evidence

In state v Williamson john is called to testify against his brother MacArthur. At the trial johns brother MacArthur tells him that he testifies than more than likely going to convict him. MacAruthr goes into the bathroom and prays about the matter. Then decides its time to go he leaves the court room and never returns. The district attorney notifies the court that it has a deposition taken from MacArthur during the civil trial and would like to offer the deposition in the trial today. The defense council objects on the grounds that the deposition is taken out of court and is hearsay and therefore not admissible. The defense attorney further alleges that to allow this into evidence would violate his right of confrontation. How should the court rule? And what should be the basis of the court's decision? (A) the court should rule that testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or in a civil action or proceeding a party with a similar interest had a opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination is not hearsay. (b) the court should rule that testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or in a civil action or proceeding a party with a similar interest had a opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination is not hearsay and the witness must be unavailable. C prior statements by a witness are admissible if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross emanation concerning the statement and it is one involving a criminal case and is inconsistent with this testimony. D. prior statements by a witness are admissible if the party testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross emanation concerning the statement and it is one involving a criminal case and is inconsistent with this testimony.

(b) the court should rule that testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or in a civil action or proceeding a party with a similar interest had a opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination is not hearsay and the witness must be unavailable.

( Relational and privity admissions. The statement is offered against a party, and the statement is: (a) A statement by an defendant that is inconsistent or employee of the party against whom it is offered, concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship; (b) A statement by a declarant while participating in a conspiracy to commit a crime or civil wrong and in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy, provided that a clear case of conspiracy is established; (c) In a civil case, a statement by a declarant when the liability, obligation, or duty of the party against whom it is offered is derivatively based in whole or in part upon a liability, obligation, or duty of the declarant, or when the claim or right asserted by that party is barred or diminished by a breach of duty by the declarant, and when the statement would be admissible if offered against the declarant as a party in an action involving that liability, obligation, or breach of duty; d) A statement by a declarant offered against the party in an action for damages arising from wrongful death

(c) In a civil case, a statement by a declarant when the liability, obligation, or duty of the party against whom it is offered is derivatively based in whole or in part upon a liability, obligation, or duty of the declarant, or when the claim or right asserted by that party is barred or diminished by a breach of duty by the declarant, and when the statement would be admissible if offered against the declarant as a party in an action involving that liability, obligation, or breach of duty;

Kaitlyn reina was called as a witness in the domestic violence trial tanner v tanner. During the trial the plaintiffs attorney offered a medical record prepared by nurse reina wherein she attempted to testify that on the night in which she was working as a emergency room nurse Mrs tanner was brought to emergency room by ambulance during her intimal interview with mrs tanner, mrs tanner testified that mrs arianne tanner told her that her husband bobby tanner had beaten her in the face and poured hot boiling water on her and that is why she suffered third degree burns. At trial mrs tanner refueses to testify against her husband so plaintiff called nurse reina. The judge ask you can nurse renia testify and on what basis. What would be the best exception to use in this situation. A .exicited utterance d. Present sense impression c. Dying decelartion d. 803(4) is the answer "medical testimony"

803(4) is the answer "medical testimony"

Johnny has just finished fishing at LSU. He walks down the levee to find his vehicle. Where he left his vehicle, there was a dam close to the vehicle. Because LSU had not properly maintained the dam, the dam broke and all of the water flooded the vehicle. When Johnny saw his vehicle, he rushed to try to move it but the water had overtaken the vehicle. He took pictures of the collapsing damn in his cellphone. The next day, he filed a lawsuit against LSU for the collapsing dam A. He can offer evidence to prove ownership, that lsu actually owned the dam B. He can offer evidence to prove that LSU had knowledge that the dam had cracks in it C. He can offer it to prove that lsu was negligent and culpable in not repairing the dam wall D. He can offer evidence to show lsu had knowledge and control over the dam E. A, B, and D are correct

A, B, and D are correct

0. The public records exception set forth in Paragraph (8) is similar in substance to its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Evidence, there are differences between the two that are more than merely semantic. These substantive differences result in a narrow public records exception under the Louisiana code of evidence. Except as the legislature provides to the contrary by statute, Paragraph (8) excludes: A. In all cases, police and law enforcement investigative reports whereas the federal rule excludes in criminal cases only reports containing "matters observed" by law enforcement officers B. Investigative reports prepared by or for the state when offered by the state, although there is no such exclusion in the federal rule. C. In civil cases "factual findings" resulting from special investigations, whereas the federal exclusion is much narrower D. All of the above

A. All of the above

0. William is the first son of the singer Jonnie Taylor. Jonnie has 17 children, and William is the youngest. The other 16 children do not care for William because Jonnie Taylor left him all of his assets including his prized 7 million dollar guitar. The court holds a hearing to determine filiation, based on Louisiana Civ. Code Art. 803(10). As a law clerk for the judge he ask you to list the criteria for allowing the introduction of this evidence under the exception of Absence of entry in records of regularly conducted business activity: A. Evidence that a matter is not included memo, report, or data compilation B. In any form when it is suppose to be maintained with provisions of paragraph 6, C. To prove the non occurrence or non existence of the matter D. Should have been preserved or made E. Both c and d are correct

A. Both c and d are correct

Rosana has been dating Michelle for 2.5 years. The relationship began to get rocky when Michelle poured hot water on Rosana. The ambulance was called and when Rosana got to the hospital, she told the doctor exactly what happened, but refused to tell the police. The District Attorney filed a 2nd Degree battery Charge against Michelle. At the hearing, Rosana, takes the stand and testifies that Michelle never poured hot water on her even though she confessed this to the doctors. At this point, the prosecutors and defense counsel began plea negotiations. The prosecutor tells Michelle that if she does not plead guilty, he is going to charge Rosana with perjury. Michelle then says, I don't care what you do to Rosana, she got what she deserved for being unfaithful. Michelle takes the witness stand and says that she never told her defense lawyer that she poured hot water on Rosana. The prosecutor then brings perjury charges against Michelle for lying about notifying her defense lawyer that she admitted to pouring hot water on Rosana. a. According to Art. Art. 405 (B) evidence of character is never admissible in a perjury trial to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. b. According to Article 405 (B) In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, such as in a prosecution for defamation or when there is a defense of entrapment, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct. c. According to Art. 405(B) In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, such as in a prosecution for defamation or when there is a defense of entrapment, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct. d. According to Art. 410(3) Any statement made in the course of any court proceeding concerning either of the foregoing pleas, or any plea discussions with an attorney for or other representative of the prosecuting authority regarding either of the foregoing pleas

According to Art. 410(3) Any statement made in the course of any court proceeding concerning either of the foregoing pleas, or any plea discussions with an attorney for or other representative of the prosecuting authority regarding either of the foregoing pleas

. Sally Mae has been working for the Hilton hotel for five years. She works at the front desk and has been told that magic Johnson is coming to stay there. The rumor mill revealed that magic Johnson is a great tipper and sally Mae aggressively tells her boss that she wants to clean his room. Her boss tells her, "your job is at the front desk only, do not go to Magic Johnson's room". When Magic arrives, Sallie Mae begins to flirt with him. Magic invites her to the room, and she accepts the invitation. At 10pm that night when she gets off work, instead of going straight home, she proceeds directly to Magic's room. When she gets inside, she notices that Magic has been drinking. He offers her $500 in cash just as a friendly gesture for her coming to the room. As she is about to leave, Magic slams the door and sexually assaults her, raping her multiple times. She drives to the police, and reports the crime. A rape kit is done, and the police attempt to contact Magic by telephone. Magic calls his lawyer in Los Angeles and they arrange for Magic to return immediately. While on the plane, Magic contacts the lawyer again and retains him for this matter. The lawyer hires an investigative team, who arrives in Colorado two hours after the incident. They begin talking to all potential witnesses in preparation for their evidentiary plan. Why was it necessary for the lawyers to begin their investigation so quickly after the incident occurred? a. After reviewing Art. 412, it appears that time is of the essence, and so it may be that the lawyers understood the exception under Art. 412(2)(a), which provides an exception offering evidence of past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, upon the issue of whether or not the accused was the source of injury, provided that such evidence is limited to a period not to exceed seventy-two hours prior to the time of the offense. b. After reviewing Art. 412, it appears that time is of the essence, and so it may be that the lawyers understood the exception under Art. 412(2)(a), which provides an exception offering evidence of past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, upon the issue of whether or not the accused was the source of semen, provided that such evidence is limited to a period not to exceed seventy-two hours prior to the time of the offense. c. After reviewing Art. 412, it appears that time is of the essence, and so it may be that the lawyers understood the exception under Art. 412(2)(a), which provides an exception offering evidence of past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, upon the issue of whether or not the accused was the source of semen or injury, provided that such evidence is limited to a period not to exceed seventy-two hours prior to the time of the offense. D. After reviewing Art. 412, it appears that time is of the essence, and so it may be that the lawyers understood the exception under Art. 412(B)1, which provides an exception offering evidence of past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, upon the issue of whether or not the accused was the source of semen or injury, provided that such evidence is limited to a period not to exceed seventy-two hours prior to the time of the offense

After reviewing Art. 412, it appears that time is of the essence, and so it may be that the lawyers understood the exception under Art. 412(2)(a), which provides an exception offering evidence of past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, upon the issue of whether or not the accused was the source of semen or injury, provided that such evidence is limited to a period not to exceed seventy-two hours prior to the time of the offense.

In state v. Lyons, The defendant, Gary Layton, is accused of forcibly raping a woman who had been staying at his home. On November 2, 2013, he allegedly beat the victim to the point of causing visible injuries, accused her of stealing from his wallet, pulled her pants down, and vaginally raped her. On December 12, 2013, the defendant was charged by a bill of information. *359 He entered a plea of not guilty. The State subsequently filed a notice of intent in accordance with La.Code Evid. art. 412.2 to introduce evidence of two alleged incidents of defendant's past sexually assaultive behavior. First, in 1977, the defendant committed aggravated rape on another victim. Outside of a local bar in the early morning hours, the defendant coerced the victim to give him a ride in her car. He began to fondle her and asked if she would have oral or vaginal sex with him. When she refused, he led her to believe he was armed with a handgun. He took her to a gazebo in Audubon Park. The defendant filed a motion to exclude evidence of these incidents. At a hearing on the motions, the Trial Court ruled the 1977 charge was admissible but excluded the 1997 charge, finding it was not admissible as "sexually assaultive behavior" under La.Code Evid. art. 412.2, because no allegations of touching of the victim's genitals or anus were made as required by the state statute defining sexual battery. Is the trial judge correct why or why not? What is the definition of lustful disposition.

Answer is D

On December 30, 2015, defendant filed a motion in limine, arguing that any testimonial evidence from Andrea Romano alluding to conversations she had with Justin Hendricks should be excluded as hearsay and if permitted would be prejudicial.26 The State contended that the hearsay testimony of Ms. Romano **23 would be subject to the excited utterance exception. The trial court deferred ruling on Ms. Romano's testimony until trial. At trial, before testimony from Ms. Romano was elicited, defense counsel objected based on the hearsay nature of the statements and moved for a hearing pursuant *652 to La. C.E. art. 104(a)27 to determine the admissibility of the evidence. Outside the presence of the jury, Ms. Romano testified that she regularly spoke with Mr. Hendricks in the months leading up to his death. When she spoke with him the first time on April 24, 2011, he was "agitated and excited," and she could "tell he was moving around and his conversation was kind of all over the place." Mr. Hendricks was "speaking quickly" and would "tell one part of the story here, and then jump to something else, and then come back to this part of the story." She categorized his behavior as out of the ordinary. He was "speaking more loudly than usual and more choppy than usual" and she felt based on all of these behaviors that he was "panicky and agitated." During this first conversation,28 Mr. Hendricks related that a couple was at his house earlier, they had a fight, the man "pistol-whipped" the woman, the man owed him money, and that he was going to meet the man later that evening. Mr. Hendricks stated that he was cleaning up the blood from the incident while he was on the phone. **24 Because he was cleaning up blood from the fight, the State argued that Mr. Hendricks actions "would indicate that it's an ongoing event" and Mr. Hendricks "evidenced an intent to meet the defendant thereafter." The State offered Ms. Romano's testimony as exceptions to the hearsay rule, namely an excited utterance and as a statement regarding then existing state of mind. Defense counsel objected and argued that the contents of the call constituted hearsay because Ms. Romano could not provide a time for when the events Mr. Hendricks described unfolded. What is the basis for the hearsay exception A. present sense impression B excited utterance C. Then Exisiting mental or emotional condition D. None of the Above

B excited utterance

Catherine was a local prosecutor and is trying Morgan for a double homicide slaying of two deer. Iowa law does not allow the killing of deer. Morgan stood in front of a movie theatre and murdered three deer. She was arrested by the Iowa police department and questioned about why she appeared to be so brutal. During the integration morgan confessed that when she was a little girl bambi charged her and rammed her with his horns. She then stated she would kill any deer that came within her sight. Morgan is now on trial for the homicide of the deer. The prosecution attempts to offer the sworn confession given by Morgan to the iowa police department wherein she confessed to killing the deer while on the witness stand morgan is asked by the prosecutor, did you give a statement to the police, the defense council objects timely and specifically that that confession is hearsay and not admissible. How should the judge rule? A. the judge should rule that an admission offered against a party is not hearsay according to 801(d)1. B the judge should rule that an admission offered against a party is not hearsay according to 801(d)3. C the judge should rule that an admission offered against a party is not hearsay according to 801(d)2. d the judge should rule that an admission offered against a party is not hearsay according to 802(d)2.

C the judge should rule that an admission offered against a party is not hearsay according to 801(d)2.

Louisiana has had over 5 hurricanes in the last year. Yadira is a weather person working storm zeta. During the storm she walks into the casino and identifies 3 young men breaking into a 2020 Mercedes Benz. One of the young men calls out the name jonathan "look in the ash tray". Yadira records the name that was called by one of the other burglars on her weather pad. She is called to testify as a witness. And the prosecutor ask her if she can remember the name of the person that was called out during the burglary. She replies no she cannot. The prosecutor than has a document marked which shows a weather pad created by yadria on the day in which she alleges that she heard the statement made by one of the perpetrators of the crime. Based on the case state v cole, can she testify from the document? How should the court rule? A. the court should rule that If a witness states that he or she cannot recall a fact, but a certain writing could help refresh the witness's memory, the witness may look at the document and then testify from his revived memory. La. C.E. 612(B). However, when the witness has been permitted to consult a writing and it has not refreshed his or her memory to the extent that he now has an independent recollection of the event in question, La. C.E. art. 612 does authorize the witness to read the writing into evidence. b. the court should rule that If a witness states that he or she cannot recall a fact, but a certain writing could help refresh the witness's memory, the witness may look at the document and then testify from his revived memory. La. C.E. 612(B). However, when the witness cannot be allowed or permitted to consult a writing and it has not refreshed his or her memory to the extent that he now has an independent recollection of the event in question, La. C.E. art. 612 does not authorize the witness to read the writing into evidence. C. the court should rule that If a witness states that he or she cannot recall a fact, but a certain writing could help refresh the witness's memory, the witness may look at the document and then testify from his revived memory. La. C.E. 612(B). However, when the witness has been permitted to consult a writing and it has not refreshed his or her memory to the extent that he now has an independent recollection of the event in question, La. C.E. art. 612 does not authorize the witness to read the writing into evidence. d. the court should rule that If a witness states that he or she cannot recall a fact, but a certain writing could help bolster the witness's memory, the witness may look at the document and then testify from his revived memory. La. C.E. 612(B). However, when the witness has been permitted to consult a writing and it has not refreshed his or her memory to the extent that he now has an independent recollection of the event in question, La. C.E. art. 612 does not authorize the witness to read the writing into evidence.

C. the court should rule that If a witness states that he or she cannot recall a fact, but a certain writing could help refresh the witness's memory, the witness may look at the document and then testify from his revived memory. La. C.E. 612(B). However, when the witness has been permitted to consult a writing and it has not refreshed his or her memory to the extent that he now has an independent recollection of the event in question, La. C.E. art. 612 does not authorize the witness to read the writing into evidence.

13. Derrick Todd Lee has been charged with multiple homicides. The state of Louisiana places his defense counsel on notice that they intend to offer evidence of the bad character of Derrick Todd Lee for peacefulness. Mr. Jordan files a motion in limine to prevent the state from introducing evidence of his bad character stating it is a violation of 404a(1). The state responds by saying that the evidence is not being offered for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith but is being offered to demonstrate that he is just not peaceful A. Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character, such as a moral quality, is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion B. Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character, such as a moral quality, is admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding for the purpose of proving that he acted. C. Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character, such as a moral quality, is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion D. Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character, is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion

Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character, such as a moral quality, is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion

In state v dilliard On February 14, 2008, Dillard went to the Family Dollar Store on Centenary Boulevard in Shreveport. Wearing a faded red flannel shirt, a light-colored windbreaker, black stocking cap, and white pants, he asked the manager, Bonnie Bounds, where a particular brand of shaving cream was located. He then picked up a can and went to the register. Angie Osborne, a customer in the store, knew him and even called him by name, wishing him a Happy Valentine's Day.2 When Dillard reached the cash register, he had one hand in the pocket of his windbreaker. Indicating that he had a weapon, he told Bounds to give him the money from the safe or he would shoot her. Bounds could not open the nearby safe. Dillard demanded that she ring up the shaving cream so that the register drawer would open. She did so. He grabbed a bunch of cash in denominations of tens, fives and ones, then fled the store on a pink bicycle. He then turned around and shot her two times, bounds fell to the floor but before she died picked up her cell phone and called 911. She then gave the police a complete description of the defendant and her last statement was "he shot me for no reason I was giving him the money". The prosecutor attempts to offer the statement made by bounds to the 911 operator and the defense council objects on the grounds of hearsay. How should the court rule? A. the court should rule that the statement was a present sense impression B the court should rule that the statement was a Excited utterance C The court should rule that the statement was a example of the than existing mental or emotional condition D The court should rule that the statement was dying deceleration

D The court should rule that the statement was dying deceleration

In order for a party to avails himself of the business record exception he must be familiar with the components of this exception, in other words it must be what? A. Memo, report, record or data compilation in any form that applies to, acts, events, conditions or opinions A diagnosis made at or near the time or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge. B. Made and/or kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity It is a regular practice of the business to keep records and the custodian of the records maintains the records and routinely works for the business. C. It was a regular practice of the business to make and keep the memorandum, record, report or data D. It was shown to the custodian or other qualified witness before trial. It must be offered by a person who routinely acts for the business. E. all of the above "need to check this one"

E. all of the above "need to check this one"

Mary Ann has just joined debate team and she has been doing a very good job. Unfortunably for Mary Ann, Jalen is jealous. Jalen waits outside debate room and approaches her in an aggressive manner. Jalen tells mary ann that she is one pompus arrogant debater. he then strikes mary ann across the face and replies "everything they said about you is true:" Mary ann replies " and everything they said about you was true, including the rape of my line sister Sereka" Mary ann hires a lawyer who files a lawsuit against Jalen. During the trial, the lawyer attempts to question Jalen about the alleged Rape of Sereka. The defense council is well aware of this tactic and objects timely and specifically. what should be the basis for defense council objection.

Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character, such as a moral quality, is not admissible in a civil proceeding. In essense, the plaintiff cannot offer evidence of prior rape the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, there is no relationship between the alleged prior conduct and cause of action before the court. The judge should sustain the objection.

. Sally Mae has been working for the Hilton hotel for five years. She works at the front desk and has been told that magic Johnson is coming to stay there. The rumor mill revealed that magic Johnson is a great tipper and sally Mae aggressively tells her boss that she wants to clean his room. Her boss tells her, "your job is at the front desk only, do not go to Magic Johnson's room". When Magic arrives, Sallie Mae begins to flirt with him. Magic invites her to the room, and she accepts the invitation. At 10pm that night when she gets off work, instead of going straight home, she proceeds directly to Magic's room. When she gets inside, she notices that Magic has been drinking. He offers her $500 in cash just as a friendly gesture for her coming to the room. As she is about to leave, Magic slams the door and sexually assaults her, raping her multiple times. She drives to the police, and reports the crime. A rape kit is done, and the police attempt to contact Magic by telephone. Magic calls his lawyer in Los Angeles and they arrange for Magic to return immediately. While on the plane, Magic contacts the lawyer again and retains him for this matter. The lawyer hires an investigative team, who arrives in Colorado two hours after the incident. They begin talking to all potential witnesses in preparation for their evidentiary plan. Why was it necessary for the lawyers to begin their investigation so quickly after the incident occurred? a. After reviewing Art. 412, it appears that time is of the essence, and so it may be that the lawyers understood the exception under Art. 404(2)(a), which provides an exception offering evidence of past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, upon the issue of whether or not the accused was the source of semen or injury, provided that such evidence is limited to a period not to exceed seventy-two hours prior to the time of the offense. b. Evidence of past sexual behavior with the accused offered by the accused upon the issue of whether or not the victim consented to the sexually assaultive behavior. c. Evidence of past sexual behavior with the accused offered by the accused upon the issue of whether or not the victim consented to the sexually assaultive behavior as evidence of private character. d. None of the above

Evidence of past sexual behavior with the accused offered by the accused upon the issue of whether or not the victim consented to the sexually assaultive behavior.

Prior to the introduction of the photographs, defense counsel objected to certain autopsy photographs that would be used by Dr. Ross. Defense counsel argued the photographs were "vile, and grotesque and disgusting" and that Dr. Ross did not need the photographs to accompany her testimony. The trial judge stated he thought they were "probably more probative than prejudicial." Before State's Exhibits 50-54 were discussed, the trial court made the following comments to the jury: "You're about to see some photographs that the Doctor needs to explain what she actually did. Some of the photographs are very gross, but they're necessary for the explanation, so if you see something you don't like, close your eyes. It's just a warning." Dr. Ross explained that State's Exhibit 50 was taken after the body was opened, and admitted it was graphic. She pointed out the petechia on the victim's neck, which were larger than the ones seen in the victim's eye, indicating some **14 force was applied to the neck. She pointed out that some of the blood vessels were broken. Dr. Ross explained State's Exhibit 51, another photograph taken after the body was opened which she admitted was graphic. She explained to examine the victim's head, she had to open the scalp and pull it forward to see any hemorrhage underneath the scalp. Underneath the areas of abrasions and contusions on the victim's head, there were five discrete areas of hemorrhage, which indicated at least five impacts to the victim's head. Based on the defense counsel's objection, what would be the basis of his objection a. This objection is based on hearsay b. This objection is based on an undue waste of time c. His objection is based on Art. 403, which provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or the consideration of undue delay. In this particular case, the photographs although vile and grotesque to the defense counsel. Does mean that they are unduly prejudicial and the objection should be sustained d. His objection is based on Art. 403, which provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or the consideration of undue delay. In this particular case, the photographs although vile and grotesque to the defense counsel. Does not mean that they are unduly prejudicial. In light of the foregoing, we find that, although the photographs were gruesome, the probative value of the photographs outweighed any prejudicial effect against defendant and, therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the photographs into evidence.

His objection is based on Art. 403, which provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or the consideration of undue delay. In this particular case, the photographs although vile and grotesque to the defense counsel. Does not mean that they are unduly prejudicial. In light of the foregoing, we find that, although the photographs were gruesome, the probative value of the photographs outweighed any prejudicial effect against defendant and, therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the photographs into evidence.

39. Evelyn and Roteo are graduating from law school. Evelyn has decided to go inside of Walmart and take items without paying for them. She is watched by security camera and security monitoring officer. The security officer follows Evelyn as she proceeds through the cash register and ran out into the parking lot. As she attempts to get into her vehicle, the security officer stops her. He asks her to return to the store and she agrees. Evelyn then begins to cry and confesses the entire plan. At Evelyn's trial, the state offers the following evidence, the video camera, and a signed written confession from Evelyn. However, the security officer who monitored the video and took the signed written statement from Evelyn cannot appear in trial because his wife is having a baby. The state moved forward with trial and offers the security cam video and the written statement into evidence. You are not allowed to use any hearsay in response to the a. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. b. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. c. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The Louisiana code of evidence , under art. 404B(1), provides exceptions to the use of character evidence. It provides that character evidence may be offered for a non-character purpose as long as it complies with a list of predetermined non-character reasons. What are those reasons? a. Intent, opportunity, plan, preparation, absence of mistake, accident, and knowledge. b. Intent, motive, opportunity, plan, preparation, absence of knkowledge, accident, identity, and knowledge. c. Intent, motive, opportunity, plan, preparation, absence of mistake, accident, identity, and knowledge. d. motive, plan, preparation, absence of mistake, accident, identity, and knowledge.

Intent, motive, opportunity, plan, preparation, absence of mistake, accident, identity, and knowledge.

. April Leon is a prosecutor for the 19th JDC, in that capacity she is the sex crimes prosecutor. As the sex crimes prosecutor, she is trying the case of State v. Harris. Ms. Leon is in possession of evidence that indicates that Mr. Harris has been engaged in multiple sexual assualt incidents involving the trafficking of 14-year old's from Mexico. In fact, Ms. Leon is in possession of a transcript where Mr. Harris has admitted multiple times that he has engaged in premarital relations with a 14 year old. The trial starts on October 12, 2020, the Friday before the trial, prosecutor Leon notifies the defense counsel that she has evidence of multiple convictions involving her client that relates to sexually assaultive behavior. The defense cousel notifies Ms. Leon that he intends to object at the trial. The prosecutor proceeds anyway. At trial the defense counsel objects. How should the judge rule and what are the notice requirements under 412.2? a. The judge should abstain the objection because, In a case which the state intends to offer evidence under the provisions of this Article, the prosecution shall, upon request of the accused, provide reasonable notice in advance of trial of the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such purposes. b. The judge should overrule the objection because in a case which the state intends to offer evidence under the provisions of this Article, the prosecution shall, upon request of the accused, provide sufficient notice in advance of trial of the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such purposes. c. The judge should abstain the objection because In a case which the state intends to offer evidence under the provisions of this Article, the prosecution shall, upon written request of the accused, provide reasonable notice in advance of trial of the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such purposes. d. The judge should abstain the objection because, In a case which the state intends to offer evidence under the provisions of this Article, the prosecution shall, upon request of the accused, provide sufficient notice in advance of trial of the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such purposes. e. None of the above

None of the above

66. Solomon worked for the immigration department. He is having an asylum hearing and is making an argument on behalf of his client, Hector. During the hearing, Solomon asks hector if he is a citizen from Guatemala and was he ever born in Guatemala. His reply is no, he is an American citizen. Born in Baton Rouge Louisiana in 1996. In order to prove this, he offers a certified copy of a record indicating the existence of his birth. The US attorney counters by saying that he does not have a birth certificate of record. Solomon then calls Yadira with the department of vital statistics who testifies A. That there exist a record or data compilation that indicates that Hector has a birth certificate found in their records and was made by Baton Rouge General B. That there does not exist a birth record for Hector C. That the records indicate that there exist a filiation profile but no birth records D. That there exists a record or data compilation that indicates that not only was Hector born in Baton Rouge at BRG, but that the hospital properly filed and included their birth records on the ledgers of the department of vital statistics.

That there exists a record or data compilation that indicates that not only was Hector born in Baton Rouge at BRG, but that the hospital properly filed and included their birth records on the ledgers of the department of vital statistics.

1. In the case of State v. Howard, the court refers to a longstanding precedent from Brady v. Maryland. The proposition of law found in Brady v. Maryland is: a. The rule established in Brady v. Maryland is that upon request, the State must produce evidence that is unfavorable to the accused where it is material to guilt or punishment. b. The Brady rule applies to both exculpatory and impeachment evidence, including evidence that impeaches the testimony of a witness when the reliability or credibility of that witness may determine guilt or innocence. c. The rule established in Brady v. Maryland is , the State must produce evidence that is favorable to the accused where it is material to punishment. d. The Brady rule applies to impeachment evidence, including evidence that impeaches the testimony of a witness when the reliability of that witness may determine guilt or innocence.

The Brady rule applies to both exculpatory and impeachment evidence, including evidence that impeaches the testimony of a witness when the reliability or credibility of that witness may determine guilt or innocence.

In state vs. Prieur, the state struggled with determining the proper burden for the introduction of character evidence, or evidence of other crimes wrongs and acts. The court went on to say the following: a. The Clear and convincing standard. Now replaced in the Taylor case with "preponderance of the evidence to support a finding", requirement did not rest on or relate to the "sufficient to support a finding approach of Huddleston. b. The Clear and convincing standard. Now replaced in the Taylor case with "more likely than not", requirement did not rest on or relate to the "sufficient to support a finding approach of Huddleston. c. The convincing standard. Now replaced in the Taylor case with "sufficient evidence to support a finding", requirement did not rest on or relate to the "sufficient to support a finding approach of Huddleston. d. The Clear and convincing standard. Now replaced in the Taylor case with "sufficient evidence to support a finding", requirement did not rest on or relate to the "sufficient to support a finding approach of Huddleston.

The Clear and convincing standard. Now replaced in the Taylor case with "sufficient evidence to support a finding", requirement did not rest on or relate to the "sufficient to support a finding approach of Huddleston.

Bat Matheson is a gunsmith with the Louisiana Rifle Association. He has maintained his profession for 17 years. He is in the business of training people to defend themselves by the use of a weapon. He is at the range training Carlis and Robin is standing at the next stall practicing her AK47. Robin is very careless in the way in which she is handling the AK47. Out of nowhere, Robin turns towards Bat and Carlis with the AK47 pointing directly at Carlis and Bat, pulls the trigger, and then laughs. Carlis replies out of anger, "you crazy Cajun, don't ever do that again." This angers robin so much to where she accidentally pulls the trigger and shoots Carlis killing him. At the trial, the prosecutor attempts to offer that Matheson's statement against while she is testifying and the defense counsel objects a. The basis for this exception is the spontaneity is that the statement must be given while the declarant is under the influence of a startling event or condition, and the utterance is thus broader with the declarations fitting under Art. 803(1). Matters not relating to the event or condition are inadmissible under this exception even though the declarant was under the stress of an exciting even or condition at the time he made his declaration b. The basis for this exception is the spontaneity is that the statement must be given while the declarant is under the influence of a startling event or condition, and the utterance is thus broader with the declarations fitting under Art. 803(1). Matters not relating to the startling event or condition are inadmissible under this exception even though the witness was under the stress of an exciting even or condition at the time he made his declaration c. The basis for this exception is the spontaneity is that the statement must be given while the declarant is under the influence of a startling event or condition, and the utterance is thus broader with the declarations fitting under Art. 803(1). Matters not relating to the startling event or condition are inadmissible under this exception even though the declarant was under the stress of an exciting even or condition at the time he made his declaration d. The basis for this exception is the spontaneity is that the statement must be given while the declarant is under the influence of a startling event or condition, and the utterance is thus broader with the declarations fitting under Art. 803(1). Matters not relating to the startling event or condition are inadmissible under this exception even though the declarant was under the stress of an exciting even or condition at the time he made his declaration

The basis for this exception is the spontaneity is that the statement must be given while the declarant is under the influence of a startling event or condition, and the utterance is thus broader with the declarations fitting under Art. 803(1). Matters not relating to the startling event or condition are inadmissible under this exception even though the declarant was under the stress of an exciting even or condition at the time he made his declaration

52. Roberto has been spending time at the Y working out. He notices that all of his muscles are beginning to expand. He begins to receive compliments from some of the individuals at the gym about how well toned he is. Micah is 72. years old and works out in the same gym. Micah is trying to use the weights at the same time as Roberto. Roberto ask Micah to move so that a real man can work out. Micah refuses to move. Roberto picks up Micah and takes him to the front door against his will. He then throws him out the frond door. Micah secures his 9mm and returns to the gym. He beckons for roberto to stand up and get off the weight bench. Roberto repolies, "if youre man enough, just shoot" and Micah shoots roberto in the right side. Roberto exclaims "oh my god he shot me for real" As the blood is pouring out of robertos side. Micah takes off. Roberto lives and is ready to testify in court. The prosecutor calls Roberto as his main witness/ During his trestimony, he begins to make reference to the statement that he made right after he was shot. The defense counsel properly objects atimely and specifically. a. The court should rule that the statemnet made by roberto is not admissible because it is hearsay b. The court should rule the statement fails under a deeply rooted exemption to the hearsay rule being a statement relate to things said or done. c. The court should rule that the statement made by roberto describing or explaining an event or condition while the declarant is percieving it or immediately thereafter fails under a deeply rooted exception to the hearsay rule for present sense of impression. d. None of the above

The court should rule that the statement made by roberto describing or explaining an event or condition while the declarant is percieving it or immediately thereafter fails under a deeply rooted exception to the hearsay rule for present sense of impression.

Constitution is a name that was given to a young lade who works for the department of defense. Constitution is well versed in the provisions of the constitution. She decides to work late one night and is spending time cataloging all of the historical records from 1960 to 2017. As she is about to leave. She hears a loud bang against the wall. As she walks into that room, Arthur is removing protected documents from the safe. Constitution screams at him to stop. Arthur turns towards constitution, points his finger at her and tells her to be quiet. Constitution faints and is awakened by the next day at the hospital. The police search the video cameras at the DOD and identify Arthur as the perpetrator of the theft. At Arthur's felony trial, constitution is called as a witness. Constitution begins to tell the court that she screamed at Arthur to stop and he pointed his finger at her and told her to be quiet. The defense counsel objects alleging that the statement made by the constitution on the night in question is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay. a. The court should rule that the statement is a present sense impression. b. The court should rule that the statement qualifies as an excited utterance c. The court should rule that the statement is a statement made by a witness out of court but is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein. d. The court should rule that the statement

The court should rule that the statement qualifies as an excited utterance

40. Emily has just finished her first year of law school at Dartmouth. During her second year class, she is asked to identify the components of hearsay and list the dangers of hearsay found in this example. Molly is called to testify about a statement she heard regarding the grand theft robbery of Hollinsworth Bank. Molly testifies that she heard Braylen say that most of the money is in the safe. Braelyn refuses to testify and is being charged as a co-conspirator with the other two bank robbers. If the defense objects to Molly's testimony as hearsay, what would be the danger assocaited with the court allowing the statement into evidence? a. The dangers of hearsay are: 1) present trial 2) perception; 3) narration; 4) insincerity. b. The dangers of hearsay are: 1) Memory 2) perception; 3) declarant ; 4) insincerity. c. The dangers of hearsay are: 1) Memory 2) perception; 3) narration; 4) insincerity. d. The dangers of hearsay are: 1) Memory 2) perception; 3) Narration; 4) Conduct.'

The dangers of hearsay are: 1) Memory 2) perception; 3) Narration; 4) Conduct.'

The United States Supreme Court held in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), that upon request the state must produce evidence that is favorable to the accused where it is material to guilt or punishment. The Brady rule has been expanded to include evidence which impeaches the testimony of a witness where the reliability or credibility of that witness may be determinative of guilt or innocence. A finding of materiality of the evidence is required under Brady. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); State v. Smith, 437 So.2d 252 (La.1983). When a general request for Brady material has been made, the failure of the state to disclose exculpatory evidence will not result in reversal of a conviction unless such evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt that did not otherwise exist. Only then can defendant complain that nondisclosure deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. A.The failure of the state to disclose evidence will not result in reversal of a conviction unless such evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt that did not otherwise exist. Only then can defendant complain that nondisclosure deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. b. the failure of the state to disclose inculpatory evidence will not result in reversal of a conviction unless such evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt that did not otherwise exist. Only then can defendant complain that nondisclosure deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. c. The failure of the state to disclose exculpatory evidence will not result in reversal of a conviction unless such evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt that did not otherwise exist. Only then can defendant complain that nondisclosure deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. d. the failure of the state to disclose exculpatory evidence will not result in reversal of a conviction unless such evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt that did not otherwise exist.

The failure of the state to disclose exculpatory evidence will not result in reversal of a conviction unless such evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt that did not otherwise exist. Only then can defendant complain that nondisclosure deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial.

9. In the early morning hours of July 5, 2013, the three victims: Matthew Merris (Matthew), Daniel Dilzell (Daniel) and Cecily Fogarty (Cecily), were at Cecily's house on Coliseum Street when they were robbed at gunpoint. Daniel testified that as he and Matthew were sitting and talking on the back porch of the house, he felt someone come up behind him. He turned and saw a light brown-skinned male, who had the lower portion of face covered with a shirt or bandana, standing in the porch doorway, pointing a gun in his face. Daniel recalled that the porch was well-lit the night of the robbery. Matthew testified that when he saw the man enter the porch, he initially did not think anything was amiss because he knew that another friend was supposed to stop by the Coliseum Street residence. However, as the man stepped into the light, Matthew noticed his dreadlocks and the Rasta-type hat he wore, and saw that he was wearing a mask and pointing a gun at them. The intruder demanded their money and cell phones. At that point, Daniel ran inside the house to alert Cecily and call the police. The robber ordered Matthew to get on the floor, and, as he did, Cecily came out onto the porch to see what was going on. The robber ordered Cecily back into the house and again demanded the money and the cell phones, which were sitting on a table on the porch. After taking the phones and money from Matthew, the intruder left. Matthew waited until he was sure the intruder was gone before he got up and ran back into the house. At the trial, the state attempted to ask about the type of gun that was used in the robbery, clearly the evidence regarding the gunshould be found relevant by the judge and there is no exclusion under art. 402. Is there a 403 objection against the introduction of the guns? a. The guns will be excluded under the danger of unfair prejudice or waste of time b. The guns should not be excluded under art. 403 because they are able to relate directly to an element of proof in the trial and they are not unduly prejudicial c. The guns are material and the probative value is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, waste of time, or confusion of issues d. None of the above

The guns are material and the probative value is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, waste of time, or confusion of issues

Chris is a law clerk for Judge Don Johnson, 19th JDC. Chris is called into Judge Johnson's office and asked by the judge what code article in the evidence code, provides a method approving character if it is not by general reputation only, and how may character be proven if not by general reputation only? How should Chris advise the judge. a. The judge should be advised that when charatcer is an essential element of the crime, then character may be proven by specific instances of conduct. However this is governed by rule 404a(1) and 405A. b. The judge should be advised that when charatcer is an essential element of the crime, then character may be proven by specific instances of conduct. However this is governed by rule ROE and 405b. c. The judge should be advised that when charatcer is an essential element of the crime, then character may be proven by specific wrongs. However this is governed by rule 404a(1) and 405b. d. The judge should be advised that when character is an essential element of the crime, then character may be proven by specific instances of conduct. However this is governed by rule 404a(1) and 405b.

The judge should be advised that when character is an essential element of the crime, then character may be proven by specific instances of conduct. However this is governed by rule 404a(1) and 405b.

. Jonathan is a troop leader for the boy scouts and has been in that capacity for over 22 years. He has a great reputation for being honest, straightforward, and respectful. Jonathan has been taking little boys into the shower and watching them in the shower. Jonathan tells little Bill Cody to follow him to his office because he would like to inspect him for ticks. The other little boys began to laugh as if to imply that little Bill Cody was dirty. Once inside the police office, the troop leader had him to remove his clothes and began to inspect his entire body and massage his private area. Little Bill Cody left the room and told no one for 17 years. When little Bill Cody became a troop leader, he began to reminisce about his days as a cub scout. He then admitted that Jonathan, our troop leader, had massaged his private area. Jonathan was arrested the next day and charged with a crime involving sexually assaultive behavior. At the trial, the state attempts to introduce evidence of other acts involving other boys who were the same age as Bill Cody at the time of the offense. The defense counsel objects on the grounds that this is evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts in violation of Art. 404B. How should the judge rule? a. The judge should rule that the evidence offered by the prosecution is not admissible under Art. 403B, as other crime, wrongs or acts, but may be admissible in a case involving sexually assaultive behavior where the victim is under the age of 14 at the time the offense occurred and it is a similar crime, wrong, or act. b. The judge should rule that the evidence offered by the prosecution is not admissible under Art. 404B, as other crime, wrongs or acts, but may be admissible in a case involving sexually assaultive behavior where the victim is under the age of 17 at the time the offense occurred and it is a similar crime, wrong, or act. c. The judge should rule that the evidence offered by the prosecution is not admissible under Art. 403B, as other crime, wrongs or acts, but may be admissible in a case involving sexually assaultive behavior where the victim is under the age of 16 at the time the offense occurred and it is a similar crime, wrong, or act. d. The judge should rule that the evidence offered by the prosecution is not admissible under Art. 404B, as other crime, wrongs or acts, but may be admissible in a case involving sexually assaultive behavior where the victim is under the age of 18 at the time the offense occurred and it is a similar crime, wrong, or act.

The judge should rule that the evidence offered by the prosecution is not admissible under Art. 404B, as other crime, wrongs or acts, but may be admissible in a case involving sexually assaultive behavior where the victim is under the age of 17 at the time the offense occurred and it is a similar crime, wrong, or act.

Broadway has just gotten out of prison, he was convicted of 2 counts of attempted 2nd degree murder. Broadway is riding in a vehicle with Amulet, his friend, unbeknownst to Broadway, Amulet had a .9mm under his seat. Out of nowhere, Maryann runs a red light and slams into the vehicle driven by Amulet. At the civil trial, the attorney for Maryann attempts to offer evidence that Broadway is a convicted felon. It is offered by the defense as evidence that he should not riding the vehicle with Amulet because a gun was found in the vehicle. The judge has ruled that the evidence is relevant under the provisions of article 401. The plaintiff has received a favorable ruling from the judge under the provisions of 402. What would be the best argument on behalf of Broadway to prevent the evidence from being introduced at this point during the trial. How should the judge rule? A. The judge should rule that the evidence sought by the defendant may waste the court's time b. The judge should rule that the evidence sought by the defendant will cause undue delay c. The judge should rule that the evidence sought by the defendant confused the issue d. None of the above

The judge should rule that the evidence sought by the defendant confused the issue

Jonathan has been charged with the aggravated rape of Christina. During the trial, Jonathan takes the witness-stand. His defense counsel ask him a series of questions and then the prosecution does not ask him any questions. The defense counsel then calls Destiny to the stand and he ask Destiny, "How long have you known Jonathan?" She replies, "over five years". He asks, "During that time did you see him on a regular basis in the community? Have you heard his reputation discussed among friends?" She replies, "yes" The prosecution the objects on the grounds that this line of questioning is in violation of Art. 4048 and Art. 607, 608, and 609. The judge ask you, his law clerk, what are the provisions and how may character evidence be received by the court. How should the law clerk respond? A. Under La rule 405, character evidence may be received only by opinion evidence only B. Under La rule 405, character evidence may only be received by general reputation and it must relate to character or a trait of character C. Under LA rule 404A, character evidence is never admissible to show that a person acts in conformity therewith D. None of the above

Under La rule 405, character evidence may only be received by general reputation and it must relate to character or a trait of character

relevant evidence according to the Louisiana code of evidence is always admissible. But just because it is admissible does not mean it cannot be excluded under the provisions under article 402, even relevant evidence may be excluded on the grounds that it. _________________ ______________ ________________ _________________ in addition article 403 provides that the judge may exclude relevant evidence for the following reasons; from the list below select the proper reasons for the exclusions in article 402 and 403. A. United states constitution, Louisiana constitution, Louisiana code of evidence, other legislation, and under article 403 the judge may exclude relevant evidence if it is a confusing to the jury, it may mislead the jury, it is prejudicial, or it is simply a waste of time or may unduly delay the trial. b. United states constitution, Louisiana constitution, other legislation, and under article 403 the judge may exclude relevant evidence if it is a confusing to the jury, it may mislead the jury, it is unfairly prejudicial, or it is simply a waste of time or may unduly delay the trial. c. United states constitution, Louisiana constitution, other legislation, and under article 403 the judge may exclude relevant evidence if it is a confusing to the jury, it may mislead the jury, it is prejudicial, or it is simply a waste of time or may unduly delay the trial. d. United states constitution, Louisiana constitution, Louisiana code of evidence, other legislation, and under article 403 the judge may exclude relevant evidence if it is a confusing to the jury, it may mislead the jury, it is unfairly prejudicial, or it is simply a waste of time or may unduly delay the trial.

United states constitution, Louisiana constitution, Louisiana code of evidence, other legislation, and under article 403 the judge may exclude relevant evidence if it is a confusing to the jury, it may mislead the jury, it is unfairly prejudicial, or it is simply a waste of time or may unduly delay the trial.

. Jonathan is a troop leader for the boy scouts and has been in that capacity for over 22 years. He has a great reputation for being honest, straightforward, and respectful. Jonathan has been taking little boys into the shower and watching them in the shower. Jonathan tells little Bill Cody to follow him to his office because he would like to inspect him for ticks. The other little boys began to laugh as if to imply that little Bill Cody was dirty. Once inside the police office, the troop leader had him to remove his clothes and began to inspect his entire body and massage his private area. Little Bill Cody left the room and told no one for 17 years. When little Bill Cody became a troop leader, he began to reminisce about his days as a cub scout. He then admitted that Jonathan, our troop leader, had massaged his private area. Jonathan was arrested the next day and charged with a crime involving sexually assaultive behavior. At the trial, the state attempts to introduce evidence of other acts involving other boys who were the same age as Bill Cody at the time of the offense. The defense counsel objects on the grounds that this is evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts in violation of Art. 404B. How should the judge rule?

Unlike in the previous question, the judge can allow the introduction of this evidence, for any matter baring on the defendant's guilt. It may even be offered to show that the defendant had what is called a lustful disposition

The defendant asserts two assignments of error addressing the admissibility of **12 the Metzker-Gibbs conclusion that the two HIV samples were closely related. He contends that (1) the trial court erred in ruling that the state's HIV DNA evidence meets the appropriate standard of scientific reliability and (2) the trial court impermissibly limited the scope of the DNA hearing and the defendant's cross-examination of the state's witnesses and his introduction, through his own experts, of evidence contrary to the testimony of the state's witnesses regarding the appropriate methodology, or lack thereof, for determining transmission and/or relatedness of HIV between two individuals. While stating in his second assignment of error that the trial court limited evidence concerning appropriate methodology, the essence of the defendant's complaint goes to the protocol applied to the methodology. Both Dr. Hillis and Dr. Metzker testified as to the procedure employed in the testing process in this case. Dr. Hillis explained the process as follows: The first step was ... to obtain the tissue samples from the individuals. The next step would be to extract DNA from those tissue samples. The step after that would be to amplify using the polymerase chain reaction, the abbreviated PRC, specific sequences from the HIV genome from this DNA, from those DNA samples. After those had been amplified from the polymerase chain reaction—then they would be subjected to primary sequence analysis so that the actual base pairs from the DNA sequences, the specific target regions of HIV would be sequenced. After the sequences were obtained, the sequences from the particular target individuals would be aligned; and then after the aligned sequences were obtained, they would be subjected to phylogenetic analysis, and then the phylogenetic analysis would be subjected to statistical testing. Thus, one can see that the phylogenetic analysis, as it appears on the phylogenetic tree, is but one step in the overall process. Under normal circumstances, the defense counsel is required by the statute to state the purpose for which he alleges the court has made a mistake, how does he do that? a. At the appellate court level, the defendant must assert and assignment of error. In this case, the defendant asserts two assignments of error addressing the admissibility of **12 the state v. Smithh expert conclusion that the two HIV samples were closely related. b. At the appellate court level, the defendant must assert and assignment of error. In this case, the defendant asserts two assignments of error addressing the admissibility of **12 the state's expert conclusion that the two HIV samples were closely related. c. At the appellate court level, the defendant must assert and assignment of error. In this case, the defendant asserts two assignments of error addressing the admissibility of **12 the Metzker-Gibbs conclusion that the two HIV samples were closely related. d. At the appellate court level, the defendant must assert and assignment of error. In this case, the defendant asserts two assignments of error addressing the admissibility of **12 the Metzker-Gibbs conclusion that the two confessions were closely related.

a. At the appellate court level, the defendant must assert and assignment of error. In this case, the defendant asserts two assignments of error addressing the admissibility of **12 the Metzker-Gibbs conclusion that the two HIV samples were closely related.

On the evening of July 4, 2004, Defendant went to the home of Jessie and Bonnie Davis in Elton, Louisiana. Toinette Fontenot, Defendant's long-time girlfriend, and their daughter lived at the Davis residence. Defendant had been to the house twice that day to visit his daughter because it was her birthday. A confrontation occurred between Ms. Fontenot and Defendant, resulting in the police being summoned. Defendant took his daughter for a visit, but later she called her mother and asked to be brought home. Later in the evening, during a heated phone discussion with Defendant, Ms. Fontenot told him that his daughter had gone to watch fireworks with friends and was not at the Davis residence. Defendant threatened to come over and kill everyone unless he could have his daughter. Mrs. Davis called the police and locked all the doors. Defendant came to the house, kicked in the front door, and found Ms. Fontenot hiding in the master bathroom with a shotgun. The couple fought over the gun, which discharged through a wall and into a closet where the daughter and two other children were hiding. Defendant took the shotgun away from Ms. Fontenot and beat her with the shotgun. Two more shots were discharged. Still in possession of the shotgun, Defendant chased Ms. Fontenot *629 into the backyard. Outside the house, Mr. Davis confronted Defendant and shot him in the chest. At trial, the State introduced the 911 tape recorded by the Jefferson Davis Parish Sheriff's Office. There were four separate calls the day of the incident. One occurred in the morning, and three others occurred that night. The call in the morning was made by Mrs. Davis. In the tape, Mrs. Davis stated that Defendant had been at their house and had taken the daughter by force, that he had a gun, and had threatened to shoot the girl. Defendant had left by the time the call was placed. The second call, placed at 9:56 p.m. by Mrs. Davis, requested police presence because Defendant had told Ms. Fontenot that he was coming over to kill them all. Mrs. Davis described the situation, including the morning incident, and told them their location. In the next call, four minutes later, Mrs. Davis essentially repeated what she had stated in the earlier call and urged the police to hurry. In the last call, eight minutes later, Mrs. Davis was screaming that Defendant was breaking down the door. Gun shots could be heard in the background. Then there are shouts, "He's shooting her. He's shooting her." Are the statements hearsay and is there an exception to the hearsay rule that allows their introduction a. Excited utterance b. Business records c. Existing mental or emotional conditions d. Recorded recollection

a. Excited utterance

Under art. 405B character evidence is always admissible when it is an essential element of the crime charged. Examples of when character, an essential element of the crime may be found. a. Negligent entrustment, Entrapment, Perjury, libel, and slander b. Negligent entrustment, Entrapment, Perjury, Defamation, libel c. Negligent entrustment, Perjury, Defamation, libel, and slander d. Negligent entrustment, Entrapment, Perjury, Defamation, libel, and slander

a. Negligent entrustment, Entrapment, Perjury, Defamation, libel, and slander

Mrs Hunter had been dating Mr. Dabney. On the date in question, she went to his home to pick up moneu for her child support payment. While she was standing at the door engaged in a conversation with Mr. Dabney, the Jordan gang rounded the corner and began shooting. One bullet hit Ms. Hunter in the leg and the other bullet killed Mr. Dabney. At the trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce the substance of the conversation between Hunter and Dabney at the time of the homicide. Can the prosecution offer the statements of Ms. Hunter or can the state offer the statements of Mr. Dabney through Ms. Hunter? a. The court should rule that all statements made by a homicide victime are admissible by any source b. D c. D d. None of the above

a. None of the above

Jordan has just finished his first bar exam. He shows very little confidence in his performance on the exam. Curtis ask jordan, How did you respond to the evidence essay question that asks whether or not character evidence is permissible based on the facts presents?" Those facts indicate that the defendant was charged with perjury and as a result of being charged with perjury, the prosecution in its case in chief offers evidence of his dishonest character for untruthfullness. The defense objects on the grounds that character evidence should never be admissible. a. Under Art. 405B whenever charter is an essential element of the crime charge, character evidence is never admissible. b. Under Art. 405B whenever charter is an essential element of the crime charge, character evidence is admissible. If the defendant opens the door c. Under Art. 405B whenever charter is an essential element of the crime charge, character evidence is admissible. If the defendant opens the door and this is a pertinent trait of character or moral quality. Under Art. 405B whenever charter is an essential element of the crime charge, character evidence is admissible

a. Under Art. 405B whenever charter is an essential element of the crime charge, character evidence is admissible.

Jasmine, has just graduated from law school, and is doing a great job in juvenile court. During the cross examination of a defense witness, Jasmine, hears the defense counsel ask the witness to name the many instances in which the defendant has saved little children from a burning building. Jasmine objects on the ground that article 405C requires a laying of the proper foundation before a witness can be asked questions regarding character. The judge asked you, under what circumstances can you illicit testimony regarding character evidence. a. You will advise the judge that character evidence can only be elicited in the form of general reputation only if the witness has demonstrated that he is familiar with the reputation of the defendant in the community. b. You will advise the judge that character evidence can only be elicited in the form of general reputation only if the witness has demonstrated that he is knows of the reputation of the defendant in the community. c. You will advise the judge that character evidence can only be elicited in the form of general reputation only d. You will advise the judge that character evidence can only be elicited in the form of reputation only if the witness has demonstrated that he is familiar with the reputation of the defendant in the community.

a. You will advise the judge that character evidence can only be elicited in the form of general reputation only if the witness has demonstrated that he is familiar with the reputation of the defendant in the community.

Article 404 provdies a method for introduction of character evidence and there are many categories of character evidence. If the court is offering evidence to prove that a witness is untruthful, the court will allow proof of that witnesses untruthfulness or his propensity to lie by allowing the witness to question him regarding his reputation for truthfulness or untruthfulness. This is a component of character evidence as it relates to witnesses under article 608 and 609. The judge must be advised that this evidence can only be offered for that limited purpose. What evidence article allows the limited admissibility of character evidence.

article 105 provides When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. Failure to restrict the evidence and instruct the jury shall not constitute error absent a request to do so.

Roger is in tenth grade at Zachary highschool he has joined the mock trial team and is practicing he discovers that Elizabeth has been studying the rules of evidence with her father. He asked Elizabeth to pose this question to her father. " if jerry is testifying on the witness stand and he admits that he made an out of court statement that right after he was shot he screamed for help." Ask your father if the statement that he screamed for help right after he was shot is hearsay? How should he respond. A. elizabeths father should explain to him the statements are events speaking for themselves under the immediate pressure of the occurrence, through the instructive, impulsive and spontaneous words and acts of the participants, and not the words of the participants , and which are necessary incidents of the criminal act, or immediate concomitants of it, or form in conjunction with it one continuous transaction. b. elizabeths father should explain to him the statements are events speaking for themselves under the immediate pressure of the occurrence, through the instructive, impulsive and spontaneous words and acts of the participants, and not the words of the participants when narrating the events, and which are necessary incidents of the criminal act, or immediate concomitants of it, or form in conjunction with it one continuous transaction. c. Elizabeth's father should explain to him the statements are events speaking for themselves under the immediate pressure of the occurrence, through the instructive, impulsive and spontaneous words and acts of the participants, and not the words of the participants and which are necessary incidents , or immediate concomitants of it, or form in conjunction with it one continuous transaction. d. Elizabeth's father should explain to him the statements are events speaking for themselves under the immediate pressure of the occurrence, through the instructive, impulsive and spontaneous words and acts of the participants, and not the words of the participants and which are necessary incidents of the criminal act, or immediate acts of it, or form in conjunction with it one continuous transaction.

b. elizabeths father should explain to him the statements are events speaking for themselves under the immediate pressure of the occurrence, through the instructive, impulsive and spontaneous words and acts of the participants, and not the words of the participants when narrating the events, and which are necessary incidents of the criminal act, or immediate concomitants of it, or form in conjunction with it one continuous transaction.

In State v. Williams the court is clear that there are some basic reasons why hearsay is not admissible. In Williams the court maintains:

c. Pursuant to La. Code Evid. 801(C), " 'Hearsay' evidence is a statement, other than one made by the declarant testifying at the present trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." It "rests for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter." State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321, 1329 (La. 1990)(citation omitted). A primary justification for the exclusion of hearsay is that the defendant "has no opportunity to cross-examine the absent declarant to test the accuracy and completeness of the testimony." Id. Moreover, the party who purportedly made the statement that is being repeated in court by another party was not under oath at the time of the statement. Id. In addition, pursuant to the **6 confrontation clause of the United States Constitution, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him," U.S. Const. amend. VI, and when an assertion by one party is presented through the testimony of another party there is no opportunity for confrontation. Id.

Sherry ann works for the department of justice she has been getting involved in poltics and has developed a dislike for her supervisor she begins sending out top secret information. In an effort to undermine her supervisor's success. During the investigation, it was revealed that sherry Ann had released almost 3,000 documents to an unknow entity wiki leaks. During the deposition she admits but refuses to confess that the released information all came from her the new York times discloses that there confidential source inside the FBI is sherry ann. At a civil trial, filed by her boss against the department of justice for his firing he alleges that he was not the one who released the top secret information but sherry ann was during the hearing he offers a deposition wherein sherry ann refused to admit that she released information but does take responsibility for having some role in the release of that information. If the defense counsel objects under what circumstances can the judge allow introduction of evidence. A the judge should overrule the objection on the grounds of article 701 (d)(2)(1) authorizes the admission of a witness own statement in either his individual or representative capacity and it does not have to be an admission. B the judge should overrule the objection on the grounds of article 701 (d)(2)(1) authorizes the admission of a witness own statement in either his individual or representative capacity and it does not have to be an admission. C the judge should overrule the objection on the grounds of article 701 (d)(2)(1) authorizes the admission of a witness own inconsisitent statement in either his individual or representative capacity and it does not have to be an admission. d the judge should overrule the objection on the grounds of article 701 (d)(2)(1) authorizes the admission of a witness own statement in either his individual or representative capacity and it does not have to be an admission.

d the judge should overrule the objection on the grounds of article 701 (d)(2)(1) authorizes the admission of a witness own statement in either his individual or representative capacity and it does not have to be an admission.

Under article 405 in the evidence code lists four reasons when character is an essential element of the crime charged. what are those 4 reasons?

defamation, perjury, negligent entrustment entrapment

Coach Oregon and his wife have been having marital problems. Coach O wife boyfriend approaches Coach O and threatens to beat him up. In order to avoid jail, he tells coach O that he is going to print in the baton rouge morning advocate that coach o has been having an extra martial affair with a college student. Coach O tells his wife boyfriend that he not afraid and boyfriend sends article to the advocate. The advocate contacts him to test the veracity of the statement. coach o tells him that the statement a vicious lie and they better not print it. Governor Edwards calls morning advocate and tells them not to print it and offers evidence that the is a honorable SEC winning head coach. Two weeks later the advocate prints the story. Attorney miles davis files lawsuit against advocate for defamation. When coach o takes witness stand, the attorney for the advocate begins to ask him about all of his marital affairs. the attorney objects that this is impressible character evidence. How should the judge rule? a. judge should rule that this is character evidence and that it is never admissible to prove conduct. b. judge should rule that this is character evidence that because the case involves defamation then the defendant's character is an essential element of the crime charged, therefore, it is admissible. c. The judge rule under art. 404B, other d. the judge should rule that this evidence

judge should rule that this is character evidence that because the case involves defamation then the defendant's character is an essential element of the crime charged, therefore, it is admissible.

Roderick has been called to witness stand regarding whether or not the late RBG prepared a last will and testament naming Sentator Mcconnell as her beneficiary. The will has been discovered but in the area of distributions of property, there is a discrepancy. while on the witness stand, the defense attorney attempts to cross-examine Roderick regarding whether or not he is being truthful about the substance of a conversation that he had with RBG. The plaintiff objects on the ground that this is impermissible character evidence, how should the court rule?

the court should rule that by taking the witness stand, the witness has placed his character for truthfulness at issue and it is always proper for opposing council to cross-examine him regarding his reputation for truthfulness of untruthfulness.

58. Carolyn has just finished voting. She notices that there are five young men waiting in line to vote. Out of nowhere, a young man drives up in a 1937 Chevrolet Camaro, jumps out the vehicle, runs up to Carolyn and grabs her purse, and takes off running. Carolyn screams at the robber, "stop bring back my purse" One of the young men in line chases the robber down, retrieves her purse, and holds the young man until the police arrive. As stated in State v. Neville, what are the critical components If the prosecutor intends to offer Carolyn's statement through the testimony of one of the young men? How would the court make the distinction between present sense impression or excited utterance? a. the critical element in satisfying article 803(1) is substantial contemporaneity, which is a requirement under Art. 803(2) is not so required under Art 803(1). The immediacy requirement for present sense impression permits only the passage of time needed for translating observations into speech. b. the critical element in satisfying article 803(1) is substantial contemporaneity, excitement which is a requirement under Art. 803(2) is not so required under Art 803(1). The requirement for present sense impression permits only the passage of time needed for translating observations into speech. c. the critical element in satisfying article 803(1) is substantial contemporaneity, excitement which is a requirement under Art. 803(2) is not so required under Art 803(1). The immediacy requirement for present sense impression permits only the passage of time needed for translating observations into speech. d. the critical element in satisfying article 803(1) is substantial contemporaneity, excitement which is a requirement under Art. 803(2) is not so required under Art 803(1). The immediacy requirement for present sense impression permits only the passage of time needed for translating observations into speech.

the critical element in satisfying article 803(1) is substantial contemporaneity, excitement which is a requirement under Art. 803(2) is not so required under Art 803(1). The immediacy requirement for present sense impression permits only the passage of time needed for translating observations into speech.

tyrone is the athletic director at southern university. he has been working in that capacity for 3 years. Candace has just finished her first season as a WNBA player and now works for SU also. She been spreading lies about tyrone saying that he was once convicted of raping a university student in 1999. Tyrone approaches candace parker and attempts to get her to retract the vicious statements regarding whether or not Candance sued in los angeles for spreading false rumors and lies. The defense counsel objects on the grounds that this will be impermissible character evidence how should the judge rule?

the judge should rule that this evidence is admissible because it falls under the provisions of Article 405 regarding the admissibility of character evidence when it an essential element of the crime charged.

Molly has just completed her first fraudulent scheme where she removed $100,000 from the Southern University Bank account. Molly has jalen and Jonathan working with her. Jalen applies to go to undergrad knowing fully well that he minute he is given his federal loan check, he intends to withdraw, Molly is the admissions director and she approached Jalen and asked him to participate in this scheme. Molly has also approached Jonathan and asked him to perform the same criminal scheme. Molly is on trial for felony theft of the $100,000 from the university. The prosecutor calls Jalen as his first witness, Jalen testifies that during a conversation with Molly in the dorms, Molly told him that she has been scheming money from the university for over 10 years, long before he became a student. The defense counsel objects and alleges that the statement by Jalen is inconsistent with a statement he made during a live interview. The prosecutor now wants to offer the live video. For what purpose can the live interview be offered at this time? a. The prosecutor can offer the live interview because it is a consistent statement made prior to the trial and Jalen is available for cross-examination and the statement is (1) offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication. b. The prosecutor can offer the live interview because it is a consistent statement made prior to the trial and Jalen is available for cross-examination and the statement is (1) offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication. c. The prosecutor can offer the live interview because it is a consistent statement made prior to the trial and Jalen is available for cross-examination and the statement is (1) offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication. d. The prosecutor can offer the live interview because it is a consistent statement made prior to the trial and Jalen is available for cross-examination and the statement is (1) offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication.

the prosecutor can offer the live interview because it is a consistent statement made prior to the trial and Jalen is available for cross examination and the statement is one offered to rebut and express or implied charge of recent fabrication.

According to State v. Abdul 94 So. 3d. 80, the Supreme Court stated that evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." LSA-C.E. art. 401. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by law, and irrelevant evidence is not admissible. LSA-C.E. art. 402. However, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by **26considerations of undue delay, or waste of time. LSA-C.E. art. 403. A trial judge's determination regarding the relevancy and admissibility of evidence a. will not be overturned on appeal absent a preponderce of the evidence. State v. Sandoval, 02-230, p. 11 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/03), 841 So.2d 977, 985, writ denied, 03-853 (La.10/3/03), 855 So.2d 308. b. will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear and convincing showing. State v. Sandoval, 02-230, p. 11 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/03), 841 So.2d 977, 985, writ denied, 03-853 (La.10/3/03), 855 So.2d 308. c. will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Sandoval, 02-230, p. 11 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/03), 841 So.2d 977, 985, writ denied, 03-853 (La.10/3/03), 855 So.2d 308. d. will not be overturned on appeal absent a more likely than not standard. State v. Sandoval, 02-230, p. 11 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/03), 841 So.2d 977, 985, writ denied, 03-853 (La.10/3/03), 855 So.2d 308.

will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Sandoval, 02-230, p. 11 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/03), 841 So.2d 977, 985, writ denied, 03-853 (La.10/3/03), 855 So.2d 308

Rodney has just finished his first marathon. When he returns to his vehicle, he notices that the radio dash has been removed. Instead of calling the police he begins searching for the would-be car burglar. He sees prince reaching his arm through the window of another vehicle, attempting to enter that vehicle. Rodney now calls the police. The police arrive and catch prince before he can escape. The owner of the second vehicle that Rodney saw prince enter refused to prosecute prince. The thief is on trial for breaking and entering Rodney's vehicle.at that trial the prosecution attempts to introduce evidence that Rodney saw prince with his arm in the window of another vehicle, attempting to break into that vehicle. Is the evidence admissible? A. No, the evidence would not be admissible because it has a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of whether or not prince was the actual person who broke and entered into Rodney's vehicle, in essence it establishes the fact as more probable then it would be without the evidence. B. No the evidence would not be admissible because it has a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is material to the determination of whether or not prince was the actual person who broke and entered into Rodney's vehicle, in essence it establishes the fact as more probable then it would be without the evidence. C. yes the evidence would be admissible because it has a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of whether or not prince was the actual person who broke and entered into Rodney's vehicle, in essence it establishes the fact as more probable then it would be without the evidence. D. none of the above

yes the evidence would be admissible because it has a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of whether or not prince was the actual person who broke and entered into Rodney's vehicle, in essence it establishes the fact as more probable then it would be without the evidence.