness’ direct testimony.
Answer Choices: I, II, and III I and II only I and III only I only
I, II, and III
While the scope of cross-examination generally is limited, the cross-examiner is permitted to ask questions that pertain to the subject matter of the direct examination and the credibility of the witness; however, the court may allow inquiry into additional matters. In addition, on cross-examination of a witness, an attorney may ask the questions in the form of leading questions.
While in the waiting room of a doctor’s office, a patient sustained injuries due to the collapse of the chair in which she was sitting. The patient brought a negligence action against the doctor. The patient seeks to admit the doctor’s statement, “Oh, I knew those chairs were getting old,” which was made a few hours after the chair collapsed. The doctor, who is available to testify, objects to the admission of the statement to prove his negligence. Should the court admit the statement as evidence of the doctor’s negligence?
Answer Choices:
No, because the statement is hearsay not within any exception.
No, because the doctor is available to testify at trial.
Yes, because the statement is a statement against the doctor’s pecuniary interest.
Yes, because the statement is an opposing party’s statement.
Yes, because the statement is an opposing party’s statement.
A prior out-of-court statement by a party to the current litigation that is used against that party is an exception to the hearsay rule. The statement need not have been against the declarant’s interest at the time it was made; it must only be contrary to his present interest. The doctor’s statement about the chair is clearly such a statement; thus, it should be admitted.
A free-lance journalist for a Florida television station witnessed an event that led to a criminal trial against Defendant. The prosecution subpoenaed the journalist to testify about the event, and the journalist filed a motion to quash the subpoena. Of the following, which is an appropriate basis for the court to deny the motion?
Answer Choices:
The journalist was not an employee of the television station.
The journalist witnessed a crime.
The journalist is not being asked to reveal a confidential source.
The television station is a broadcast, not a publishing entity.
The journalist witnessed a crime.
Although Florida recognizes an evidentiary privilege for journalists, this privilege does not apply to protect from disclosure eyewitness observations of a crime, even though those observations are made while newsgathering. .
Plaintiff filed suit against a decedent’s estate to enforce a contract in which the deceased offered to sell Plaintiff a car. Plaintiff sought to testify as to a statement made by the deceased offering to sell the car, while the estate sought to prevent the testimony or alternatively, to submit a letter from the deceased written prior to his death to refute the assertion that an offer had been made. How should the court rule?
Answer Choices:
Plaintiff is incompetent to testify regarding the oral statement made by the deceased.
Plaintiff may testify as to the oral statement, and the estate may introduce the letter.
Plaintiff, though competent, may not testify as to the oral statement because it is hearsay.
Plaintiff may testify as to the oral statement, but the estate may not introduce the letter because it is hearsay.
Plaintiff may testify as to the oral statement, and the estate may introduce the letter.
Since Florida has repealed its Dead Man’s Statute, Plaintiff is competent to testify regarding the oral contract between her and the deceased prior to his death. In addition, she may testify as to the statement made by the deceased, since it is not hearsay, but instead is a legally operative fact (e.g., an offer to enter into a contract). Also, the estate may introduce the letter written by the deceased that refutes that an offer had occurred. Although hearsay, it qualifies for the Florida hearsay exception for a statement by a deceased or ill declarant similar to one previously admitted.
Defendant is charged with domestic battery by strangulation of his wife. This is the first reported incident involving allegations of domestic abuse in their 25 years of marriage. At trial, the defense attorney asks the defendant on direct examination if, in his 25 years of marriage, his wife has ever previously called the police on him for domestic violence. The state objects to the question. How should the court rule?
Answer Choices:
Overrule the objection, because the accused can offer evidence of a pertinent trait of character.
Overrule the objection, because a lay witness can testify to matters about which he has personal knowledge.
Sustain the objection, because the accused cannot offer evidence of a pertinent trait of character unless and until the state opens the door.
Sustain the objection, because this is an improper method of introducing character evidence by the defense.
Sustain the objection, because this is an improper method of introducing character evidence by the defense.
The accused is permitted to offer evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the accused. However, the character trait must relate to a particular relevant character trait at issue, and the defendant is limited to reputation evidence when introducing evidence of a pertinent character trait. Here, the defense is attempting to introduce evidence of prior good acts of conduct. This is improper.
In a medical malpractice case, Plaintiff requested court permission to introduce into evidence statements contained in a medical handbook upon which his medical expert based her testimony. The defense objected that the handbook constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court should
Answer Choices:
admit the publication under the learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule.
admit the statements from the publication as evidence read into the record by the plaintiff.
refuse to admit the evidence unless the expert establishes that the handout is an authoritative medical work.
refuse to admit the evidence as hearsay without an exception.
refuse to admit the evidence as hearsay without an exception.
Since the statements from the medical handbook are being introduced for their truth, the statements are inadmissible hearsay. Florida’s rule on the basis for expert testimony DOES NOT contain the language of the Federal Rules of Evidence allowing the proponent of the testimony to disclose inadmissible facts that the expert has relied on.
During a court-ordered mediation session involving child custody, a father offered a written custody arrangement that was rejected by the mother. They orally agreed to a different arrangement before the end of the session. May the father present evidence of either arrangement to the court?
Answer Choices:
Yes, as to both the custody arrangement offered by the father and the custody arrangement orally agreed upon by both the father and the mother.
No, as to both the custody arrangement offered by the father and the custody arrangement orally agreed upon by both the father and the mother.
Yes, but only the custody arrangement offered by the father.
Yes, but only the custody arrangement orally agreed upon by both the father and the mother.
No, as to both the custody arrangement offered by the father and the custody arrangement orally agreed upon by both the father and the mother.
Any party to a mediation may refuse to testify and may prevent other parties to the mediation from testifying about mediation communications. This privilege applies to communications made by the party seeking to offer the communication into evidence as well as communications made by other parties to the mediation. While this privilege DOES NOT apply to a WRITTEN agreement reached by the parties as a result of the mediation, unless the parties agree otherwise, the privilege does apply to an oral agreement that is not reduced to writing. In addition, the public policy exclusion for compromise offers prevents the admission of either custody arrangement.
A Florida ship captain sued a wealthy yacht owner for breach of contract. The owner retained the original written agreement. The captain has a photocopy, which is a true and accurate copy of the original agreement. There is no question as to authenticity of the original. The captain seeks to admit this copy into evidence. Is the captain’s copy of the written agreement admissible in Florida courts?
Answer Choices:
Yes, if the owner was in possession of the original and was notified that the original was required, but did not produce it.
Yes, if the agreement was notarized.
Yes, because there is no question as to the authenticity of the original.
No, because it is merely a duplicate.
Yes, because there is no question as to the authenticity of the original.
The captain’s copy of the contract is a duplicate and as such is admissible to the same extent as the original since there is no question as to the authenticity of the original.
