Evidence Lab

The plaintiff and the defendant were employed as clerks in the law office of an attorney. They disliked each other intensely. On February 6, they argued bitterly, almost coming to blows. Later, the plaintiff went to the company parking lot and discovered that the tires and canvas top on his car had been slashed with a knife. Angrily, he returned to the office and accused the defendant of the vandalism in the presence of the attorney, saying. "I dare you to deny it." The plaintiff subsequently instituted a tort action against the defendant for damage to his car. At the trial, the attorney testified on behalf of the plaintiff. After describing the events that took place in his office on February 6, he stated that when the plaintiff dared the defendant to deny damaging his car, the defendant said nothing. The attorney stated that he, the attorney, then said, "If I thought you did this, I'd have to fire you. Now, did you?" and that the defendant still said nothing. The attorney testifed further that he gave the defendant another opportunity to deny the plaintiff's accusation, and that after the defendant refused once again to answer, the attorney fired him. If the defendant's attorney objected to the testimony, should the court sustain the objection? (A) No, because the reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have denied slashing the tires and canvas top. (B) No. because the defendant is a party to the action and will have an opportunity to deny making the statement. (C) Yes, because silence cannot be used as an admission or form the basis for civil liability. (D) Yes, because answering the attorney's question might have tended to incriminate the defendant.

(A) No, because the reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have denied slashing the tires and canvas top.

A woman is threatened in the stadium parking lot of a sports game. She is terrified, and immediately drives home from the game even though it has just begun. The next morning, she calls her best friend, stating that she remembered feeling scared and believed the perpetrator was going to hurt her during the game. In a subsequent trial for assault, the woman is not available to testify, but the prosecution calls the woman's best friend to elicit testimony that the woman told her she was afraid of the perpetrator. Will the testimony be admissible at trial? (A) No, because the testimony is hearsay. (B) No. because the woman's statement is unreliable. (C) Yes, because it falls under the exception to hearsay for then existing mental emotional or physical condition. (D) Yes, because the woman was describing what she experienced first-hand.

(A) No, because the testimony is hearsay.

An airline passenger nearly killed in a crash is suing the airline for personal injuries. To prove the extent of his injuries, the passenger offers a videotape taken by a local news station immediately after the crash that shows serious burns covering much of the passenger's face. The airline moves to exclude the videotape on grounds that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In making his ruling, which of the following is NOT appropriate for the judge to consider? (A) The videotape will make it more likely that the passenger will win the suit. (B) There are other methods of proving the passenger's damages. (C) The videotape can be restricted to its proper purpose by instructing the jury to disregard any possible emotional appeal. (D) The videotape will encourage the jury to decide the suit on an emotional basis.

(A) The videotape will make it more likely that the passenger will win the suit.

The defendant, a police officer who had recently joined the police department, was charged with the murder of his wife. At the trial, the prosecution claimed that while on a visit to the country, the defendant's wife was walking across a meadow when the defendant shot her from three-quarters of a mile away with a rifle equipped with a telescopic sight. The defendant admitted firing the rifle but maintained that his wife's death was an accident. On the presentation of the defendant's case, his attorney called a firearms expert, who testified that the rifle was not reliably accurate at any distance in excess of a half-mile. In rebuttal, the prosecutor called a police officer who joined the police force at the same time as the defendant. The officer testified that he and the defendant had attended firearms classes together at the police academy, and that the defendant had been with him in a firearms class when their instructor said that the rifle was capable of remarkable accuracy at distances of up to two miles if fired by a good marksman. On objection by the defendant's attorney, should the testimony of the officer be admitted? (A) Yes, only for the purpose of proving that the defendant believed the rifle to be accurate at the distance involved. (B) Yes, only for the purpose of proving that the rifle was accurate at the distance involved. (C) Yes, for the purpose of proving that the defendant believed the rifle to be accurate at the distance involved, and for the purpose of proving that it was accurate at that distance. (D) No, as hearsay.

(A) Yes, only for the purpose of proving that the defendant believed the rifle to be accurate at the distance involved.

A company sued its former vice president for return of $230,000 that had been embezzled during the previous two years. Called by the company as an adverse witness, the former vice-president testified that his annual salary had been $75,000, and he denied the embezzlement. The company calls a banker to show that, during the two-year period, the former vice-president had deposited $250,000 in his bank account. The witness's testimony is: (A) admissible as circumstantial evidence of the former vice-president's guilt. (B) admissible to impeach the former vice-president. (C) inadmissible, because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. (D) inadmissible, because the deposits could have come from legitimate sources.

(A) admissible as circumstantial evidence of the former vice-president's guilt.

A fan attended a minor league hockey game in his hometown. Unfortunately, he was only able to obtain tickets in the visitor's section. While at the game, he became involved in an altercation with a fan of the visiting team. When the fan cheered for a home team goal, the visiting fan turned around and threatened to kill the home fan if he didn't shut up. The home fan pulled a knife out of his pocket and stabbed the visiting fan in the arm. At his trial for aggravated assault, the home fan wants to introduce a statement from a witness who was standing next to the visiting fan at the game. The statement, which the witness had made earlier in the game when the home fan cheered for the home team, was, "You'd better watch out. At a hockey game last week, the visiting fan put two guys in the hospital when they wouldn't shut up. One of them had 33 stitches after the visiting fan bashed his head against the steps." Assume that the witness's statement is offered as proof of the effect it produced in the home fan's mind. In this regard, the statement would most likely be: (A) admissible as non-hearsay. (B) admissible as a present sense impression. (C) inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception. (D) inadmissible, because the statement is self-serving.

(A) admissible as non-hearsay.

The defendant was charged with the crime of assaulting the victim. The defendant 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 his employer. The defendant's employer testified that he had known and employed the defendant for twelve years and knew the defendants 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 regarding 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 defendant's 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.

A plaintiff is suing her former physician for slander, based on statements allegedly made by the physician to the plaintiff's co-worker that the plaintiff had difficulty conceiving children as a result of her history with venereal disease. The physician denies making any statements about the plaintiff. During the trial, the plaintiff calls as a witness her neighbor to testify that during her last visit to the physician's office, the physician told the neighbor that she was angry with the plaintiff for posting a negative review of her medical practice on a popular website, and that she made sure to 'even the score" by sharing with others some opinions about the plaintiff. The physician objected to the testimony. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the statement? (A) Admissible, as an exception to the hearsay rule for a declaration against interest. (B) Admissible non hearsay. (C) Inadmissible because of the physician-patient privilege. (D) Inadmissible hearsay not within any exception.

(B) Admissible non hearsay.

In a medical malpractice action, a surgeon was called as an expert witness by the plaintiff and testified that the surgical procedure utilized by the defendant was so new and experimental as to constitute negligence under the accepted standard of practice in the relevant medical community. On cross-examination by the defendant's counsel, the surgeon was asked whether Modern Surgical Procedures was a reliable authority in his area of specialty. The surgeon said that it was, and the defense counsel then asked if the surgeon had relied upon the treatise in reaching the conclusion that the defendant was negligent. The surgeon stated that he did not. Defense counsel now proposes to read a passage from the treatise stating that the surgical procedure at issue is widely accepted by responsible medical practitioners. The plaintiff's counsel objects. How should the court rule? (A) For the defendant, but it should also caution the jury that the evidence may be considered only for impeachment of the surgeon. (B) For the defendant. (C) For the plaintiff, because the surgeon did not rely upon the treatise in forming his expert opinion. (D) For the plaintiff, because the passage from the treatise is inadmissible hearsay.

(B) For the defendant.

A defendant is on trial for a murder that occurred during a robbery at the victim's home. A witness helped the police artist compose an accurate depiction of the defendant. The witness was unavailable at the time of trial and the prosecutor offers the sketch into evidence. Is the sketch admissible? (A) No, under the best evidence rule. (B) No, as hearsay not within any exception. (C) Yes, as a record by a public employee. (D) Yes, as prior identification.

(B) No, as hearsay not within any exception.

A woman is the victim of an armed burglary. At 1:30 am the accused allegedly enters her home at night while she was sleeping alone and threatened to kill her if she did not tell him where her most valuable possessions were. Fortunately, the accused gets spooked and leaves her residence without harming her, and the woman immediately calls the police. At approximately 3:30 am the woman recounts the burglary at the request of the responding officers. She is visibly shaking when she describes her attacker as tall, skinny, and blonde. At the subsequent trial, the prosecution seeks to offer those statements to show that the attacker was tall and slender. There are no problems with the Confrontation clause. The woman is unavailable to testify at trial. Will the woman's statement to the responding officers be admitted as a present sense impression exception to hearsay? (A) No, because she is unavailable to testify at trial. (B) No, because the statements were not made during or immediately after the woman perceived her attacker. (C) Yes, because she was still under the stress of the initial burglary. (D) Yes, because she was describing her impression of her attacker.

(B) No, because the statements were not made during or immediately after the woman perceived her attacker.

A town's public works director was being sued by a resident for directing the dumping of hazardous waste in a vacant parcel of land owned by the town that was adjacent to the resident's property. The resident is prepared to testify that she encountered a public works employee in a town dump truck dumping some debris on the parcel of land. When she asked him what he was doing, he said that he was just following his boss's orders but that she should not go anywhere near the debris. Should the court admit this testimony? (A) Yes, as a statement of a co-conspirator. (B) Yes, as a statement of an employee of the party-opponent. (C) No, because there is no showing that the employee was authorized to speak for the party. (D) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

(B) Yes, as a statement of an employee of the party-opponent.

A federal officer had been informed that a person arriving from Europe on a particular airline flight would be carrying cocaine in his baggage. The officer went to the airport and stood at the arrival gate with a dog that had been specially trained to recognize the scent of cocaine. When the defendant, carrying his bag. walked by, the dog began barking and scratching the floor in front of him with his right paw.The officer stopped the defendant and searched his bag. In it, he found a small brass statue with a false bottom. Upon removing the false bottom, the officer found one ounce of cocaine. The defendant, who was arrested and charged with the illegal importation of a controlled substance, claimed he had purchased the statue as a souvenir and was unaware that there was cocaine hidden it its base. At the defendant's trial, the prosecution offered to prove that the defendant had been convicted 15 years earlier of illegally importing cocaine by hiding it in the base of a brass statue. If the defendant's attorney objected, should the court rule that proof of the defendant's prior conviction is admissible? (A) Yes, as evidence of habit. (B) Yes, because it is evidence of a distinctive method of operation. (C) No, because evidence of previous conduct by a defendant may not be used against him or her. (D) No. because the prior conviction occurred more than 10 years before the trial.

(B) Yes, because it is evidence of a distinctive method of operation.

The defendant was on trial for shooting and killing a man at a restaurant after a violent argument. The prosecution calls a witness to testify that she was standing in the parking lot, and, as the defendant was leaving the restaurant, he dropped a gun into a nearby garbage can. Is the witness's testimony regarding the defendant's conduct admissible? (A) Yes, as hearsay falling within the state-of-mind exception. (B) Yes, because nonassertive conduct is not hearsay, and it is otherwise admissible. (C) No, because nothing was said. (D) No, because the defendant's acts constitute assertive conduct.

(B) Yes, because nonassertive conduct is not hearsay, and it is otherwise admissible.

The defendant was on trial for shooting and killing a man at a restaurant after a violent argument. The prosecution calls a witness to testify that she was standing in the parking lot, and, as the defendant was leaving the restaurant, he dropped a gun into a nearby garbage can. Is the witness's testimony regarding the defendant's conduct admissible? (A) Yes, as hearsay falling within the state-of-mind exception. (B) Yes, because nonassertive conduct is not hearsay, and it is otherwise admissible. (C) No, because nothing was said. (D) No, because the defendant's acts constitute assertive conduct.

(B) Yes, because nonassertive conduct is not hearsay, and it is otherwise admissible.

A woman was bitten by her neighbor's dog. The woman sued her neighbor for negligence, claiming that she was injured when the neighbor's broken gate opened and allowed her dog to get out. The neighbor claimed that she didn't know the gate was broken. In response, the woman wanted to call a witness to testify that he had told the neighbor the day before that her gate looked broken and was probably prone to opening by itself. Is the witness's testimony admissible? (A) Yes, because the testimony is admissible as a present sense impression. (B) Yes, because the testimony shows the neighbor had notice that something was wrong with her gate. (C) No, because the testimony is inadmissible hearsay. (D) No, because the witness has not been shown to be an expert.

(B) Yes, because the testimony shows the neighbor had notice that something was wrong with her gate.

The defendant was charged with embezzling $1 million from his employer, a bank, by transferring the funds to a secret offshore account in the bank's name. Only the defendant and the bank's vice president were authorized to draw funds from the account. The defendant testified that he had wired $1 million to the account but had done so at the direction of the bank's vice president. The defendant stated under oath that he had no intent to embezzle bank funds. The government's cross-examination of the defendant concentrated exclusively on his relationship and conversations with the vice president, who has committed suicide. The defense now seeks to call a second witness, who is prepared to testify that he had worked with the defendant for 10 years and that the defendant had a reputation in both the business and general communities as being a very honest person. Is the witness's testimony admissible? (A) Yes, because a defendant has a constitutional right to call witnesses on his own behalf. (B) Yes, to help show that the defendant did not embezzle funds. (C) No. because it is inadmissible character evidence. (D) No, because you cannot bolster the credibility of your own witness unless the credibility of the witness has been attacked.

(B) Yes, to help show that the defendant did not embezzle funds.

A customer is suing a car dealer for selling him a salvaged vehicle that the car dealer had represented as being brand new. A few weeks before trial, the car dealer approached his sister and said, "Sis, I need some sympathy. I sold a salvaged vehicle to a customer, and now he's suing me, I didn't mean any harm by it. I inspected the vehicle and everything." Unknown to either the car dealer or his sister, the sister's boyfriend was at the front door and overheard this conversation. When the time for trial came around, the car dealer left the country and refused to attend the trial, telling his attorney to handle it. The customer's attorney attempted several times to secure the car dealer's attendance at trial, but was unsuccessful. At trial, the sister's boyfriend is called to testify about the conversation he overheard. On objection by the car dealer's attorney, the court will most likely rule the testimony: (A) admissible as a statement of then-existing mental or emotional condition. (B) admissible as a declaration against interest. (C) admissible as a statement of present sense impression. (D) inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception.

(B) admissible as a declaration against interest.

A defendant in an automobile accident case is, being sued by the estate of the driver of the other car. At trial, the defendant calls an eyewitness to the collision. The eyewitness testifies that after the crash, he immediately ran to the other driver's car to try to render assistance. The eyewitness observed the other driver covered with blood from the top of his head down to his toes. He was moaning. gasping, and crying out, "I did not see the other car coming!" The other driver died 10 minutes later. The estate's attorney objects to the eyewitness's testimony. The trial judge should rule that his testimony is: (A) admissible as a declaration against interest. (B) admissible as a dying declaration. (C) inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception. (D) inadmissible, because this testimony cannot be admitted in civil cases.

(B) admissible as a dying declaration.

Daggett is prosecuted for the murder of Vales, whose body was found one morning in the street near Daggett's house. The state calls Witt, a neighbor, to testify that during the night before the body was found he heard Vales's wife scream, "You killed him! You killed him!" Witt's testimony is (A) admissible as a report of a statement of belief. (B) admissible as a report of an excited utterance. (C) inadmissible, because it reports a privileged spousal communication. (D) inadmissible on spousal immunity grounds, but only if the wife objects

(B) admissible as a report of an excited utterance.

A large man with red hair robbed a liquor store. Thereafter, a defendant was arrested and charged with the armed robbery. At the defendant's trial, several eyewitnesses testified that they had seen a large redheaded man pull out a gun and rob the owner of the liquor store. The defendant appeared at trial with a shaven head. The prosecution calls a corrections officer to testify that the defendant had red hair when he was first brought to jail. The defendant's counsel objects. The trial judge should rule the correction officer's testimony: (A) admissible as a prior identification. (B) admissible, for the limited purpose of clarifying the discrepancy in the witnesses" testimony. (C) inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception. (D) inadmissible, because it is opinion testimony.

(B) admissible, for the limited purpose of clarifying the discrepancy in the witnesses" testimony.

If a statement against interest is offered in a criminal case and exposes the declarant to criminal liability, what must the prosecution prove for the statement to be admitted? (A) A reasonable person in the declarant's position would have made the statement only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant's proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant's claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability. (B) The statement is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness. (C) Both A and B. (D) Neither A nor B.

(C) Both A and B.

The defendant, a competitive athlete, was charged with the murder of another athlete against whom she was scheduled to compete in two weeks. Autopsy results revealed that the victim was poisoned with a lethal mixture containing a variety of substances. During the prosecution's case in chief, evidence was introduced establishing that a bottle of a particular drug, which was among the substances listed in the autopsy report, was discovered in the defendant's medicine cabinet when she was arrested. On direct examination by her own attorney, the defendant states that when she was arrested and the bottle of the drug was found, she told the officers, "My doctor prescribed that for me to cope with the excruciating back pain from which I suffer.' If the prosecution moves to strike this testimony, how should the court rule? (A) For the defendant, because it is a prior consistent statement. (B) For the defendant, because it tends to explain prosecution evidence. (C) For the prosecution, because it is hearsay not within an exception. (D) For the prosecution, because it is a self-serving statement.

(C) For the prosecution, because it is hearsay not within an exception.

Two brothers were playing golf when the elder brother left to take a telephone call. When he returned, he told the younger brother, "My wife was just involved in an accident. She ran a red light and hit another car. I need to leave." After arriving at the scene of the accident, the elder brother, after talking with bystanders, determined that his wife had not driven through a red light. The driver of the other car brought suit against the wife for injuries suffered in the accident. To help establish liability, the driver of the other car seeks to have the younger brother testify as to the elder brother's statements on the golf course. Is the younger brother's testimony admissible? (A) Yes, as a vicarious admission. (B) Yes, as a statement against interest. (C) No, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception. (D) No, because it constitutes opinion.

(C) No, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.

The defendant was on trial for murder. The defendant wants to testify that after the murder a witness told her, "I saw the guy that did it." The defendant wants to use this statement to prove she did not commit the murder because she is female. May the defendant do so? (A) Yes, because it is relevant non-hearsay. (B) Yes, because it is a declaration against interest. (C) No, because it is hearsay. (D) No, because the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

(C) No, because it is hearsay.

At the defendant's trial for assault with a deadly weapon, the defendant's counsel calls a witness to the stand and asks him, "What is the defendant's reputation for honesty and veracity in your community?" The prosecutor objects before the witness can answer. Should the court admit the testimony? (A) Yes, because reputation evidence is admissible under these circumstances to establish a character trait. (B) Yes, because the prosecution put the defendant's character at issue when they filed charges against him. (C) No, because the evidence offered is irrelevant to any material issue in the case. (D) No, because the evidence offered is inadmissible hearsay.

(C) No, because the evidence offered is irrelevant to any material issue in the case.

The defendant was an orderly employed by the hospital in which the patient died. The administrator of the patient's estate sued the defendant, seeking the return of a watch that he claimed that the defendant had taken from the patient's hospital room after the patient died. At the trial, the defendant testified that about one week prior to the patient's death, the patient called him into his room and handed him the watch, saying. "You've been kind to me. This is for you." If the administrator objects to the testimony, should the court should sustain the objection? (A) No. because the statement is an admission. (B) No, under the applicable Dead Man's Act. (C) No, because the patient's statement had a direct legal effect on the defendant's right to possess the watch. (D) Yes, because the statement is hearsay not within any exception to the hearsay rule.

(C) No, because the patient's statement had a direct legal effect on the defendant's right to possess the watch.

The defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge of committing an armed robbery of a bank. When the defendant appeared in court on the day of the trial, his head was completely bald. The prosecuting attorney called the employee as a witness on the prosecution's direct case. The employee testified that she was employed by the bank, and that she was present when the robbery was committed. She stated that the robber had bushy red hair. When asked whether the defendant was the robber, she looked at him sitting in the courtroom and said that she was not sure. The prosecuting attorney then asked her whether she had identified the defendant as the robber at a lineup conducted on the day of the robbery. If the defendant's attorney objects to that question, should the objection be sustained? (A) Yes, because her statement is hearsay not within any exception. (B) Yes, because the prosecuting attorney may not impeach his own witness. (C) No. because the employee is on the witness stand and available for cross-examination. (D) No, because the employee is a disinterested witness.

(C) No. because the employee is on the witness stand and available for cross-examination.

While a driver was driving someone else's car, he hit a plaintiff who was walking in a pedestrian right-of-way. The plaintiff sued both the driver and the owner of the car, alleging that the driver had negligently driven the car and that the owner had negligently permitted an unfit driver to use her car. At trial, the plaintiff calls his first witness. The witness testifies that within the last several months he is aware of three instances in which the driver has engaged in reckless driving. Both the driver and the owner object to the admission of this evidence. How should the court rule on the objection? (A) Sustained because the driver's character is not in issue. (B) Sustained, because specific evidence of misconduct is not admissible to establish evidence of character. (C) Overruled as to the case against the owner, but sustained as to the case against the driver. (D) Overruled, because the evidence goes to the issue of the driver's criminal negligence.

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

A large oil tanker runs into a shallow reef causing thousands of gallons to spill into the ocean. The owners of the oil tanker sue the captain for negligence, claiming that he failed to order the ship to turn in time once the reef was spotted. At trial, the captain testified that he gave the order to turn, but the helmsman failed to respond in time. All orders given on the ship are recorded in the ship's log. The owners object to the captain's testimony. How should the court respond to the objection? (A) The objection should be sustained, because the best evidence rule requires that when the contents of a writing are sought to be proved, the writing itself must be produced. (B) The objection should be sustained, because the testimony calls for hearsay that does not fall within a recognized exception. (C) The objection should be overruled, because what the captain is testifying to is not hearsay. (D) The objection should be overruled, because the captain is subject to cross-examination.

(C) The objection should be overruled, because what the captain is testifying to is not hearsay.

At the defendant's trial for a brutal assault, in which the victim identified the defendant as the assailant, the defense calls a witness who will testify that he has worked with the defendant for 20 years and that all of his business associates regard the defendant as an honest person. If the prosecution objects to the witness's testimony, for which party should the court rule? (A) The defendant, because the testimony is relevant to show the defendant's character for truth and veracity. (B) The defendant, because the testimony demonstrates the defendant's good character, which is inconsistent with the particular crime charged. (C) The prosecution, because the testimony presents no evidence of any relevant character trait. (D) The prosecution, because the testimony is hearsay not within any exception.

(C) The prosecution, because the testimony presents no evidence of any relevant character trait.

A defendant's house was destroyed by fire and she was charged with arson. To prove that the defendant had a motive to burn down her house, the government offered evidence that the defendant had fully insured the house and its contents. Should the court admit this evidence? (A) No, because the probative value of the evidence of insurance upon the issue of whether the defendant intentionally burned her house down is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the jury. (B) No, because evidence of insurance is not admissible upon the issue of whether the insured acted wrongfully. (C) Yes, because evidence of insurance on the house has a tendency to show that the defendant had a motive to burn down the house. (D) Yes, because any conduct of a party to the case is admissible when offered against the party.

(C) Yes, because evidence of insurance on the house has a tendency to show that the defendant had a motive to burn down the house.

The defendant is charged with using a stolen credit card. He made several transactions which were recorded on video, but he disputes a transaction that took place at the local animal shelter. The prosecution offers a receipt from the shelter which includes the defendant's name and physical description, the animal's name and description, the name of the clerk who performed the transaction, and the credit card information that is used for payment. The prosecution calls the manager of the animal shelter who testifies that the shelter is a non-profit organization whose purpose is finding homes for pets, and their policy is to issue a receipt of this kind that is made by the clerk performing the transaction for all animal adoptions. All receipts must be created and issued at the time the animals are adopted. May the receipt be entered into evidence? (A) No, because it is hearsay. (B) No, because the manager does not have personal knowledge of the transaction. (C) Yes, because it is an exception to the rule against hearsay. (D) Yes, because the animal shelter is a non-profit organization.

(C) Yes, because it is an exception to the rule against hearsay.

A resident being interviewed live by a television reporter stated that, "The biggest problem in this city is corruption in city government, particularly the mayor." The mayor has now brought an action for defamation against the resident. At trial, the mayor has produced testimony as to his honesty and good character. As part of his defense, the defendant seeks to offer into evidence the fact that the mayor was convicted two years ago of taking a bribe to award a city contract for solid waste disposal. Is the evidence admissible? (A) No. because character evidence is not admissible in civil cases. (B) No, because character can be proved only by opinion or reputation testimony. (C) Yes, because the mayor's character is directly in issue. (D) Yes, because there was an actual conviction for the crime.

(C) Yes, because the mayor's character is directly in issue.

A woman is involved in an altercation at a bar. She does not want to make a big deal about her injuries by going to the doctor, but she goes home and asks her roommate to help her with her black eye. The roommate does not have any medical training, but she agrees to help bandage the wound. The woman tells her roommate that she sustained the injury in a bar fight and asks her what kind of medication she should take for the pain. The woman relocates prior to the trial, and she cannot be found. Will the roommate be permitted to testify as to what the woman told her in the aggressor's subsequent trial for battery? (A) No, because the statements are hearsay. (B) No, because the roommate is not a medical professional. (C) Yes, because the statement was made for the purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis. (D) Yes, because the woman told her roommate that she sustained her injuries in a bar fight.

(C) Yes, because the statement was made for the purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis.

A defendant who is an accountant has been charged with fraud for allegedly helping a client file false income tax returns by shifting substantial medical expenses from one year to another. The defendant has pleaded not guilty, claiming that he made an honest mistake as to the date the expenses were paid. At trial, the prosecutor offers evidence of the defendant's involvement in an earlier scheme to help a different client falsify tax returns in the same way. Is the evidence of the defendant's involvement in the earlier scheme admissible? (A) No, because it is impermissible character evidence. (B) No, because it is not relevant to the issues in this case. (C) Yes, to show absence of mistake. (D) Yes, to show the defendant's propensity to commit the crime.

(C) Yes, to show absence of mistake.

A defendant charged with murder admitted to the killing, but he claimed that he shot the victim in self-defense as she attacked him with a knife. At trial, the investigating officer testified about the scene of the crime and the condition of the victim at the time of death. The prosecutor showed the officer a photograph of the scene of the crime taken by the police photographer and asked the officer whether the photograph accurately depicted what he had observed at the scene. The officer testified that it did. The photograph showed the deceased lying in a pool of blood with both her hands cut off. Should the court admit the photograph? (A) No, because it does not tend to prove or disprove that the defendant acted in self-defense. (B) No, because it has not been properly authenticated. (C) Yes, unless the court determines that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. (D) Yes, because it is relevant to the issue of self-defense.

(C) Yes, unless the court determines that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

In a homicide case, the defendant admitted to the killing the victim but claimed that he stabbed him with a kitchen knife in self-defense. At trial, the police officer was shown a photograph of the crime scene and was then asked whether the photograph accurately depicted what he had observed at the scene. The officer testified that it did. The photograph showed the deceased with his hands tied behind his back and covered with multiple stab wounds. Is the photograph admissible? (A) No, because it does not tend to prove or disprove that the defendant acted in self-defense. (B) No, because it has not been properly authenticated. (C) Yes, unless the court determines that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. (D) Yes, because it is relevant to the issue of self-defense.

(C) Yes, unless the court determines that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

A defendant is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant's defense is that he shot his father accidentally. The prosecutor calls a police officer as a witness to testify that on two occasions in the year prior to this incident, he had been called to the defendant's home because of complaints of loud arguments between the defendant and his father, and had found it necessary to stop the defendant from beating his father. The evidence is: (A) inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence. (B) inadmissible, because the officer lacks firsthand knowledge of who started the quarrels. (C) admissible to show that the defendant killed his father intentionally. (D) admissible to show that the defendant is a violent person.

(C) admissible to show that the defendant killed his father intentionally.

A police officer responded to the scene of a one-car accident and arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol. The prosecutor wants to have the police officer testify to the following statement made to him by the defendant's passenger, out of the presence of the defendant: "We were returning from a party at which we had all been drinking." The passenger is available to testify at trial. The trial judge should rule this testimony: (A) admissible as an admission of a party. (B) admissible as a declaration against interest. (C) inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception. (D) inadmissible, because it would lead the court into nonessential side issues.

(C) inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception.

A driver has been charged with leaving the scene of an accident. The driver allegedly hit another car in a parking lot and drove away without leaving proper insurance and contact information. A bystander wrote down her license plate number and called the police. At trial, the driver proposes to testify that the day after the accident, she met with the police officer investigating the accident, and told him that she did not leave until after she had inspected both cars and determined there was no damage. The bystander is not available to testify at trial. The driver's testimony is: (A) Admissible, because it is the statement of the witness herself, who is subject to cross-examination. (B) Admissible, because it is a statement based on firsthand knowledge. (C) Inadmissible, because the bystander is unavailable and, therefore, cannot contradict the driver. (D) Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not withm any recognized exception.

(D) Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not withm any recognized exception.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, who had constructed the plaintiff's house, for breach of warranty of habitability. At trial, in cross-examination of the plaintiff, the defendant's attorney asked whether the plaintiff had sued another contractor 30 years earlier, claiming similar defects in another house built for the plaintiff. The question was not objected to and the plaintiff answered that she had had some "water problems" with the first house she ever purchased, but no suit was filed. The defendant then called as a witness the contractor of 30 years earlier to testify that the plaintiff had brought suit against him for defects in the earlier house, many of which were like those now claimed to be found in the home the defendant built, but that the case was settled without trial. Should the trial court rule that the witness's offered testimony is admissible? (A) Yes, as proper impeachment because the plaintiff will have an opportunity to explain or deny the witness's statement. (B) Yes, because the plaintiff failed to object to the defendant's questions on cross-examination relative to the prior suit. (C) No. because the best evidence of the suit is the court record. (D) No, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that it will confuse the issue and waste time.

(D) No, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that it will confuse the issue and waste time.

The defendant is on trial for shoplifting. As part of his defense, the defendant calls to the stand a restaurant cashier, who will testify that the defendant is a regular customer and has corrected an undercharge on her bill several times. Is the testimony of the cashier admissible? (A) Yes, because a defendant may offer evidence of her good character in a case. (B) Yes, because the evidence is relevant and its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues. (C) No, because the cashier's testimony is hearsay. (D) No, because the evidence is not a proper means for proving good character.

(D) No, because the evidence is not a proper means for proving good character.

A paper salesman, who was a practical joker, rigged up a homemade gadget on his desk to shoot the next person who entered his office. The salesman's secretary, the unlucky recipient of this joke, sued the salesman for battery. At trial, the secretary sought to prove the seriousness of her injuries by offering a photograph of her taken by a co-worker at the time she was receiving first aid. The photograph shows her open wounds and a tortured expression on her face. In making a determination whether to exclude the photograph as more prejudicial than probative, which of the following is LEAST appropriate for the trial judge to consider? (A) Whether the photograph tends to encourage the jury to decide the suit on an emotional basis. (B) Whether other means of proving damages are available to the secretary. (C) Whether the photograph can be restricted to its proper purpose by an instruction directing the jury to disregard its possible emotional appeal. (D) Whether the photograph tends to increase the likelihood that the salesman will lose the suit.

(D) Whether the photograph tends to increase the likelihood that the salesman will lose the suit.

A man in a bar says to a woman, "I am going to kill you." The woman, fearing for her life, flees the bar, runs into the street and was almost hit by a car. The car swerves to avoid the woman and runs over a small child. The woman is now being sued for negligence for running into the street, and she wants to use the man's words to aid in her defense, but the plaintiff's attorney objects. Should the judge admit the statement? (A) No, because the declarant is unavailable. (B) No, because the statement is hearsay. (C) Yes, as a statement against interest. (D) Yes, as the statement is not hearsay.

(D) Yes, as the statement is not hearsay.

In a suit based on a will, inheritance of $1 million depended upon whether the wife had survived her husband when both died in the crash of a small airplane. An applicable statute provided that, for purposes of distributing an estate after a common disaster, there was a rebuttable presumption that neither spouse had survived the other. A witness was called to testify that as she approached the plane she heard what she thought was a woman's voice saying, "I'm dying," although by the time the two occupants were removed from the wreckage they were both dead. Is the witness's testimony admissible? (A) No, because the matter is governed by the presumption that neither spouse survived the other. (B) No, because the witness's testimony is too speculative to support a finding. (C) Yes, because the hearsay rule does not apply to statements by decedents in actions to determine rights under a will. (D) Yes, because it is relevant and not otherwise prohibited.

(D) Yes, because it is relevant and not otherwise prohibited.

The defendant is on trial for armed robbery. There is no video evidence of the robbery, and no weapons were found on the scene. Additionally, no one was actually injured by a weapon of any kind. The defendant asserts that he was unarmed when the robbery took place. The prosecutor calls a witness who was present in the lobby of the building when the robbery took place. The witness did not see the robbery occur, but she heard another witness yell "Get down, he has a gun!" The declarant was not able to be identified. The defense counsel objects to the witness's testimony of what the witness heard on the basis of hearsay. Is the testimony admissible? (A) No, because it is hearsay. (B) No, because the witness does not have personal knowledge of the robbery. (C) Yes, because the identity of the declarant is immaterial. (D) Yes, because the declarant was under the stress of the robbery.

(D) Yes, because the declarant was under the stress of the robbery.

The issue at trial is whether the sun was shining in a particular city on a particular day at 11:00 a.m. A witness testified that he was lying with his wife on the beach in that city at 11:00 a.m. that day and she said to him, "Now that the sun is out, l'Il be able to get a great tan!" Is the statement admissible? (A) No, as hearsay not within any exception. (B) No, because the witness does not have firsthand knowledge. (C) Yes, but only if the witness's wife is unavailable. (D) Yes, whether or not the witness's wife is unavailable.

(D) Yes, whether or not the witness's wife is unavailable.

A plaintiff sued a defendant under an age discrimination statute, alleging that the defendant refused to hire the plaintiff because she was over age 65. The defendant's defense was that he refused to employ the plaintiff because he reasonably believed that she would be unable to perform the job. The defendant seeks to testify that the plaintiff's former employer advised him not to hire the plaintiff because she was unable to perform productively for more than four hours a day. The testimony of the defendant is: (A) inadmissible, because the defendant's opinion of the plaintiff's abilities is not based on personal knowledge. (B) inadmissible, because plaintiff's former employer's statement is hearsay not within any exception. (C) admissible as evidence that the plaintiff would be unable to work longer than four hours per day. (D) admissible as evidence of the defendant's reason for refusing to hire the plaintiff.

(D) admissible as evidence of the defendant's reason for refusing to hire the plaintiff.

Two weeks before an election, a local newspaper published an article implying that one of the mayoral candidates was a thief. The candidate subsequently lost the election and sued the newspaper for defamation. The newspaper defended on the grounds of truth. At trial, the candidate took the stand and testified that he was not a thief. Thereafter, the newspaper called a witness to testify that three years ago the candidate committed a larceny while employed at his former job. Upon objection by the candidate's attorney, the witness's testimony should be: (A) excluded, because bad acts may not be proved by extrinsic evidence (B) excluded, because it is improper character evidence. (C) admitted as probative evidence of the candidate's character for veracity. (D) admitted as relevant evidence of the candidate's character as a thief.

(D) admitted as relevant evidence of the candidate's character as a thief.