Hearsay: Admissions Flashcards
True or False?
An admission may be introduced against the party who made it even though the admission was not based on the firsthand knowledge of the declarant.
False
True or False?
When the police arrived to arrest D for robbery, he tried to escape. D’s attempt to escape would be inadmissible because it is conduct that would be considered hearsay.
False
True or False?
For a statement by a party to qualify as an admission, the statement must have been against the declarant’s interest at the time the statement was made.
False
True or False?
D is arrested and read his Miranda rights. While under arrest the victim of the crime is brought to the police station. Within D’s hearing, the victim points to D and says, “That is the man that robbed me.” D remained silent. D’s silence in the face of this accusation could not be used as an adoptive admission.
True
Negligence action by P against Ace Department Store following a slip and fall in Ace’s toy department. To prove negligence, P wishes to testify that ten minutes after he fell, X, the toy department manager, said to him, “Kids come in and pull the toys off the shelf all the time. I should have my people clean the aisles more often. Sorry.” X was fired the day after the accident. P’s testimony about what X told him is
A. Inadmissible unless Ace authorized X to speak for it.
B. Inadmissible because X is not a party.
C. Inadmissible because X no longer works for Ace.
D. Admissible as an admission of an employee.
D. Admissible as an admission of an employee.
Brown is tried for armed robbery of the First National Bank. The prosecutor offers the testimony of a bartender that when he saw the money in Brown’s wallet, he said, “You must have robbed a bank,” to which Brown made no reply. This evidence is
A. Admissible to prove that Brown’s conduct caused the bartender to believe that Brown robbed the bank.
B. Admissible as an adoptive admission in that it was a statement of culpability made in the presence of the defendant.
C. Inadmissible, because Brown had no reason to respond to the bartender’s statement.
D. Admissible for impeachment purposes only if Brown testifies.
C. Inadmissible, because Brown had no reason to respond to the bartender’s statement.
Action for breach of contract to play professional football. The plaintiff testifies that when he asked the defendant to play on special teams, the defendant made an obscene gesture and stalked off the practice field. This evidence is
A. Admissible.
B. Inadmissible as irrelevant.
C. Inadmissible as hearsay.
D. Inadmissible under Rule 403.
A. Admissible.
Suit for personal injuries suffered by the defendant when she was struck by a hit-and-run automobile while jogging. To prove that the defendant was the driver of the car that struck her, the plaintiff offers testimony that the defendant pled guilty to information charging him with felony hit-and-run in the accident involving the plaintiff. This testimony is
A. Admissible as an admission.
B. Inadmissible as hearsay.
C. Admissible only if the defendant had been given Miranda warnings.
D. Admissible only if the defendant testifies and denies he was the driver.
A. Admissible as an admission.
Roy Ellis is on trial for the murder of 12-year-old Amber Harris. The prosecution claimed that Ellis sexually assaulted Amber Harris and killed her to cover his crime. Jail mate is called by the prosecution to testify that Ellis, who had been incarcerated for another crime, bragged to him when they were cell mates that Ellis had sexually assaulted Amber, killed her, and buried her body. Over a hearsay objection, the trial judge should rule Prison Mate’s testimony about Roy Ellis’ statements is
A. Admissible, because Ellis’ statement is an admission.
B. Admissible, because Ellis’ statement was a declaration against interest.
C. Inadmissible, because it was hearsay.
D. Inadmissible, because it was a prior inconsistent statement which can only be used for impeachment purposes.
A. Admissible, because Ellis’ statement is an admission.
Plaintiff’s counsel calls Sheriff to testify that in Defendant’s presence a passenger in Defendant’s car had told the Sheriff, “We hit him while he was in the crosswalk,” and that Defendant remained silent. The trial judge should rule this testimony
A. Admissible because Defendant, by his silence, has made Paul his agent and would thereby be bound by any admission Paul made.
B. Admissible because Defendant’s silence constitutes an adoptive admission.
C. Inadmissible as “double hearsay” in that Defendant’s silence is being used to prove the truth of what Sheriff said Paul said.
D. Inadmissible unless Defendant is first called and asked to admit or deny the incident.
B. Admissible because Defendant’s silence constitutes an adoptive admission.
Suit to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant testifies that he walked into the plaintiff-savings and loan, saw a man sitting next to a desk title that read “Vice-President,” and asked, “Is it all right if I’m a few days late on the next mortgage payment? The boss is short of cash and asked me to wait for my check.” The man looked up and said: “Sure, no problem.”
A. Both statements are admissible.
B. The statement of the defendant is admissible but that of the man is not.
C. The statement of the plaintiff is not admissible but that of the man is.
D. Both statements are inadmissible.
A. Both statements are admissible.
In a drug case the prosecution seeks to admit an airline ticket found on the defendant when he was arrested to prove that the defendant had in fact made the trip indicated on the ticket. If the defendant objects “hearsay,” the court should
A. Overrule the objection on the basis of 801(d)(2), an adopted admission.
B. Overrule the objection on the basis of the residual exception, Rule 807, if the defendant was aware of that the ticket was found, regardless of pretrial notice.
C. Sustain the objection as hearsay.
D. Overrule the objection as nonhearsay.
D. Overrule the objection as nonhearsay.
A defendant was charged with perjury for having falsely testified in an earlier civil case that he knew nothing about a business fraud. In the perjury trial, the defendant again testified that he knew nothing about the business fraud. In rebuttal, the prosecutor ahs called a witness to testify that after the civil trial was over the defendant admitted to the witness privately that he had know about the fraud. Is the witness’s testimony in the perjury trial admissible?
A. Yes, but only to impeach the defendant’s testimony.
B. Yes, both to impeach the defendant’s testimony and as substantive evidence of the perjury.
C. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. No, because it relates to the business fraud and not to the commission of perjury.
B. Yes, both to impeach the defendant’s testimony and as substantive evidence of the perjury.
In the prosecution of weapon violation the state offers the following question
and answer, to show why the officer was at the scene: “what brought you to the scene?” and the responsive answer, “We responded to a [report of a] female with a gun.” The defense objects on hearsay and Confrontation. The court should:
A. Overrule the hearsay objection, but sustain the hearsay statement because the answer is factually assertive of a relevant fact.
B. Overrule the question and answer because it is relevant for a nonhearsay purpose, explaining why the officer went to the scene.
C. Sustain both the question and the answer.
D. Overrule the hearsay objections, but sustain the question and answer on the basis of Confrontation.
B. Overrule the question and answer because it is relevant for a nonhearsay purpose, explaining why the officer went to the scene.
In a tort action against Henry Doorly Zoo for an alleged gorilla attack against a patron, to prove the attack occurred, the Plaintiff offers the Zoo manager’s resignation letter informing Henry Doorly “We have a problem. Apparently, a gorilla assaulted a patron, but I have not been able to verify anything.” If the plaintiffs object to the admissibility of the resignation letter written by the Zoo manager on the grounds of a lack of firsthand knowledge (602) and hearsay (802), the court should
A. Sustain the objection on the basis of hearsay.
B. Sustain the objection because the Zoo manager acknowledged that he had no firsthand knowledge that the assault occurred.
C. Overrule the objection on the grounds of an admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), which does not require firsthand knowledge as foundation for the admissibility of an admission of a business agent under 801(d)(2)(D).
D. Sustain the objection on the grounds provided in (A) and (B).
C. Overrule the objection on the grounds of an admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), which does not require firsthand knowledge as foundation for the admissibility of an admission of a business agent under 801(d)(2)(D).
