MBE: EVIDENCE Adaptibar Questions

At Defendant's murder trial, Defendant calls Witness as his first witness to testify that Defendant has a reputation in their community as a peaceable and truthful person. The prosecutor objects on the ground that Witness's testimony would constitute improper character evidence. The court should: (A) admit the testimony as to peaceableness, but exclude the testimony as to truthfulness. (B) admit the testimony as to truthfulness, but exclude the testimony as to peaceableness. (C) admit the testimony as to both character traits. (D) exclude the testimony as to both character traits.

(A) admit the testimony as to peaceableness, but exclude the testimony as to truthfulness.

Defendant was charged with attempted murder of Victor in a sniping incident in which Defendant allegedly shot at Victor from ambush as Victor drove his car along an expressway. The prosecutor offers evidence that seven years earlier Defendant had fired a shotgun into a woman's home and that Defendant had once pointed a handgun at another driver while driving on the street. This evidence should be: (A) excluded, because such evidence can be elicited only during cross-examination (B) excluded, because it is improper character evidence. (C) admitted as evidence of Defendant's propensity toward violence (D) admitted as relevant evidence of Defendant's identity, plan, or motive

(B) excluded, because it is improper character evidence.

Pike sued Day City Community Church for damages he suffered when Pike crashed his motorcycle inan attempt to avoid a cow that had escaped from its corral. The cow and corral belonged to a farm that had recently been left by will to the church. At trial, Pike seeks to ask Defendant's witness, Winters, whether she is a member of that church. The question is: (A) improper, because evidence of a witness's religious beliefs is not admissible to impeachcredibility. (B) improper, because it violates First Amendment and privacy rights. (C) proper, for the purpose of ascertaining partiality or bias. (D) proper, for the purpose of showing capacity to appreciate the nature and obligation of an oath.

(C) proper, for the purpose of ascertaining partiality or bias.

A defendant was charged with aggravated assault, At trial, the victim testified that the defendant beat her savagely, but she was not asked about anything said during the incident. The prosecutor then called a witness to testify that when the beating stopped, the victim screamed: "I'm dying—don't let [the defendant] get away with it!" Is the testimony of the witness concerning the victim's statement admissible? (A) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception. (B) No, because the victim was not asked about the statement. (C) Yes, as a statement under belief of impending death, even though the victim did not die. (D) Yes, as an excited utterance.

(D) Yes, as an excited utterance.

A bus passenger sued the transit company for injuries to his back from an accident caused by the company's negligence. The company denies that the passenger received any injury in the accident. The company calls an observer to testify that right after the accident, the passenger told him that he had recently suffered a recurrence of an old back injury. The judge should rule the observer's testimony: A: admissible as an admission of a party opponent. B: admissible as a spontaneous declaration. C: inadmissible, because it is irrelevant. D: inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception.

A. admissible as an admission of a party opponent.

Decker, charged with armed robbery of a store, denied that he was the person who had robbed the store. In presenting the state's case, the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that Decker had robbed two other stores in the past year. This evidence is: (A) admissible, to prove a pertinent trait of Decker's character and Decker's action in conformity therewith (B) admissible, to prove Decker's intent and identity (C) inadmissible, because the prosecutor may rely only on reputation or opinion evidence as this point in the trial to prove the defendant's character (D) inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

(D) inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of a commercial contract in which Defendant agreed to sell Plaintiff all of Plaintiff's requirement for widgets. Plaintiff called Expert Witness to testify as to damages. Defendant seeks to show Expert Witness had provided false testimony as aw witness in his own divorce proceedings. This evidence should be: A. admitted only if elicited from Expert Witness on cross-examination B. admitted only if the false testimony is established by clear and convincing evidence C. exclude because it is impeachment on a collateral issue D. exclude because it is improper character evidence

A. admitted only if elicited from Expert Witness on cross-examination **"character evidence" are things about one of the PARTIES to the case **Atty can ALWAYS ask witness on the stand about things related to lying or truthfulness

A man was arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter. the victim died after a head-on collision with the man's car. The prosecution claimed that the man fell asleep while operating his car and drove into oncoming traffic, killing the victim. At trial, the prosecution called a witness to testify that she was visiting the man on the morning of the accident and he told her, "i did not get any sleep last night because of a terrible headache." This man's attorney objects to the witness's testimony. How should the court rule on the testimony? A. it is admissible as non-hearsay B. it is admissible as a statement of declarant's mental or physical condition C. it is inadmissible as a declaration against interest D. it is inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception

A. it is admissible as non-hearsay **a statement made by 1 of the parties can come in as "admission" which is a non-hearsay exception

A victim was found dead, apparently from a gunshot wound. A friend of the murder victim was charged with first-degree murder. At trial, the suspect offered an alibi-defense during his case-in-chief. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the suspect if it was true that he had been convicted of a misdemeanor for check fraud 2 years earlier. The suspect's lawyer objected. How should the judge rule? A. overrule the objection because the suspect's alleged conviction is admissible to show his tenancy to make false statements B. overrule the objection because the probative value of the evidence outweighs the possibility of unfair prejudice against the suspect C. sustain the objection because the suspect's conviction was for a misdemeanor, not a felony D. sustain the objection because the conviction was for a non-violent crime

A. overrule the objection because the suspect's alleged conviction is admissible to show his tenancy to make false statements **Defendant is on the stand as "witness" so Atty can impeach him (credibility)

A drug dealer is being tried in federal court for criminal conspiracy with a friend to violate a federal narcotics law. At trial, the prosecutor calls the drug dealer's new wife and asks her to testify about a meeting between the drug dealer and the friend that she observed before she married the drug dealer. Which of the following is the most accurate statement of the applicable rule concerning whether the wife may testify? A. the choice belongs to the defendant's wife B. the choice is the defendant's C. the defendant's wife is permitted to testify only if both the wife and defendant agree D. the defendant's wife is compelled to testify even if both the wife and defendant object

A. the choice belongs to the defendant's wife **because they are currently married + case is criminal = W can refuse to testify based on "spousal immunity"

A defendant, who was charged with the crime of assaulting the victim, admitted striking the victim but claimed to have acted in self-defense when he was attacked by the victim, who was drunk and belligerent after a football game. The defendant offered testimony of a former employer that he had known and who had employed the defendant for twelve years and knew the defendant's reputation among the people with whom he lived and worked to be that of a peaceful, law-abiding, nonviolent person. How should the trial judge rule on this testimony? A: Admissible, because it is relevant to show the improbability of the defendant's having committed an unprovoked assault. B: Admissible, because it is relevant to a determination of the extent of punishment if the defendant is convicted .C: Not admissible, because whether the defendant is normally a person of good character is irrelevant to the specific charge. D: Not admissible, because it is irrelevant without a showing that the former employer was one of the persons among whom the defendant lived and worked.

A: Admissible, because it is relevant to show the improbability of the defendant's having committed an unprovoked assault.

The driver of a car and three passengers were injured when their car was struck by a truck owned by a corporation. The truck was being driven by a corporate employee, a truck driver. A second corporate employee, a supervisor, was also riding in the truck. The issues in the case of the driver of the car versus the corporation include the negligence of the truck driver in driving too fast and failing to wear glasses, and the negligence of the driver of the car in failing to yield the right of way. The corporation's counsel seeks to have a sheriff testify that while he was investigating the accident he was told by the driver of the car, "This was probably our fault." The judge should rule the proffered evidence A: admissible, as an admission of a party. B: admissible, because it is a statement made to a police officer in the course of an official investigation. C: inadmissible, because it is a mixed conclusion of law and fact. D: inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception.

A: admissible, as an admission of a party.

A defendant was prosecuted for sexually abusing his 13-year-old stepdaughter. The stepdaughter testified to the defendant's conduct. On cross-examination, defense counsel asks the stepdaughter, "Isn't it true that shortly before you complained that your stepfather abused you, he punished you for maliciously ruining some of his phonograph records?" The question is: A: proper, because it relates to a possible motive for the stepdaughter to falsely accuse the defendant. B: proper, because the stepdaughter's misconduct is relevant to her character for veracity. C: improper, because the incident had nothing to do with the stepdaughter's truthfulness D: improper, because it falls outside the scope of direct examination.

A: proper, because it relates to a possible motive for the stepdaughter to falsely accuse the defendant.

A plaintiff sued a defendant for battery. At trial, the plaintiff's witness testified that the defendant had made an unprovoked attack on the plaintiff. On cross-examination, the defendant asks the witness about a false claim that the witness had once filed on an insurance policy. The question is A: proper, because the conduct involved untruthfulness. B: improper, because the conduct had not resulted in conviction of the witness. C: improper, because the impeachment involved a specific instance of misconduct. D: improper, because the claim form would be the best evidence.

A: proper, because the conduct involved untruthfulness.

A defendant was prosecuted for armed robbery. At trial, the defendant testified on his own behalf, denying that he had committed the robbery. On cross-examination, the prosecutor intends to ask the defendant whether he had been convicted of burglary six years earlier. Assume that the court has already determined that the probative value of the answer outweighs the prejudicial effect to the defendant. The question concerning the burglary conviction is A: proper, because the probative value for impeachment outweighs the prejudice to the defendant. B: proper, because the prosecutor is entitled to make this inquiry as a matter of right. C: improper, because burglary does not involve dishonesty or false statement. D: improper, because the conviction must be proved by court record, not by question on cross-examination.

A: proper, because the probative value for impeachment outweighs the prejudice to the defendant.

A defendant is tried for armed robbery of a bank. On cross-examination of the defendant, the prosecutor asks him whether he was convicted of tax fraud the previous year. The question is A: proper, to show that the defendant is inclined to lie B: proper, to show that the defendant is inclined to steal money C: improper, because the conviction has insufficient similarity to the crime charged D: improper, because the probative value of evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice

A: proper, to show that the defendant is inclined to lie

A defendant is tried for armed robbery of a bank. The prosecution, in its case in chief, offers evidence that when the defendant was arrested one day after the crime, he had a quantity of heroin and a hypodermic needle in his possession. This evidence should be A: admitted to prove the defendant's motive to commit the crime. B: admitted to prove the defendant's propensity to commit crimes. C: excluded, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. D: excluded, because such evidence may be offered only to rebut evidence of good character offered by the defendant.

C. excluded, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

A defendant is tried for armed robbery of a bank. The defendant testified on direct examination that he had never been in the bank that had been robbed. His counsel asks, "What, if anything, did you tell the police when you were arrested?" If his answer would be, "I told them I had never been in the bank," this answer would be: A: admissible, to prove that the defendant had never been in the bank. B: admissible, as a prior consistent statement. C: inadmissible, as hearsay not within any exception. D: inadmissible, because it was a self-serving statement by a person with a substantial motive to fabricate.

C. inadmissible, as hearsay not within any exception. **no exception applies because D's statement is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted

A defendant is charged with mail fraud. At trial, the defendant has not taken the witness stand, but he has called a witness who has testified that the defendant has a reputation for honesty. On cross, the prosecutor seeks to ask the witness, "Didn't you hear that two years ago the defendant was arrested for embezzlement?" Should the court permit the question? A: No, because the defendant has not testified and therefore has not put his character at issue. B: No, because the incident was an arrest, not a conviction. C: Yes, because it seeks to impeach the credibility of the witness. D: Yes, because the earlier arrest for a crime of dishonesty makes the defendant's guilt of the mail fraud more likely.

C: Yes, because it seeks to impeach the credibility of the witness.

A defendant is on trial for robbing a bank in State A. She testified that she was in State B at the time of the robbery. The defendant calls her friend, a witness, to testify that two days before the robbery the defendant told him that she was going to spend the next three days in State B. The witness's testimony is A: admissible, because the statement falls within the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. B: admissible, because a statement of plans falls within the hearsay exception for then-existing state of mind. C: inadmissible, because it is offered to establish an alibi by the defendant's own statement. D: inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

B: admissible, because a statement of plans falls within the hearsay exception for then-existing state of mind.

In an automobile negligence action by a plaintiff against a defendant, a bystander testified for the plaintiff. The defendant later called a witness, who testified that the bystander's reputation for truthfulness was bad. On cross-examination of the witness, the plaintiff's counsel asks, "Isn't it a fact that when you bought your new car last year, you made a false affidavit to escape paying the sales tax?" This question is: A: proper, because it will indicate the witness's standard of judgment as to reputation for truthfulness. B: proper, because it bears on the witness's credibility. C: improper, because character cannot be proved by specific instances of conduct. D: improper, because one cannot impeach an impeaching witness.

B: proper, because it bears on the witness's credibility.

The plaintiff sues a bar for injuries suffered in an automobile accident caused by a patron of the bar. The plaintiff claims that the patron was permitted to drink too much liquor at the bar before the accident. A witness, who was present at the bar on the night of the incident, testified that on the night of the accident the patron was drunk. The witness then proposed to testify that he remarked to his companion, "The patron is so drunk he can't even stand up." The witness's remark to his companion is: A: admissible as an excited utterance. B: admissible as a prior consistent statement. C: admissible as a statement by the witness regarding a condition he observed, made while he was observing it. D: inadmissible if there was no evidence that the witness had expertise in determining intoxication.

C: admissible as a statement by the witness regarding a condition he observed, made while he was observing it.

A defendant is tried for armed robbery of a bank. At the request of police, the teller who was robbed prepared a sketch bearing a strong likeness to the defendant, but the teller died in an automobile accident before the defendant was arrested. At trial, the prosecution offers the sketch. The sketch is A: admissible, as an identification of a person after perceiving him. B: admissible, as past recollection recorded. C: inadmissible, as hearsay not within any exception. D: inadmissible, as an opinion of the teller

C: inadmissible, as hearsay not within any exception **since the teller is unavailable to testify, the sketch can not come in

Perez sued Dawson for damages arising out of an automobile collision. At trial, Perez called Minter, an eyewitness to the collision. Perez expected Minter to testify that she had observed Dawson's automobile for five seconds prior to the collision and estimated Dawson's speed at the time of the collision to have been 50 miles per hour. Instead, Minter testified that she estimated Dawson's speed to have been 25 miles per hour. Without finally excusing Minter as a witness, Perez then called Wallingford, a police officer, to testify that Minter had told him during his investigation at the accident scene that Dawson "was doing at least 50." Wallingford's testimony is A. admissible as a present sense impression. B. admissible to impeach Minter. C. inadmissible, because Perez may not impeach his own witness. D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

B. admissible to impeach Minter.

In a civil action for personal injury, the plaintiff alleges that he was beaten up by the defendant during an altercation in a crowded bar. The defendant's defense is that he was not the person who hit the plaintiff. To corroborate his testimony about the cause of his injuries, the plaintiff seeks to introduce, through the hospital records custodian, a notation in a regular medical record made by an emergency room doctor at the hospital where the plaintiff was treated for his injuries. The notation is: "Patient says he was attacked by [the defendant]." The notation is: A: inadmissible, because the doctor who made the record is not available for cross-examination. B: inadmissible as hearsay, not within any exception. C: admissible as hearsay, within the exception for records of regularly conducted activity. D: admissible as a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.

B. inadmissible as hearsay, not within any exception. **P's statement to Doc about who attacked him is unrelated to medial diagnosis/treatment so it is inadmissible as a "medical record exception"

The plaintiff is suing a legal journal for libel based on an article that implied he had cheated the IRS by not paying his taxes. At trial, plaintiff denies any wrongdoing. An accountant is called by the defense to testify that 5 years ago the plaintiff had improperly distorted the value of certain investments in an effort to lower his taxable income. Should the accountant's testimony be admitted? A. yes to challenge the plaintiff's credibility B. yes as substantive evidence of the plaintiff's character C. no because it is improper character evidence D. no because the testimony must be corroborated

B. yes as substantive evidence of the plaintiff's character **party is NOT on the stand then it goes to his "character **part is on the stand then it goes to his "credibility" **credibility = impeaching a witness- plaintiff is NOT on the stand

A defendant was charged with battery for allegedly attacking a man after the two of them left a local bar together. No one else witnessed the incident. At trial, each testified that he had acted only in self-defense. The defendant has called his next-door neighbor as a witness to testify to the defendant's reputation both for truthfulness and for peacefulness. The government has objected to the testimony in its entirety. How should the court proceed? A: Admit the evidence in its entirety. B: Admit the evidence regarding the defendant's reputation for peacefulness, but exclude the evidence regarding his truthfulness. C: Exclude the evidence regarding the defendant's reputation for peacefulness, but admit the evidence regarding his truthfulness. D: Exclude the evidence in its entirety.

B: Admit the evidence regarding the defendant's reputation for peacefulness, but exclude the evidence regarding his truthfulness.

The plaintiff sues a bar for injuries suffered in an automobile accident caused by a patron of the bar. The plaintiff claims that the patron was permitted to drink too much liquor at the bar before the accident. The plaintiff offered evidence that, after the accident, the manager of the bar established house rules limiting all customers to two drinks per hour, with a maximum limit of four drinks per night. This evidence is: A. admissible to show that the prior conduct of the bar negligent B. admissible to show that the bar was aware of the need for taking precautionary measures C. inadmissible because subsequent measures by an employee are not binding on the bar D. inadmissible because its admission would discourage the taking of such remedial measures

D. inadmissible because its admission would discourage the taking of such remedial measures

A plaintiff sued a defendant for injuries suffered by the plaintiff when their automobiles collided. At trial the plaintiff offers into evidence a properly authenticated letter from the defendant that says, "Your claim seems too high, but, because I might have been a little negligent, I'm prepared to offer you half of what you ask." The letter is: A. admissible as an admission by a party-opponent B. admissible as a statement against pecuniary interest C. inadmissible, because the defendant's statement is lay opinion on a legal issue D. inadmissible, because the defendant's statement was made in an effort to settle the claim

D. inadmissible, because the defendant's statement was made in an effort to settle the claim

A man brings a breach of contract action against the seller of a vehicle that he was hoping to buy. The defense attorney calls his client to testify as to the color of the car that the defendant was offering for sale. The defendant testifies that it was blue. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's attorney asks the defendant if it was true that he had unlawfully turned the odometer backwards on the car that he sold to another buyer. The defense attorney objects. Is this testimony admissible? A. no because the testimony is irrelevant B. no because the question was beyond the scope of direct examination C. yes because the defendant put his character in issue by taking the stand D. yes because the defendant put his credibility in issue by taking the stand

D. yes because the defendant put his credibility in issue by taking the stand

The defendant was on trial for murder. Following recess, the defendant was in the crowed hallway outside the courtroom talking with his attorney. During their convo, the defendant said "So what if I killed him, big deal." The defendant's statement was overheard by a witness as he was walking down the corridor. The witness then informed the prosecution of the comment he heard. After the trial is reconvened, the prosecutor calls the witness to testify to what he heard the defendant tell the attorney. The defendant's attorney objects, arguing that this violates attorney-client privilege. May the witness be called to testify? A. no because the defendant's statement was a confidential communication and protected under attorney-client privilege B. no because the defendant's statement is inadmissible hearsay not within an exception C. yes because the witness has a duty to disclose incriminating evidence D. yes because the defendant's statement was not a confidential communication

D. yes because the defendant's statement was not a confidential communication