Evidence Exam

Patty was injured in a car crash when Dan's car struck her. At the hospital, she told the doctor the following: (1) My left arm, leg, and hip are really hurting (2) Another car struck my driver's side door (3) The other driver ran the light (4) It looked like he was on his cell phone; If offered for their truth, which of these out-of-court statements would be admissible?

(1) and (2)

Defendant is charged with sexual assault. In addition to the victim's testimony, the Prosecutor calls another witness who will testify that two years ago, the Defendant also sexually assaulted her. Defense objects. Admit? a. Yes, if it doesn't violate Rule 403 b. Yes, but only if the prior act meets an exception under 404(b) c. No, because the State can't offer character evidence first d. No, as the jury might misuse it for propensity purposes

A

Brooks charged with selling cocaine. At trial, Officer Jones testified she bought cocaine from Brooks. Case ends in mistrial, and a new trial date is set. Officer Jones is killed before the second trial. At that trial, the State offers the transcript of Officer Jones' testimony against Brooks. Admit? a. Yes, it's prior sworn testimony b. Yes, under Rule 807 c. No, it's hearsay d. No, it's hearsay and a Confrontation Clause violation

A

A man beats Victoria so brutally she ends up hospitalized for 2 months. Minutes after the attack, as she lay on the pavement, Victoria says to a Bonnie, a bystander who showed up to render aid, "My God, I'm dying! Don't let Roscoe get away with this!" Victoria survives but has amnesia. The State prosecutes Roscoe for aggravated assault. Bonnie is called and asked about Victoria's statement to her. Admit? a. No, it's hearsay b. Yes, it's a present sense impression c. Yes, it's a dying declaration d. Yes, it's an excited utterance

D

Assuming the prosecutor makes a submissible case, Dan offers the testimony of his best friend, Cartman, who will testify that "I've known Dan for 20 years. In my opinion, Dan is an honest, law-abiding person." Admit? a. No, because it's not relevant b. No, because it's improper character evidence c. No, because it's unfairly prejudicial. d. Yes, because it establishes a pertinent trait of Defendant

D

Burglary trial of Roscoe, who allegedly broke into Applebee's after hours and stole a 50 pound box of steaks, plus all the servers' name tags. At trial, Roscoe calls Carrie, who testifies that Roscoe was out of town with her at the time of the crime.In rebuttal, the State calls Tom, who testifies as follows: (1) "I've known Carrie for 10 years and in my opinion, she's dishonest, and (2) "she used a forged check to buy Girl Scout cookies from my daughter last year." Defense objects to Tom's testimony. Admit? a. No, it's improper character evidence b. No, unless defense opened the door to character evidence c. Yes, admit both statements d. Yes as to statement (1), but no as to statement (2)

D

P is injured in 2015 from an accident resulting from a steering defect in his 2012 Ford Galaxy. The manufacturer became aware of the defect in late 2012.The manufacturer made a design change to correct the defect in 2013. It later issued a recall of the vehicle in 2016.Which of the following would likely be admissible at trial? a. Evidence of the design change b. Evidence of the recall c. Both the design change and the recall d. Neither the design change nor the recall

a evidence of the design change Rule 407 prohibits evidence of subsequent remedial measures. The rule is triggered after the injury or harm occurs. Here, the recall happened after the accident, and so it cannot be admitted. The design change occurred before the injury, and would likely be admissible.

Paul sues his neighbor, Dan, for trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Paul alleges that Dan went into Paul's yard and stole his political signs. At trial, Paul testifies that two days after Dan was served, he was sitting on his front porch when Dan walked over and said: "Look, this is getting out of hand. It was just a little prank. I never thought you'd be so upset." If Dan objects, his statement will likely be held: (a) Inadmissible (b) Admissible

(b) AdmissibleThis is an admission of fault, which will be admitted. There's nothing in the facts to suggest this is a settlement negotiation; no offer has been made to resolve the dispute here.

Same lawsuit, but slightly different facts.At trial, Dan claims he never touched the sign. In rebuttal, Paul wants to testify that during their settlement conference with both attorneys present, Dan said: "I want you to know I'm really sorry I did that. It was just a joke."If Dan objects, Paul's testimony will likely be held: (a)Admissible to impeach Dan's trial testimony (b)Inadmissible under Rule 408

(b) Inadmissible under Rule 408Rule 408 provides each party the "cone of silence" during settlement negotiations. Even if one side testifies at trial in a manner that's completely inconsistent with statements they made during the settlement conference, the other side may notuse those inconsistent statements to impeach. Rule 408 doesn't allow it.

Same case. The next day, a company representative comes to see him at the hospital. The rep tells the injured worker the following three things:1. "Looks like this was our fault." 2. "Don't worry about your medical bills—we've paid them." 3. "We'll pay you $100 per week wages while you're recovering."Does Rule 409 exclude any of the representative's statements? (a) Yes as to statement 1. (b) Yes as to statement 2 (c) Yes as to statements 2 and 3. (d) No.

(b) Yes as to statement 2 Rule 409 prohibits offers to pay medical expenses, even if there isn't a "disputed claim." The public policy behind the rule is to encourage such kind offers. Statement 2 is definitely out under the rule. The other statements are admissible.

Same case, but slightly different facts. Plaintiff's attorney calls Ford's head engineer to the stand and asks why the company didn't put the Pinto's gas tank in the front of the car.The engineer responds: "It is possible to move the gas tank to the front, but we believe the placement of the gas tank in the rear of the vehicle was reasonable and safe."Is evidence the redesign now admissible? (a)Yes. The engineer clearly disputed feasibility and can be impeached. (b)No. Saying a product is "safe" doesn't clearly dispute feasibility.

(b)No. Saying a product is "safe" doesn't clearly dispute feasibility. If a witness clearly rejects a remedial measure, then feasibility is in dispute.If a witness merely states that the previous design was "safe" or "not defective," then feasibility is not in dispute.

Same lawsuit, but slightly different facts.At trial, Paul testifies that the morning after his sign first disappeared, Dan knocked on his front door. When Paul answered, Dan said: "I'm the one who took your signs last night. I'm really sorryabout that. I'm very ashamed. If I gave you $200, could we let bygones be bygones?"If Dan objects, his statement will likely be held: (a) Inadmissible under Rule 408 (b) Inadmissible as it is substantially more prejudicial than probative (c) Admissible

(c) AdmissibleUnder these facts, there is no "disputed claim" when Dan makes these statements. He hasn't been sued yet. He hasn't even been accused of anything yet, so there's no dispute to trigger Rule 408. These admissions and offer will be admitted. Rule 408: (a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party —either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a DISPUTED CLAIM or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:

Dan is on trial for Assault Causing Serious Bodily Injury. Dan is alleged to have violently attacked his neighbor, Victor, with a tire iron.At trial, the prosecution wants to show the jury three photos depicting Victor's various injuries in gory detail. Dan offers to stipulate as to the "serious bodily injury" element of the charge and defend on the ground of self-defense. The State does not accept the stipulation.If Dan objects to the admission of the three photos, the evidence will: (a) Likely be excluded as irrelevant, since the stipulation removes all probative value. (b) Likely be excluded under Rule 403, as unfairly prejudicial. (c) Likely be admitted.

(c) Likely be admitted.These three photos will likely be admitted. Even though they are gory, they are still probative to establish "serious bodily injury." The defense has offered to stipulate, but the state is not required to accept that stipulation and may prove their case the way they wish to prove it.

A dock worker is injured while helping unload a container ship. The next day, a company representative comes to see him at the hospital. The rep tells the injured worker the following three things:1. "Looks like this was our fault." 2. "Don't worry about your medical bills—we've paid them." 3. "We'll pay you $100 per week wages while you're recovering."Does Rule 408 exclude any of the representative's statements? (a) Yes as to statement 2. (b) Yes as to statements 2 and 3. (c) No.

(c) No. Rule 408 does not bar any of these statements. There is not a "disputed claim" yet under these facts, so the rule isn't triggered yet.

Negligence action by Paul against Defendant, the City of Columbia. Paul alleges his car was badly damaged when he hit a huge pothole on a side street. The City claims that the spot where the accident took place was actually a small private lane over which it had no authority. At trial, Paul wants to call a witness to testify that a day after the accident, a City of Columbia road crew repaired the pothole.Which of the following statements is most accurate? (a) The evidence is relevant but inadmissible for public policy reasons. (b) The evidence is inadmissible under Rule 403. (c) The evidence is relevant and admissible

(c) The evidence is relevant and admissibleThis is another example of how Rule 407 works to allow evidence of subsequent remedial measures when a non-prohibited purpose is in dispute. Here, the City claims it did not own or control the location where the accident took place. Rule 407 allows SRM evidence to prove ownership or control, when those issues are in dispute.

Same case. At trial, Plaintiff's attorney calls Ford's head engineer to the stand and asks why the company didn't put the Pinto's gas tank in the front of the car.The engineer responds: "Given the design of the Pinto's motor, it would be impossible to move the gas tank to the front." Is evidence of the redesign now admissible? (a)No, because it is still evidence of a remedial measure (b)No, because the probative value is still outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (c)Yes.

(c) Yes. Here, Ford's engineer has testified that the redesign was "impossible." Evidence of the redesign would now be admissible to impeach the engineer's testimony and also to show feasibility.

Hector is charged with the murder of Elliott. He admits stabbing Elliott with a switch-blade, but states that he did so in self-defense after Elliott attacked him. As part of its case-in-chief, the prosecution offers evidence of other violent fights in which Hector had engaged, including several in which he used a switch-blade knife on his opponent. a. The evidence of the other fights is inadmissible. b. The evidence is admissible to show that Hector was a violent person and therefore more likely to have been the aggressor in the fight. c. The evidence of other fights is inadmissible. However, evidence of Hector's reputation in the community for violence would be admissible as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief. d. The evidence is admissible, provided it is sufficient for the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hector had been the aggressor in those fights.

A

Matusik was an eyewitness to an intersection accident. Six months after the accident, he gave plaintiff's counsel a written statement describing how defendant "had gone speeding through a yellow light while crossing over on the wrong side of the highway." At trial Matusik is called by plaintiff as a witness. Matusik testifies that defendant sped through the yellow light. However, he says nothing about defendant being on the wrong side of the road. As to this aspect, Matusik says he doesn't remember. Plaintiff's counsel shows Matusik his prior statement and he then testifies that his recollection is refreshed and that the defendant's car had gone onto the wrong side of the street. May Matusik's prior statement now be admitted into evidence? a. Plaintiff's counsel may not introduce the statement itself into evidence. However, defendant's counsel may introduce any portion of the statement relating to the testimony of the witness. b. Once the witness has testified that the statement has refreshed his recollection, the statement itself becomes admissible when offered by either party. c. A statement used solely for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of a witness may not be introduced into evidence by either party. d. The portions of the statement not recalled by the witness may be introduced by the party seeking to refresh recollection.

A

One evening, James says to his sister: "I'm heading over to the Taco Bell on Nifong. I'm going to meet Billy Smith." Hours later, police find James dead. At trial, the State calls the sister and offers this statement to establish that Billy Smith met with James that evening. Admit? a. No, it's hearsay b. No, it violates the Confrontation Clause c. No, it's both hearsay and a CC violation d. Yes, as state of mind

A

P is injured in 2015 from an accident resulting from a steering defect in his 2012 Ford Galaxy. The manufacturer was aware of similar accidents in 2012. The manufacturer made a design change to correct the defect in 2013. The manufacturer issued a recall of the vehicle in 2016.Which of the following would likely be admissible at trial? a. Evidence of the design change b. Evidence of the recall c. Both the design change and the recall d. Neither the design change nor the recall

A

P sues D for wrongful death arising out of a car crash between P's decedent and D. At trial, the investigating officer authenticated a tape recording of comments the officer dictated while she was at the scene of the accident, which she used in preparing the written report of her factual findings. She testified that the tape recording was accurate when made and that currently, she has no clear memory of the details of her investigation. Is the tape recording admissible? a. Yes, under the past recollection recorded exception to hearsay b. Yes, under the public records exception to hearsay c. No, because it is hearsay d. No, because police reports are not admissible against defendants

A

P then called Walter, who stated over objection that he knew Dr. Medic's reputation for truthfulness and that it was good. Walter's testimony as to the good reputation of Dr. Medic is: a. inadmissible because Dr. Medic has not been impeached with testimony as to his bad character for truthfulness; b. inadmissible because rehabilitation through character evidence is not permitted; c. admissible to rebut defendant's implication of bias or interest; d. inadmissible because character is not an essential element of the claim or defense.

A

Personal injury case. P sues retail store for injuries she sustained from a fall in the store. P alleged the store negligently allowed its entryway to become slippery due to snow tracked in from outside. After P threatened to sue, the manager responded, "I know there was slush on our floor, but I think your 4" heels were the real cause of the fall. Let's agree that we'll pay your medical bills, plus $500 for pain and suffering, and you release us from any claims you have." P refused this offer. At trial, P offers the manager's statement that "there was slush on our floor." Defense objects. Is statement admissible? a. No, as it's a statement made during settlement negotiations b. No, because manager denied the floor's condition caused P's fall c. Yes, as an admission by an agent about a matter within his authority d. Yes, because it is a statement against pecuniary interest

A

Plaintiff sues defendant for damages which occurred while plaintiff was driving a car manufactured by defendant. Plaintiff bought the car 6 months ago. Plaintiff alleges that the design of the car's brakes was unsafe and was known to be unsafe when defendant manufactured the car. Under the law of this jurisdiction, a plaintiff must prove in a products liability action that a manufacturer knew of a product's unsafe condition when the product was made. As part of his case-in-chief, plaintiff wishes to present evidence that one year before this incident the defendant had been sued by another plaintiff who also claimed he had been injured when his car, also manufactured by the defendant, failed to stop because the brakes suddenly failed to work. Plaintiff wishes to introduce in evidence a copy of the earlier plaintiff's complaint which was served on the defendant. This offered evidence is: a. relevant and non-hearsay; b. irrelevant and non-hearsay; c. irrelevant and hearsay; d. relevant and hearsay.

A

Same case. While questioning Delbert, the prosecutor wants to offer evidence that Delbert was convicted of misdemeanor perjury in 2019. Delbert's counsel objects. Admit? a. Yes. b. No, this is not a felony conviction. c. No, unless the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect d. No, unless Rule 403 is satisfied

A

Same cow case. After the accident, the cow's owner engaged the services of a livestock expert, Fred, to investigate. Fred regularly looks into these types of incidents as a "livestock misadventure investigator." After a thorough investigation, Fred sends a memo to the cow's owner, which reads, "I've looked into the falling cow accident and your cow was blameless. She was the healthiest cow in the herd. It appears that a hurricane-level wind blew out of nowhere and pushed the cow right off the cliff. Poor Maggie!" Admit Fred's memo? a. Inadmissible hearsay b. Admissible as a business record c. Admissible as an excited utterance d. Admissible as a present sense impression

A

Violet is at work in her store. It's slow, so she's talking on the phone to her friend Adam. Violet says, "Got to go, Sam just walked in." Sam is someone who lives in the neighborhood; both Violet and Adam know him. The next thing Adam hears is a loud bang that sounds like a gunshot. Violet dies from a gunshot wound and, after talking to Adam, the police arrest Sam and charge him with murder. At trial, Adam testifies that Violet said, "Got to go, Sam just walked in." Admit? a. Yes, as a present sense impression b. Yes, as an excited utterance c. Yes, as state of mind d. No, it's hearsay

A

Same lawsuit, but slightly different facts.At trial, Paul testifies that during their settlement conference with both attorneys present Dan said: "I want you to know I'm really sorry. I thought it was a joke, but I understand now that it wasn't funny."If Dan objects, his statement will likely be held: (a)Inadmissible under Rule 408 (b)Inadmissible as it is substantially more prejudicial than probative (c)Admissible

A Here, there is a disputed claim and the parties are at a settlement conference. Rule 408 prohibits the admission of statements made during settlement negotiations. Under these circumstances, Dan's statements are inadmissible.

At a civil trial for slander, the plaintiff showed the defendant had called the plaintiff a thief. In defense, the defendant called a witness to testify as follows: (1) "I've been the plaintiff's neighbor for years and his reputation in this community is that of a thief"; and (2) "He stole my favorite garden gnome last year." Admit? a. Admit neither statement b. Admit both statements c. Admit (1) only d. Admit (2) only

B

At trial, Patricia offers evidence that prior to their crash, Dana had been involved in six (6) separate car crashes and had caused each one of them. Admit? a. No, because it's not relevant b. No, because it violates Rule 404. c. Yes, provided it satisfies Rule 403. d. Yes, since it establishes a habit or pattern.

B

Car accident lawsuit. Plaintiff calls Wally, who testifies that Defendant's car ran the red light. Defense counsel asks no questions on cross. Next, Plaintiff calls Carrie, who testifies, "I've known Wally for many years. In my opinion, he's a very honest and truthful person." Admit?a. No, because only specific acts are permitted to show credibility.b. No, because it's improper bolstering. c. No, because it violates Rule 403. d. Yes.

B

D is charged with battery for allegedly attacking a man as they left a bar together. No one else witnessed the fight. At trial, each man testified that he had acted in self-defense. D calls his next-door neighbor to testify as to D's good reputation both for truthfulness and peacefulness. The prosecutor objects to this testimony. How should court rule? a. Admit the testimony in its entirety b. Admit evidence of D's rep for peacefulness, but exclude evidence regarding his truthfulness c. Exclude evidence of D's peacefulness but admit evidence of his truthfulness d. Exclude the evidence in its entirety

B

D is charged with defrauding agency where he was an accountant. At trial, court allowed D to call his supervisor at a large company where D had previously worked. Supervisor testified about D's good reputation for honesty. Over objection, D then sought to elicit testimony from supervisor that on several occasions that company had, without incident, entrusted D with large sums of money. Should this be admitted? a. No, this is extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter b. No, because good character cannot be proved by specific instances of conduct under these circumstances c. Yes, because this is a pertinent character trait of the accused d. Yes, because it is relevant as to whether D took money

B

D is on trial for attempted fraud. The state charges that D switched a price tag from a cloth coat to a more expensive fur coat and then presented the latter for purchase. D testified in her own behalf that the tag must have been switched by someone else. On cross exam, the prosecutor asks whether D was convicted on two prior occasions of misdemeanor fraud in the defrauding of retailers by the same means of switching the price tag on a fur coat. Is the question about the earlier crimes proper? a. It's not proper to impeach D or prove D committed the crime b. It's proper both to prove D committed the crime and to impeach D c. It's proper to impeach D, but not to prove D committed crime d. It's proper to prove D committed crime, but not to impeach D

B

D is on trial for perjury for having falsely testified in an earlier civil case that he knew nothing about a business fraud. In the perjury trial, D again testified that he knew nothing about the business fraud. In rebuttal, the prosecutor called a witness to testify that after the civil trial was over, D admitted to the witness privately that he had known about the fraud. Is the witness's testimony admissible? a. Yes, but only to impeach D's testimony b. Yes, both to impeach D and as substantive evidence of perjury c. No, because it is hearsay and not within any exception d. No, because it is more prejudicial than probative

B

Dan is on trial for attempted murder. In opening statement, Dan's lawyer says, "The evidence will show that Dan did not strike first. Victor started this fight and Dan was defending himself, plain and simple." For its first witness, State calls Carrie. She will testify that she knew Victor for 10 years, and in her opinion, Victor is a gentle and peaceful person. Admit?a. No, because it's not relevantb. No, because it's improper character evidencec. Yes, because defense attacked Victor's characterd. Yes, because defense claimed Victor was the aggressor

B

Defendant is charged with forging the signature of her employer on several checks made payable to her best friend. After discovering the forged checks, the employer called D into his office and told her that he regretted trusting her. He held up the forged checks and said he was disappointed that one of his own employees would try to defraud him. D did not respond and walked out of the room. At trial, the State wants to offer D's silence as evidence of her guilt. D's counsel objects. Admit? a. Yes, under the exception for statements against interest b. Yes, as admissible non-hearsay c. No, since failure to reply can't be used as an implied admission d. No, as it violates her Fifth Amendment right to silence

B

Delbert is charged with burglary at the Hy-Vee. He pled guilty, but the court rejected the plea and the case was set for trial. At the failed plea hearing, Delbert testified that he broke in to steal the store's supply of Patrick Mahomes' cereal, which Delbert believes will someday be a valuable collector's item. At trial, Delbert testified that he never went into the store. The prosecutor now wants to ask Delbert about his admissions from the plea hearing. Will the court allow this questioning? a. No, it's inadmissible hearsay b. No, for public policy reasons c. Yes, to prove Delbert committed the burglary d. Yes, but only to impeach Delbert's inconsistent statement

B

Johnny is charged with aggravated assault, after he used his fierce karate skills to beat up Daniel. At trial, Johnny claims it was self-defense. He takes the stand and testifies that Daniel started this fracas by trying to crane-kick Johnny in the face. In rebuttal, the Prosecutor calls Allie, who will testify that (1)in her opinion, Daniel is a very peaceful person, and (2) she has seen Daniel turn the other cheek in many confrontations. Admit? a. No, as the State is never permitted to offer character evidence b. No, since Defendant has not offered character evidence yet c. Yes, admit both, as Johnny claimed Daniel was "first aggressor" d. Yes as to (1), but no as to (2)

B

Murder prosecution against Dan for the killing of Victor. The prosecution, in its case-in-chief, introduces an eyewitness to testify that two years before the alleged killing of Victor, Dan had killed Matt in a brawl over the affections of a woman. The defense objection to this testimony should be: a. sustained, unless there exists in the jurisdiction a "dead man" statute; b. sustained on the ground that the evidence is irrelevant except to prove D's bad character, and for this purpose is inadmissible; c. overruled on the ground that it shows D is capable of killing; d. overruled as evidence that establishes self-defense.

B

P files suit for injuries suffered in a car accident. P offers testimony of an expert, Dr. Medic, to testify about the extent of P's injuries. On cross-exam of Dr. Medic, D's attorney asks, "Doctor, isn't it a fact that you are being paid $5,000 for testifying in this case?" The doctor answered, "No, I am not being paid at all." Later, D tried to prove by extrinsic evidence that the fee was paid. The question to Dr. Medic on cross-examination as to how much he was being paid is: a. improper in form; b. proper cross-examination as to bias, interest or motive; c. improper and irrelevant because the mere fact of payment for expert testimony does not justify an inference of bias; d. improper because it violates the physician-patient privilege.

B

P sues a ladder manufacturer for injuries P suffered to his neck and back when the ladder he was standing on gave way. When P's neck and back continued to be sore after several weeks, his treating physician sent him to an orthopedist for an evaluation. Though the ortho did not treat P, he diagnosed an acute cervical strain. At trial, P calls ortho to testify that in response to ortho's question about how P injured his back, P told him, "I was standing on top of a ladder when I fell, landing hard on my neck and back." D objects. Admit? a. Yes, because P is present and can be cross-examined about it b. Yes, because it was made for purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment c. No, because it was not made to a treating physician d. No, because it relates to the inception or cause of the injury

B

Pat offers the contract into evidence. The trial judge should admit the contract into evidence if: a. she is convinced by the preponderance of the evidence that the signature of Dan is authentic; b. she is satisfied there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Dan signed the contract; c. she believes that the signature of Dan is authentic; d. she is convinced there is clear and convincing evidence that Dan signed the contract.

B

Patricia gets into a car crash with Dana. Patricia sues Dana, claiming negligence. At trial, Patricia offers testimony by Carlos, who would testify, "I've carpooled to work with Patricia for 10 years. In my opinion, she's an extremely careful driver." Admit? a. No, because it's not relevant b. No, because it's improper character evidence c. No, because it's unfairly prejudicial. d. Yes.

B

Paula persuades the prosecutor to charge Dan with stealing the garden gnome. Prosecutor calls manager of Target who will testify that Dan tried to shoplift CDs six months before Sleepy disappeared. Admit? a. No, because it's not relevant b. No, because it violates Rule 404 c. Yes, if it meets the Rule 403 standard d. Yes, because it establishes a pertinent trait of Defendant

B

Paula's treasured gnome, Sleepy, disappeared from her garden last year. Paula suspected that her neighbor, Dan, took Sleepy and she sued him to recover damages (a trespass to chattel claim). Sleepy was never recovered, and no one witnessed the gnome's disappearance, so all of Paula's evidence against Dan is circumstantial. Paula offers the testimony of the manager of the local Target that Dan tried to shoplift CDs six months before Sleepy disappeared. Admit? a. No, because it's not relevant b. No, because it violates Rule 404 c. No, because it's speculation d. Yes

B

Plaintiff has sued the defendant for slander. Plaintiff testifies that the defendant, before several other persons, said: "Plaintiff is a crook and a cheat." The defendant denies making the statement and that, in any event, the statement is true. In the defense case, defendant offers evidence that (1) the plaintiff's reputation for honesty is bad, and (2) that one month before the alleged slander, the plaintiff had sold the defendant a defective car. The proper ruling on the admissibility of these offers is: a. neither 1 or 2 is admissible; b. both 1 and 2 are admissible; c. only 1 is admissible; d. only 2 is admissible.

B

Same case. The court allows the question "did you defraud your neighbor?" Walter answers "Absolutely not!" In rebuttal, the State wants to call the neighbor to testify about the deceitful way that Walter defrauded him last year. Admit?a. No, because it violates Rule 403b. No, extrinsic evidence is not permitted herec. Yes, if it satisfies Rule 403d. Yes, Rule 608 allows this type of impeachment

B

The State charges Delphinia with vandalism, alleging that Delphinia destroyed her neighbor's mailbox with a chainsaw after an argument. State wants to call Calvin, who would testify that in his opinion, "Delphinia has no respect for other people's property." Admit? a. No, it's not relevant. b. No, it's improper character evidence. c. Yes, it goes to motive. d. Yes, but only if it satisfies Rule 403.

B

The defendant is charged with murder, alleged to have occurred last year. The defense is self-defense. As part of the defendant's case-in-chief, the defendant calls a witness who will testify that the defendant's reputation for peacefulness is good. This is the defense's first witness. The prosecution on cross examination then intends to ask the witness: (1) "did you hear that the defendant beat up another man at a tavern a year ago?", and (2) "did you hear that defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor assault last year?" The correct ruling on the admissibility of these questions is: a. neither 1 or 2 is admissible; b. both 1 and 2 are admissible; c. only 1 is admissible; d. only 2 is admissible.

B

When a man entered a bank and presented a check for payment, the teller recognized the signature on the check as a forgery, because the check was drawn on the account of a customer whose handwriting she knew, having seen it many times before. The teller called the police, but before they arrived, the man picked up the check and left. The man was charged with attempting to cash a forged check. At trial, the prosecutor called the teller to testify that the signature on the check was forged. Is this testimony admissible? a. Yes, because the teller is an expert on handwriting b. Yes, because it is rationally based on the teller's perception and is helpful to the jury c. No, because the teller is not an expert on handwriting d. No, because the testimony is unfairly prejudicial

B

Which of the following best describes the standard for "relevant evidence" outlined in Rule 401? (a)A high bar (b)A low bar (c)A Hershey bar

B

Cindy's Ford Pinto exploded when it was rear-ended. Her estate sued Ford negligent design. After the incident, Ford redesigned the Pinto to place the gas tank in the front of the car instead of the rear.If Plaintiff tries to introduce evidence of the redesign, it will likely be: (a) Admitted if the court finds its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice (b)Excluded

B The redesign here is a subsequent remedial measure and would be barred by Rule 407, unless it can be offered for some permissible purpose. Here, there is nothing in the fact pattern to indicate that Plaintiff would be offering it for some purpose other than to prove negligence or defective design. Those purposes are barred by Rule 407, so the evidence would be barred.

Victor's estate files a wrongful death action againstDennis. At trial, Dennis offers testimony by Carrie, whosays that in her opinion, Dennis is a very peaceful andgentle person. Admit? a. No, opinion testimony by lay witnesses is generally inadmissible. b. No, because it's improper character evidence c. Yes, provided it satisfies Rule 403. d. Yes, because it establishes a pertinent trait of Defendant

B Civil suit

Perry sues Delbert for battery, alleging that Delbert repeatedly punched and kicked Perry, causing serious injury. Delbert offers testimony from Columbo, who would testify that Delbert is a very peaceful individual who would never strike first. Admit? a. No, because it's not relevant b. No, because it's improper character evidence c. Yes, but only if it meets Rule 403. d. Yes, because it establishes a pertinent trait of Defendant

B- in civil cases, character evidence is inadmissible

A man and woman who shared an apartment were charged with murder. The woman's attorney moved to have them tried separately and the judge granted that motion. The woman was tried first and was acquitted of the crime. The man's trial began one month later. The man's attorney calls a witness to testify that, shortly after she was acquitted, the woman told the witness that she had killed the victim because the victim owed her money. She also said the man had nothing to do with the victim's killing. State objects. Admit? a. Yes, as a statement of a co-conspirator b. Yes, as a statement against penal interest c. No, because it is hearsay d. No, it's a Confrontation Clause violation

C

Alex and Sam were arrested for holding up a gas station. They were taken to police headquarters and placed in a room for interrogation. After a police officer addressing both gave them Miranda warnings, Alex said, "Look, Sam planned the damned thing and I was dumb enough to go along with it. We robbed the place - what else is there to say?" Sam said nothing. Sam was escorted into another room and a full confession was then obtained from Alex. If Sam is brought to trial for robbery, the fact that Sam failed to object to Alex's statement and remained silent after Alex had implicated him should be: a. admissible because his silence was an implied admission that he took part in the crime; b. admissible because a statement of a participant in a crime is admissible against another; c. inadmissible because, under the circumstances, there was no duty on Sam's part to respond; d. inadmissible because whatever Alex may have said has no probative value.

C

Assuming Paula makes a submissible case, Dan offers the testimony of another neighbor, Carrie, who will testify that "Dan is as honest as the day is long. He would never steal anything." Admit?a. Yes, because a defendant may offer evidence of his good character.b. Yes, if court finds it meets Rule 403 balancingc. No, because it's improper character evidenced. No, because it's not relevant

C

At D's trial for a gang-related murder, the prosecution introduced, as former testimony, a statement by a gang member who testified against D at the preliminary hearing and has now invoked his privilege against self-incrimination.D now seeks to impeach the credibility of the gang member. Which of the following is the court most likely to admit? a. Evidence the gang member had 3 prior misdemeanor assault convictions. b. Testimony by a psychologist that persons with the gang member's background have a tendency to fabricate c. Testimony by a witness that at the time the gang member testified, he was challenging D's leadership role in their gang d. Testimony by a witness that the gang member deals cocaine

C

Civil fraud trial arising out of real estate transaction. D claimed not to have been involved in the transaction. P called a witness to testify concerning D's involvement in the fraudulent scheme. To P's surprise, the witness testified that D was not involved and denied making any statements to the contrary. Next, P calls a second witness to testify that the first witness had stated, while the two were having dinner, that the defendant was involved in the fraudulent transaction. Is the testimony of the second witness admissible? a. No, because a party can't impeach the party's own witness b. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception c. Yes, but only to impeach the first witness d. Yes, to impeach the first witness and to prove D's involvement

C

D is charged with murder. He claims self-defense. The state claims that the D attacked the victim without provocation, shooting him at close range. The defense claims that D reasonably believed that V was armed and was about to shoot him. It is undisputed that V was in fact unarmed when shot.In its case-in-chief, the state wants to present evidence that one week before the shooting, D and V were in a fight, during which V beat up D. This offered evidence is: a. inadmissible, as it is improper character evidence; b. inadmissible, since it is irrelevant to the issues in the trial; c. admissible, since it shows motive; d. admissible, since it effectively rebuts the claim of self-defense.

C

Dan is charged with aggravated assault for the beating of Valentino. Dan calls Carlos, who would testify: (1) "I know Dan's reputation for peacefulness and it's good," and (2) "Last month, another guy shoved Dan to the ground, but Dan just got up and walked away." Admit? a. Admit both statements b. Exclude both statement c. Admit 1, but not 2 d. Admit 2, but not 1

C

Dan on trial for robbery. Walter testifies on Dan's behalf. On cross, Prosecutor wants to ask Walter two questions: (1) "Did you defraud your neighbor last year?" and (2) "Did you punch your mail carrier last year?" Admit?a. Admit bothb. Admit neitherc. Admit (1) onlyd. Admit (2) only

C

Debbie's car hits Paul, a pedestrian, badly injuring him. Debbie gets out of the car, runs up to Paul, and says the following: (1) "I'm sorry, I was just glancing at my phone, (2) I'll take care of your hospital bills, no worries there, and (3) if you have to miss any work, I'll cover your lost wages." At trial, Paul offers Debbie's statements. Debbie objects. Admit? a. Exclude all statements, since this is a settlement offer b. Only admit statement (1) c. Admit statements (1) and (3) d. Admit all statements

C

Doug is charged with burglary. He raises an alibi defense and calls Wendy in support. On cross, the prosecutor wishes to ask Wendy two questions: (1) "Did you file false income tax returns the past two years?" and (2) "Were you convicted of misdemeanor kidnapping in 2019?" Doug objects. Admit? a. No, because character is not an essential element here. b. No, because Doug has not put character at issue. c. Yes, as to (1) d. Yes, as to (2)

C

Doug is on trial for burglary. Willy testifies that he saw Doug leaving the scene of the crime. The defense calls Cartman to testify that: (1) he's known Willy for 10 years and has a low opinion of Willy's honesty, and (2) during the past year, Willy lied to Cartman on 5 different occasions. Admit?a. Exclude both (1) and (2) b. Admit both (1) and (2) c. Admit (1) onlyd. Admit (2) only

C

Doug is on trial for vehicular homicide. The State alleges that Doug ran a red light and crashed into Victoria's car, killing her. At trial, Doug calls Wally, who testifies that he saw the accident, and that Doug went through the intersection on a yellow light. On cross, the prosecutor questions Wally about a statement that he made to a police officer after the crash, wherein Wally said the light had already turned red when Doug entered the intersection. Admit? a. No, this violates the Confrontation Clause b. No, it's inadmissible hearsay c. Yes, for impeachment purposes d. Yes, both to impeach and as substantive evidence

C

Hall was struck and killed by Baker's car at an intersection. Baker, who was not injured, said to a policeman, about one hour later, "My brakes did not hold." Baker later pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor crime of driving with defective brakes. Hall's surviving spouse sued Baker for wrongful death. On plaintiff's direct case: Policeman is called as a witness to testify that Baker said "My brakes did not hold." This testimony is: a. hearsay, but admissible as a declaration against interest; b. hearsay, but admissible as an excited utterance; c. admissible as an admission; d. inadmissible hearsay.

C

I. M. Slumlord is charged with negligently maintaining an apartment building. Allegedly, the negligence resulted in a fire which killed several children. Slumlord states that he is not in fact the owner of the building. The plaintiffs seek to introduce evidence that Slumlord purchased a policy of liability insurance which was in force at the time of the accident and which covered liability for accidents at the building in question. The policy was in Slumlord's name. Th evidence of the existence of the insurance policy is: a. Inadmissible, as it's not relevant to the question of negligence. b. Admissible, as it tends to establish defendant's negligence. c. Admissible on the question of Slumlord's ownership of the property. d. Admissible both on the question of Slumlord's ownership of the property and on the question of his negligence.

C

Joseph is on trial for burglary. State calls Tommy, who testifies that he saw Joseph breaking into the home with a crowbar. The defense calls Carlos to testify that: (1) he's known Tommy for 10 years and has a low opinion of Tommy's honesty, and (2) during the past year, Tommy has twice stolen lawn ornaments from Carlos's yard. Admit? a. Exclude both statements b. Admit both statements c. Admit (1) only d. Admit (2) only

C

Linda's car is struck by a cow named Maggie. The cow wandered off the cliff above and landed on Linda's car below. Linda sued the owner of the cow. To prove how heavy the cow was, Linda obtains a document from the "Prairie Fun League," a nonprofit organization that sponsors a livestock exhibit every June. The Prairie Fun League's judges assess each of the animals at the exhibit, weighing and measuring them. The league keeps records of these measurements. Maggie the cow weighed 600 pounds. Linda offers the assessment record into evidence. Admit? a. No, it's hearsay b. No, because the Prairie Fun League is a non-profit c. Yes, it's a business record [Rule 803(6)] d. Yes, it's a public record

C

Murder prosecution against Dan for the shooting of Victor. The prosecution calls Winston as its first witness. Winston testifies that a couple weeks before the shooting, Victor said that Dan had threatened his life. Dan objects to this testimony. Dan's objection should be: a. sustained because this is not a dying declaration; b. sustained because it is unfairly prejudicial; c. sustained because it is hearsay; d. Overruled.

C

P sues D for injuries suffered in a hit-and-run accident. At trial, P calls a witness who testifies that she saw the accident and that, as the car sped off, she accurately dictated the license number into her Dictaphone. The witness testifies further that she no longer remembers the license number. May the tape recording be played? a. Yes, as a present sense impression only b. Yes, as a recorded recollection only c. Yes, as both a present sense impression and a recorded recollection d. No, it is hearsay not within any exception

C

P sues manufacturer of microwave for burn injuries allegedly caused by the manufacturer's failure to warn purchasers of dangers of heating foods in certain types of containers. P has offered into evidence three letters, all received by manufacturer before oven was shipped to P, in which customers complained of serious burns under circumstances similar to those in P's case. Manufacturer objects to the letters as hearsay, and in the alternative, requests a limiting instruction if the court should admit the letters. How should court respond? a. Sustain hearsay objection and exclude the letters. b. Overrule the objection and deny request for limiting instruction. c. Overrule the objection and give the limiting instruction. d. Overrule the objection, but only allow letters to be read to jury, not received as exhibits.

C

Pat sued Dan for breach of contract. The complaint alleges that Dan signed a written agreement to purchase Pat's antique mug for $500.00. Dan has denied execution of the contract. Pat called Wilma to testify that she had seen Dan sign his name on two letters and that the signature on the contract was that of Dan. The trial court should rule Wilma's testimony is: a. inadmissible, Wilma's knowledge of Dan's signature is legally insufficient; b. inadmissible, Wilma's testimony is not the best available evidence; c. admissible, Wilma has seen Dan sign his name; d. inadmissible, Wilma was not qualified as an expert to give an opinion on Dan's signature.

C

Paul and Dan get into a head-on car crash. Both suffer injuries, but not life-threatening. While they are waiting for the police to arrive, Dan walks over to Paul and says, "Hey bud, I'm really sorry about that. I glanced at my phone and that's why I swerved." Dan is penniless and has no auto insurance. Paul seeks payment of uninsured motorist benefits with his carrier, Bad Neighbor Insurance. The company surprisingly denies his claim, so he sues them. At trial, Paul offers Dan's statement. Defense objects. Admit? a. Yes, it's a present sense impression b. Yes, it's an excited utterance c. Yes, but only if Dan is deemed unavailable d. No, it's hearsay

C

Paul sues Doug for fraud arising from a failed real estate deal. Paul calls Wystan, who testifies favorably to Paul's case. After Paul rests his case, Doug calls Carvaggio, who testifies that Wystan lied on a job application two years ago. Admit?a. No, because it's not relevantb. No, because Wystan's character isn't at issuec. No, because it violates Rule 608d. Yes

C

Paula offers the testimony of another neighbor, Carl, who will testify that "I've known Dan for years. In my opinion, he doesn't respect people's property. He will steal anything he can get his hands on." Admit?a. Yes, with proper foundation. b. Yes, if court finds it meets Rule 403 balancingc. No, because it's improper character evidenced. No, because it's not relevant

C

Paula sues Dan for conversion, alleging Dan stole Paula's stamp collection. Dan offers the testimony of his long-time drinking buddy, Carlos, who will testify that in his opinion, Dan is an honest and law-abiding guy. He says he also knows Dan's reputation for honesty, and that it's good. Admit? a. Yes as to his opinion, but no as to reputation. b. Yes as to both opinion and reputation. c. No, because it's improper character evidence. d. No, because it's more prejudicial than probative

C

Plaintiff has sued the defendant for negligence arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff testifies in his case-in-chief. Plaintiff then calls as his next witness a neighbor who has personally known the plaintiff for over 10 years. The witness is prepared to testify that, based on his personal dealings with the plaintiff over 10 years, in his opinion the plaintiff's honesty is excellent. This offered evidence is: a. admissible, since the testimonial veracity of any witness who has actually testified is always in issue; b. inadmissible, since the plaintiff's honesty is irrelevant in this case; c. inadmissible, since plaintiff may not bolster his credibility in this manner; d. admissible, since the plaintiff is a party to the action and his honesty is necessarily in issue.

C

Polly sues Don for an assault that occurred May 8 in Arizona. Don claims he was in Utah on May 8. At trial, Don offers a letter he wrote to his sister on April 10 that reads: "Can't wait to see you in Utah on May 8." Admit? a. No, it's hearsay b. Yes, as a present sense impression c. Yes, as state of mind d. Yes, as it's a statement of a party

C

Same case. At trial, Adam testifies: "The next thing I heard was a loud noise, like a gunshot." Defense objects. Admit? a. Yes, as an excited utterance b. Yes, as a present sense impression c. Yes, because it's not hearsay d. No

C

Smith is charged with theft. In the defense case-in-chief, Smith testifies. On cross examination, the prosecutor asks: (1) "Isn't it true that you were convicted of perjury three years ago?", and (2) "Didn't you fill out a fraudulent income tax return eight years ago?" Smith denied both allegations. Which of the following correctly states the law? a. Both statements can be proven with extrinsic evidence. b. Neither statement can be proven with extrinsic evidence. c. Only statement (1) can be proven with extrinsic evidence. d. Only statement (2) can be proven with extrinsic evidence.

C

Walter is charged with manufacturing methamphetamine. The State seeks to offer evidence of the following acts: (1) Walter took Bunsen burners and other equipment from the local high school chemistry lab, (2) Walter and a friend stole a barrel of Methylamine, and (3) Walter's friend "borrowed" an RV. Admit? a. No, these are prior acts under Rule 404(b). b. No, the State cannot offer character evidence in its case. c. Yes, because it's for a permitted use under Rule 404(b)(2).

C .... motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Someone robs the First National Bank whilebrandishing a .38 caliber gun and wearing a Richard Nixonmask and rollerskates. The State charges Doug, who raises analibi defense. The State wants to offer evidence that sixmonths before this robbery, Doug robbed the SecondNational Bank with the same outfit and type of gun. Admit? a. No, it violates Rule 404. b. No, because it's unfairly prejudicial. c. Yes, because it's for a permitted use under Rule 404(b)(2)

C Identity

Delilah is accused of killing her sister with a gun. Delilah defends on the ground that the gun went off accidentally while she was loading it. State wants to offer evidence that one week before the shooting, Delilah threw a knife at her sister during an argument. a. No, it's a prior bad act under Rule 404(b) b. No, the State cannot offer character evidence in its case. c. Yes, provided the court finds Rule 403 is not violated.

C intent

Civil fraud action. At trial, defendant calls a secretary who was present at a conference between the parties and their counsel. The secretary will testify that during this conference, the plaintiff said, "Well, maybe it wasn't fraud - I'll settle for a refund of the purchase price, plus my attorney's fees up to now." Plaintiff objects. Admit? a. Yes, as a statement of a party under Rule 801(d) b. Yes, but not for its truth c. No, it's hearsay d. No, because of public policy

D

D, a young doctor, is charged with falsely claiming deductions on her tax return. At trial, D calls W, who testifies that D has a reputation in their community for complete honesty. On cross, the prosecutor wants to ask the witness, "Have you ever heard that D falsified her medical school transcript?" Assuming there's a good faith basis to ask it, is prosecutor's question proper? a. No, because it calls for hearsay b. No, because it fails under Rule 403 c. Yes, because an affirmative answer will establish D's bad character for honesty and, therefore, her guilt d. Yes, because an affirmative answer will impeach W's credibility

D

Dan is on trial for the crime of failing to brush his teeth (a misdemeanor). The State alleges that on April 1, 2021, Dan went to work without brushing. Dan's wife testifies that she didn't see Dan that morning, but that Dan routinely brushes his teeth right after showering and has kept to that routine for their 8 years of marriage. Admit? a. No, because it violates Rule 403b. No, it's improper character evidencec. No, because it's "specific acts" evidence d. Yes

D

Defendant ("D") is charged with murdering his friend, whose body was found near D's office. The State alleges that the friend, who lived in another state, confronted D to tell him about an affair that the friend was having with D's wife. The State offers a properly authenticated letter from the friend to D's wife, dated two days before his death, that stated: "I am going to your husband's office and tell him face-to-face that he must let us be together." Defense counsel objects. Admit? a. No, because it's hearsay b. No, because it violates the Confrontation Clause c. No, because it's both hearsay and a CC violation d. Yes

D

Delbert is on trial for aggravated assault. He claims self-defense, testifying that Velma struck him first and he defended himself. On cross exam, Prosecutor offers evidence that Delbert was previously convicted of aggravated assault in 2016. Admit?a. No, unless the court finds it meets the 403 standardb. No, because it's the same offense for which D is presently chargedc. Yes, because it establishes D's violent characterd. Yes, if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect

D

Delbert, brandishing a .38 revolver, robs the Donut De-lite coffee shop. Grover, a 92-year-old patron of the coffee shop, is so traumatized by witnessing the crime that he has a heart attack. Officers arrive on scene 20 minutes later and speak to Grover, who is sprawled on the floor. Grover says, "This is the end for me, I'm sure. The guy who pulled the gun is Delbert...I've seen him in here before. When he pulled that gun, my old heart just couldn't take it." Grover dies in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. At the robbery trial, State offers Grover's statements and defense objects to hearsay. What is the State's best argument for admission? a. Dying declaration b. Present sense impression c. Statement of identification d. Excited utterance

D

Don is charged with aggravated assault. At trial, the victim testifies that Don beat her savagely, but she was not asked about anything she said during the incident. The prosecutor then called a witness who testified that, when the beating stopped, the victim screamed, "I'm dying...don't let Don get away with this!" Is this testimony admissible? a. No, it's hearsay not within any exception b. No, because the victim was not asked about the statement c. Yes, as a dying declaration d. Yes, as an excited utterance

D

Extrinsic evidence offered by D to show that Dr. Medic in fact was paid a $5,000 fee is: a. inadmissible since it involves a collateral issue; b. inadmissible because irrelevant; c. inadmissible because prior conduct or misconduct of a witness which is denied on cross-examination cannot be shown by extrinsic evidence; d. admissible to show bias, interest or motive.

D

Government charges Joseph with insider trading. Joseph's wife testifies against him before the grand jury. At trial, she claims spousal privilege and refuses to testify. The government offers her grand jury testimony. Admit? a. Yes, it's prior sworn testimony b. Yes, it's a statement against interest c. No, it's hearsay d. No, it's hearsay and a Confrontation Clause violation

D

In response to Cartman's testimony, the prosecutor offers the testimony of Dan's former employer that "In my opinion, Dan has a dishonest, thieving character." Admit? a. No, because it's not relevant b. No, because it's improper character evidence c. No, because it's unfairly prejudicial. d. Yes, because it rebuts Defendant's character evidence.

D

In the same case, assume defense counsel chose to cross examine Matusik. As part of that cross, counsel asked Matusik whether he had been convicted of the crime of falsifying his property tax return (which carries a maximum punishment of six months in jail) in 2015. Plaintiff objects. a. The cross examination is improper. The crime did not involve the possibility of a one year or more prison sentence. b. The cross examination is improper. Evidence of past convictions is not admissible against witnesses in civil cases. c. The cross examination would be proper, if the trial judge found that the evidence did not violate Rule 403. d. The cross examination would be proper, without any discretionary ruling by the trial judge.

D

In their divorce case, Paul and Dana are litigating who should get custody of their 3 children. Paul calls Wendy, who would testify that last year, she saw Dana violently whip one of her children with a switch for spilling some milk. Admit?a. No, because character evidence isn't allowed in civil casesb. No, because only Defendant can "open the door" to characterc. No, because it's "specific acts" evidenced. Yes, if court finds it satisfies Rule 403

D

Same case. In rebuttal, the prosecution offers a witness to testify that Dan's reputation in the community where he resides for truthfulness is bad. D's objection to this offer should be: a. sustained because it is irrelevant and prejudicial; b. sustained because character traits pertinent to truth and veracity are independent of character traits for peacefulness; c. Sustained, unless Dan previously introduced character evidence; d. Overruled.

D

Joey is charged with robbing Shakespeare's Pizza. After lengthy negotiations between his counsel and the prosecutor, Joey pleads guilty. At the plea hearing, he describes his robbery in great detail, including the moment where he started pulling pepperoni off the patrons' pizza. Before sentencing, Joey has a change of heart. He withdraws his plea and the case proceeds to trial. At trial, Joey takes the stand and testifies that he's being framed, and that he was actually in Montana when this robbery occurred. In response, the prosecutor moves to introduce Joey's prior testimony. Joey's counsel objects. Admit? a. Yes, because it's a statement against interest. b. Yes, it's not hearsay under Rule 801(d). c. Yes, but only to impeach Joey's trial testimony. d. No. - Rule 410 prohibits

D

Marcy is arrested after police find 25 small baggies of cocaine in her car during a traffic stop. Marcy, of course, takes the 5th and won't testify at trial. Prosecutor calls Professor to testify that a week before Marcy's arrest, he overheard Marcy tell a classmate, "To pay off my exorbitant law loans, I plan to sell some cocaine." Admissible? a. No, it's hearsay b. Yes, as a statement against penal interest c. Yes, as a statement of intent or plan d. Yes, as it's a statement of the defendant

D

On cross-exam, over objection, Walter was asked if he had heard that two months ago, the doctor had been indicted for falsification of his income tax returns. Walter answered that he had not. Since Walter's testimony about Dr. Medic's reputation was received on direct, the inquiry on cross as to whether Walter had heard about the doctor's indictment is: a. improper because it is only an indictment, not a conviction; b. improper because of form. The question solicits rumor rather than information based upon personal knowledge; c. improper because it involves collateral issues; d. proper to test Walter's knowledge of the doctor's reputation.

D

On cross-examination of Wilma, the attorney for Dan asked her if she had ever perjured herself as a witness. Wilma replied that she had not. Dan's attorney later offered the testimony of Winnie that Wilma told her that she had testified falsely at a trial two years earlier. The trial judge should rule that testimony of Winnie is: a. inadmissible because of the remoteness of the incident; b. admissible as substantive evidence of Wilma's perjury; c. admissible to show a prior inconsistent statement by Wilma; d. inadmissible, testimony as to prior bad acts.

D

Paul sues Dan for vandalism, after Dan spray-painted "Happy Halloween!" on Paul's garage. Paul testifies that the morning he discovered his garage had been painted, Dan paid him a visit and said: "So sorry about your garage. I had just seen Hocus Pocus 2 and was overcome with Halloween spirit. I'll give you $500 to pay for my mistake." Admit? a. No, it's inadmissible under Rule 408 b. No, it's inadmissible hearsay c. No, it's more prejudicial than probative d. Yes

D

Paula is killed in a car crash caused by Dan, who was driving recklessly with a BAC that was 3 times the legal limit. A wrongful death suit is brought against Dan. At trial, Dan calls Carlos, who would testify as follows: (1) "I've known Dan for 10 years, and he is a very careful driver and a cautious person, and (2) I've often seen him drive 10 miles per hour below the speed limit, even in light traffic." Admit? a. Yes, this is evidence of a pertinent character trait b. Only admit statement (1) c. Only admit statement (2) d. No

D

Perry sues Dalvin for trespass to chattels. Dalvin testifies that he did nothing wrong. On cross, Perry's attorney asks Dalvin, "Isn't it true that you were convicted of forgery in 2017?" Dalvin's attorney objects. Admit?a. No, unless the court finds it meets 403 standardb. No, unless the court finds probative value outweighs prejudicec. No, unless the probative value substantially outweighs prejudiced. Yes

D

Plaintiff sues defendant for damages caused when defendant allegedly drove through a stop sign and struck plaintiff's car. Plaintiff offers evidence that the defendant ran another stop sign 10 minutes earlier. This offered evidence is: a. Admissible, because it shows defendant's carelessness, a character trait relevant to the cause of action. b. Admissible, because it is a prior act which is circumstantial proof of carelessness. c. Admissible, because it is a prior act which is circumstantial proof that defendant was acting intentionally. d. Inadmissible.

D

Police stop Ziggy's car for reckless driving. As officers reach his door, they see 10 pounds of marijuana in the back seat. Police arrest Ziggy. At the station, he waives Miranda and gives a statement. He tells police he's a courier and that his only job was to deliver the marijuana to a dealer named Willy, who would then divide it up and sell it on the street. Willy is eventually indicted for distribution of marijuana. At trial, Ziggy refuses to testify, so the State offers his statement into evidence. Admit? a. Yes, it's a statement against penal interest b. Yes, it's state of mind c. No, it's hearsay d. No, it's hearsay and a CC violation

D

Same case. Court overrules the objection and Dalvin answers, "No, I was never convicted of forgery." Perry's attorney offers a certified copy of a judgment of conviction, showing Dalvin was, in fact, convicted of forgery. Dalvin's attorney objects. Admit?a. No, unless the court finds it meets 403 standardb. No, because character can't be proven with extrinsic evidencec. No, unless the probative value outweighs prejudiced. Yes

D

Same case. Dan takes the stand and testifies that a month before their altercation, Dan saw Victor beat two men unconscious with a baseball bat. Admit?a. No, because it violates Rule 403b. No, because it's "specific acts" evidencec. Yes, to establish Victor's characterd. Yes, to establish Dan's state of mind.

D

Same case. Dan's next witness is Carl, who would testify that he has known Dan for 20 years, and in his opinion, Dan is a very clean and hygienic person. Admit?a. No, because it violates Rule 403b. No, it's improper bolsteringc. No, because it's "specific acts" evidenced. Yes, if Court agrees it's a pertinent character trait

D

Same case. Dan, in his defense, takes the stand and testifies that Victor attacked him first and that he only killed Victor in self- defense. On cross, P asks him: "Were you, on or about December 29, 2014, convicted of the felony of perjury?" Dan's objection to this question should be: a. Sustained, because perjury has nothing to do with violence; b. Sustained, because it violates Rule 403; c. Sustained, unless Dan previously introduced character evidence; d. Overruled.

D

Same case. On cross examination of Carlos, the State wants to question him about the following items: (1) he made false statements on a job application earlier that year, (2) he vandalized a police station three years ago, (3) he was convicted of forgery eight years ago, and (4) he was convicted of felony assault one year ago. Defense objects to all these items. Admit? a. Admit none, as this is improper character evidence b. Admit all, as Carlos' credibility is at issue c. Admit (3) only d. Admit all but (2)

D

Same cow case. In addition to the weight of each animal, the judges make detailed evaluations of appearance and behavior. For Maggie, the judges wrote "This cow seems unsteady on her feet." Admit? a. No, Rule 803(6) doesn't allow opinions b. No, this is hearsay within hearsay c. No, this is unfairly prejudicial d. Yes

D

The State wants to offer evidence in its case-in-chief that 7 years ago, while working with a different company, Dennis had violently attacked his boss over a workplace dispute. Admit? a. Yes, it's admissible to prove motive. b. Yes, it's admissible to show intent. c. Yes, but only if it meets Rule 403. d. No.

D

Wendy, who was present during Baker's plea hearing, is called as a witness to testify that she heard Baker plead guilty to driving with defective brakes. This evidence is: a. inadmissible because defendant's prior conviction and bad character may not be shown unless or until defendant has placed his character in issue. b. inadmissible until after Baker has testified as a witness, and then only to impeach his credibility. c. inadmissible because improper in form. A certified copy of the judgment would be necessary to prove a fact essential to the judgment; d. admissible as an admission.

D

Dennis is charged with murdering Victor, his formerboss. At trial, the State wants to offer evidence that 3 months prior to his death, Victor fired Dennis and the two men had a shouting match in Victor's office. Admit? a. No, because it would be unfairly prejudicial. b. No, because it's evidence of a prior act and barred by Rule 404(b). c. No, because the State can't offer character evidence in its case. d. Yes, it's admissible under Rule 404(b)(2).

D- motive

In her case, Delphinia chooses not to testify. Instead, she offers testimony from another neighbor, Carrie Ann, who would testify, "I've known Delphinia for 15 years. In my opinion, she is an honest person and the best mother to her kids." Admit? a. Yes, since the Defendant is allowed to offer character evidence. b. Yes, but only if it satisfies Rule 403. c. No, since it's unfairly prejudicial. d. No, because it's not evidence of a pertinent character trait.

D- not pertinent to vandalism

Zoe is on trial for shoplifting a digital camera. State claims to have a security video that shows Zoe picking the camera off the shelf, concealing it under her clothing, and leaving the store without paying for it. Zoe claims she wasn't in the store and the video shows someone else. State wants to introduce evidence that two years ago, Zoe stole a cell phone from a store by picking the phone off the shelf and hiding it underneath her clothes. Admit? a. Yes, since it establishes a common scheme or plan. b. Yes, since it establishes motive. c. Yes, it establishes a signature crime or modus operandi. d. No.

D- signature crime or MO, you really need some unique characteristics

Specialty Products International (SPI) sells brew tanks used by restaurants to operate micro-breweries. SPI used Con-Way Freight to ship three of its tanks to a restaurant. Unfortunately, the tanks arrived damaged and the restaurant refused to pay.SPI sued Con-Way for breach of the shipping contract, claiming that it did not exercise adequate care in wrapping and shipping the tanks. At trial, SPI offers evidence that after the incident with the damaged tanks, Con-Way:1. started wrapping items in bubble wrap and,2. instituted an intensive training program for employees on how to use bubble wrap effectively.•IS EITHER 1 OR 2 ADMISSIBLE?

NO Both of these measures would be considered "subsequent remedial measures" under Rule 407. They would not be admissible to prove any of the prohibited purposes outlined in the rule.

Robby is charged with robbing a bank. Initially, Robby pled guilty but then later withdrew his plea and went to trial. At the plea hearing, Robby testified, "Yeah judge, they got me red-handed. Darn those security cameras! I should have tried a different bank."At trial, Robby took the stand and testified that he didn't rob the bank. The prosecutor now wants to ask Robby about his from the plea hearing. Will the court allow this questioning? (a) Yes, to prove Robby is guilty of robbery. (b) Yes, to impeach Robby for a prior inconsistent statement. (c) No.

c) No. When a guilty plea is later withdrawn, Rule 410 does not allow the admission of statements the defendant made at that plea hearing to be used against the defendant. It's the "cone of silence" again. There are only two narrow exceptions to this rule [see 410(b)]. Neither of those exceptions applies here.

For which of the following purposes may evidence of a subsequent remedial measure properly be admitted to prove? a. Negligence b. Culpable conduct c. Ownership d. A need for a warning

c. Ownership Rule 407 allows evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove ownership, if that issue is disputed. The other purposes listed here are specifically prohibited by the rule.