Evidence Practice Questions and answersEvidence Practice Questions and answers, Exams of Law of Evidence

Download Evidence Practice Questions and answersEvidence Practice Questions and answers and more Exams Law of Evidence in PDF only on Docsity! Evidence Practice Questions and answers To be relevant, evidence must: A: Be more likely true than not true. B: Directly prove the fact it is offered to prove. C: Have some tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable D: Prove an element of the claim, crime, or defense CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C Relevant evidence: A: Must be admitted. B: May be excluded by other rules. C: Cannot be excluded by other rules. D: May only be excluded if it is privileged. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ B Relevant evidence is generally admissible but it may be excluded by many other rules. For example, Rule 403 expressly states that otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded under its balancing test. Thus, A, C, and D are not the best answers. A plaintiff sued an airline for hearing damage when the plane allegedly suffered a sudden loss of cabin pressure. The airline offered evidence that none of the other 156 passengers complained. Is the evidence relevant? A: Yes, because the fact no one else complained has some tendency to make it less probable that the plaintiff suffered harm from a sudden depressurization. B: Yes, because the the absence of other complaints conclusively disproves the plaintiff's complaint. Evidence Practice Questions and answers C: No, because the plaintiff may still have been injured, even if others were not. D: No, because the lack of complaints has too many alternative explanations that it would be too confusing for the jury. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ A is the best answer because it has at least some tendency to prove facts of consequence - such as whether a depressurization occurred or whether the plaintiff was harmed by the alleged depressurization. Especially considering the number of other passengers potentially affected, this evidence is relevant. A defendant is charged with distribution of cocaine. His lawyer offers evidence that his bank account contains no large deposits of money. Is the evidence relevant? A: Yes, because it tends to show that the defendant did not make large profits as you may expect from a distributor of cocaine. B: Yes, because the evidence conclusively proves the defendant could not have distributed an expensive drug like cocaine. C: No, because the defendant could have hidden the money elsewhere. D: No, because defendant's evidence is self-serving. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ A is the best answer because the evidence does have some tendency to show the defendant did not make large sums of money. It does not necessarily conclusively prove that, but it need not do so in order for the evidence to be relevant. It need only have ANY TENDENCY to prove that this fact of consequence is more or less probable. Who decides preliminary questions about whether evidence is admissible? Evidence Practice Questions and answers A: The evidence is admitted B: The evidence is is supported C: The evidence is excluded D: The judge is asking for clarification CORRECT ANSWERS✅ When an objection is overruled, the evidence is admitted. When an objection is sustained, the objected-to evidence is admitted. Merely admitting evidence does not mean that the evidence has any special weight. And when the court clearly says sustained or overruled, that is a clear ruling rather than asking for clarification. Thus, C is the best answer. If a juror is called to testify in a trial in which the juror is seated, the Judge must: A: Always prevent the juror from testifying. B: Always give a party an opportunity to object outside the jury's presence. C: Never prevent the juror from testifying. D: Never remove the other jurors before permitting the called juror to testify. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ B To invoke Rule 615, the rule regarding excluding witness from the courtroom, you: A: Need not do anything because such exclusion is automatic. B: Must inform the court you are invoking "the Rule." C: Must prove that witnesses are likely to change their testimony in light of the testimony they may hear from other witnesses. D: Must prove that the witness to be excluded from the courtroom is not an expert witness. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ B Evidence Practice Questions and answers Judges may NOT: A: Call witnesses. B: Testify in the trial over which they preside. C: Ask questions of witnesses. D: Invoke "The Rule" regarding exclusion of witnesses. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ B The scope of cross examination is limited to: A: Any matter that is relevant. B: Any matter that is relevant to the subject matter of the direct examination. C: The subject matter of the direct examination, the witness's credibility, and additional matters with court approval. D: Only matters affecting the witness's credibility. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C Which of the following is NOT true about leading questions? They . . . A: Are typically allowed on cross examination. B: Are typically not allowed on direct examination. C: Suggest the answer the questioner is seeking. D: May not be used during examination of a party's own witness. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D is the best answer. A court may allow leading questions of a person's own witness; thus D is not true about leading questions. If you refresh a witness' recollection with a document: A: The document is inadmissible. Evidence Practice Questions and answers B: An adverse party may introduce parts of the document related to the witness's testimony. C: The party refreshing the witness's memory is entitled to introduce the entire document. D: The adverse party is entitled to introduce the entire document. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ B In a civil trial, the plaintiff calls an expert witness to the stand. The plaintiff's attorney conducts a direct examination of the witness that lasts one-half hour. The defense attorney cross-examines the witness for three days and tells the court, when asked, that he plans to spend at least another day in crossexamination to develop testimony brought up on direct examination. The plaintiff's counsel moves that the crossexamination be terminated by the court. What issue is likely to be the most important to the court's ruling on this motion? A: Whether the testimony is relevant. B: Whether the defendant has had an adequate opportunity for meaningful cross- examination. C: Whether the testimony relates to the subject matter of direct. D: Whether the plaintiff's counsel can identify a specific objectionable question from the defendant's cross-examination. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ Under Rule 611, a court has wide discretion to control the manner and mode of presenting evidence. However, because cross examination is a powerful tool for seeking the truth and often a right of an opposing party, a court will look most closely at Evidence Practice Questions and answers D: Embezzlement. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D Which of the following is the most proper question on cross examination of a reputation witness who testifies about the good reputation of the criminal defendant for truthfulness? A: Have you heard that the defendant once held a knife to his sister's throat? B: Have you heard that the defendant stole his neighbor's golf clubs? C: Have you heard that the defendant was convicted of speeding? D: Have you heard that the defendant lied on his resume to get a job? CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D is the best answer because the character witness testified as to truthfulness. Thus, D is a question about a specific instance of conduct that is pertinent to truthfulness. The remaining answer choices all deal with traits that are not pertinent to truthfulness. Which of the following is NOT a claim, defense, or element of damages for which character evidence is admissible to prove an essential element? A: Negligence. B: Negligent Entrustment. C: Negligent Hiring. D: Entrapment. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ A is the best answer given B and C. Any other negligence claim unlike B or C will almost certainly rely on an impermissible propensity chain of reasoning. D is expressly on the list of defenses for which 405(b) evidence is admissible. Evidence Practice Questions and answers Which of the follow is NOT a permissible way to show that a witness has an untruthful character: A: Cross examining the witness with specific instances of conduct, other than convictions, that are probative of truthfulness. B: Introducing evidence that the witness was convicted of a crime involving dihonesty or false statements. C: Calling a reputation or opinion witnesses to offer testimony regarding truthfulness of the witness to be impeached. D: Cross examining the witness on specific instances of conduct that tend to prove the defendant steals. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D is the best answer because the conduct is not probaive of truthfulness. A is permitted by Rule 608(b), B is permitted by Rule 609, and Rules 608(a) and 405 make C permissible. A witness who is not the accused was convicted of perjury as an adult 15 years ago and served only 6 months in prison. The witness takes the stand and testifies. Her conviction is: A: Admissible. B: Admissible if its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. C: Admissible, subject to Rule 403's balancing test. D: Not admissible. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ Convictions where more than 10 years have passed the date of conviction or confinement, whichever is later, are usually not admissible, but can be. See Rule 609(b). Evidence Practice Questions and answers A defendant is sued for assault and battery after he admitted striking a bartender during a barroom argument. The defendant claimed that he acted in self-defense because the bartender attacked him. At trial, the defendant calls a witness who testifies that the bartender had indeed been the aggressor in the fight. On cross-examination of the witness, the plaintiff's attorney asks, "Isn't it true that when you filed your federal income tax return last year, you failed to report a substantial amount of interest income?" The defense attorney objects to the question and points out that the witness has never been charged with any wrongdoing. The plaintiff's attorney had a reasonable basis for asking the question. Is the court likely to overrule the objection and allow the witness to answer? A: No, because it is not relevant to the issues in the case. B: No, because the witness hasn't been convicted of tax evasion. C: Yes, CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C is the best answer because the question is probative of the witness' truthfulness and is admissible under 608(b). A is not the best answer because a witness' tendency to tell the truth is relevant. B is not the best answer because criminal convictions are not the only acts that may be admissible to impeach a witness. D is not the best answer because the witness has never been charged with wrongdoing; thus, the criminal conviction rule is inapplicable. During the trial of a personal injury case, the plaintiff calls a witness to testify that he saw the defendant spill a slippery substance in the roadway. Following the testimony of the witness, the defendant calls the witness's neighbor, who testifies that the witness has a poor reputation for truthfulness in the community. The plaintiff's attorney then cross-examines the neighbor, asking her if she had ever committed the crime of obtaining property through false pretenses. The plaintiff's attorney learned that last year, the neighbor had in fact been charged with the Evidence Practice Questions and answers In a case of criminal assault, the prosecution may: A: Call a reputation witness to testify to the victim's lack of respect for property. B: Call an opinion witness to testify to specific acts of violence to prove the criminal defendant's violent character. C: Call a reputation witness to testify to the criminal defendant's violent character if the criminal defendant first offers evidence of the victim's same trait. D: Call an opinion witness to testify about the criminal defendant's lack of respect for property. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C In a homicide case, the prosecution may introduce evidence that the victim had a peaceful character: A: If the accused takes the stand as a witness. B: If the accused offers any evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. C: If the accused calls a character witness to testify that the victim had an untruthful character. D: Never. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ B A defendant is on trial for securities fraud. He allegedly set up a "dummy" corporation (one that never conducts any business), created financial statements that falsely indicated that the corporation was profitable, and sold worthless stock in the corporation to unwitting investors. At trial, the defendant refuses to testify. After giving proper notice, the prosecutor seeks to introduce into evidence proof that the defendant had set up thirteen other nearly identical "dummy" corporations that never conducted business. Is the proffered evidence likely admissible? A: Yes, to show the defendant's dishonest character. Evidence Practice Questions and answers B: Yes, to show the defendant's intent to defraud or absence of mistake. C: No, because character cannot be proved by specific instances of misconduct. D: No, because the evidence is not relevant to the current allegations. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ B The government prosecutes defendant for bank robbery committed by use of a sophisticated and little-known safe-cracking technique. The prosecution offers evidence that twice before, defendant robbed other banks using the same technique. Defendant claims that he has an alibi; he claims he was in another state when the charged crime took place. Which of the following is the best argument that the evidence is admissible? A: The evidence is admissible to prove the defendant had a motive to commit the charged crime. B: The evidence is admissible to prove the defendant had the intent to commit the charged crime. C: The evidence is admissible to prove the defendant did not mistakenly break into the safe. D: The evidence is admissible to prove the defendant is the one who cracked the safe. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D Prior inconsistent statements are not hearsay if: A. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross. B. The statement was under penalty of perjury and at a legal "proceeding". C. Both a and b are required. D. Either a or b is required. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C Evidence Practice Questions and answers Hearsay is a statement a declarant makes: A. While not testifying at a trial B. While not under oath C. While not testifying at the current trial or hearing D. While not testifying at the current trial or hearing when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D An internet blogger posted a photo of a public university official with a caption reading, "Embezzles school funds and gets away with it!" The university general counsel captured a screenshot of the blog post and preserved it as potential evidence. The university official ultimately sued the blogger for defamation. At trial, the plaintiff's counsel called the general counsel to the witness stand to ask about the contents of the blog post that was captured and preserved. Defense counsel objects that the witness's testimony is hearsay. Is the witness's testimony likely to be admitted? A: No, because the testimony would be hearsay not within any exception. B: No, because the screenshot does not qualify as a business record. C: Yes, because it is a prior consistent statement. D: Yes, because it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D A plaintiff sued a chimney sweeping company for personal injury and property damages resulting from an explosion in her chimney the evening after the company had cleaned it. The explosion, which occurred when the plaintiff lit a fire in the fireplace, caused minor damage to the chimney, roof, and to the plaintiff, who was hit by falling bricks. As evidence that she assumed the risk of injury, the company offers to have Evidence Practice Questions and answers C: Admit the statement because it is a statement made for the purposes of medical treatment. D: Admit the statement but order redaction of the portion that places blame upon request. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D is the best answer because the statement was mostly made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, but the portion placing blame is not reasonably pertinent under these circumstances. Which of the following does NOT qualify as "unavailability"? A: The declarant is simply too ill to testify. B: The declarant is deceased. C: The declarant is absent and the proponent has not attempted to procure the witness's testimony. D: The declarant actually testifies as a witness, but claims a lack of memory. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C Even where the witness testifies to the predicate facts necessary to establish a document is a business record, the court can still exclude the document if: A: The source of the information appears untrustworthy. B: The circumstances of its preparation seem untrustworthy. C: The probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. D: All of the above. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D is the best answer because trustworthiness is an independent requirement for business records in addition to the Evidence Practice Questions and answers predicate facts and Rule 403 applies independently of whether the record is a business record. If a witness testifies differently than in a prior statement the witness made, you may: A: Impeach the witness with the prior inconsistent statement. B: Impeach the witness with the prior inconsistent statement, but only if the statement was given under oath. C: Impeach the witness with the prior inconsistent statement but only by offering the statement into evidence. D: Not impeach the witness with a prior inconsistent statement because doing so uses extrinsic evidence. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ When offered for impeachment purposes, any statement may be used. The statement need not be under oath; only statements offered for their truth must be made under oath in the course of a proceeding to be admissible under Rule 801. A bicyclist was struck by a vehicle at an intersection. An eyewitness to the collision flagged down a police officer thirty minutes later and said, "I saw a red truck hit a woman riding a bicycle at an intersection thirty minutes ago. I followed the truck to the warehouse on the corner of Madison and Jefferson Streets." The police officer then drove to the warehouse and found a man sitting in a red truck in the parking lot. The bicyclist is now suing the man to recover damages for her injuries. At trial, the bicyclist calls the police officer to testify to the eyewitness's statement to the officer. The defense attorney objects. Is the proffered testimony likely admissible? A: Yes, as a present sense impression. B: Yes, as an excited utterance. Evidence Practice Questions and answers C: Yes, as the declarant's then existing state of mind. D: No, because the statement is hearsay not within any recognized exception. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D is the best answer because the elapse of time makes it unlikely the eyewitness' statement is either a present sense impression or an excited utterance. Thus, A and B are not the best answers. B is further not the best answer because the facts do not show that the declarant was still under the stress of an exciting event when the statement was made. C is not the best answer because the statement does not describe the delcarant's then existing internal state or future plan. A plaintiff sued her employer for sexual harassment. During the trial, the plaintiff attempted to introduce into evidence written complaints from other employees alleging that they were also sexually harassed by the employer. The defense objected to the admission of the records as hearsay. The hearsay objection is likely to be: A: Sustained, because the records lack trustworthiness and are hearsay not within the business records exception. B: Sustained, because the evidence is improper character evidence. C: Overruled, because the records, taken together, qualify as a statement against interest. D: Overruled, because the records qualify under the business records exception. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ A is the best answer because the most likely exception - business records - is not met because there is no indication they were made in the regular course of business and lack trustworthiness as made for the purposes of litigation. Thus, D is not the best answer. B is not the best answer because the objection was to hearsay, not character/propensity evidence. C is not the best Evidence Practice Questions and answers D: That the personnel director CORRECT ANSWERS✅ A-C are all elements of the past recollection recorded hearsay exception, which does not require the witness to be unavailable. Thus, D is the best answer. A plaintiff sued a defendant for serious personal injuries he incurred when the defendant allegedly drove through a red light and collided with the plaintiff's car. The defendant died shortly before trial. During the plaintiff's case in chief, the plaintiff offers in evidence a certified copy of a court record indicating that, eight years previously, the defendant had been convicted of reckless driving while intoxicated that caused serious personal injury, a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The trial court should: A: Admit the record as relevant evidence showing the defendant is reckless. B: Admit the record as impeaching the defendant's credibility. C: Exclude the record because the defendant is not a witness. D: Exclude the record because the judgment is extrinsic evidence. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C is the best answer because impeachment by conviction requires the witness to testify. Thus, B is not the best answer. A is not the best answer because evidence to prove propensity is generally inadmissible and convictions are admissible, when they are admissible, only because they are probative of the witness's truthfulness. A is also not the best answer because Rule 405 does not make this evidence admissible as there is no claim such as negligent hiring or retention at issue; thus, the evidence is not an essential element of the particular claim alleged. D is not the best answer because extrinsic evidence is explicitly admissible under Rule 609. Evidence Practice Questions and answers A beneficiary filed a petition in the probate court to contest the validity of a testator's will. The beneficiary contends that the testator was an alcoholic and was incapable of forming testamentary intent. The beneficiary offers an affidavit prepared by the testator's former attorney, which states that the testator asked the attorney to prepare a new will four months before the contested will was executed and that the attorney refused to prepare a new will because the attorney was aware of the testator's chronic alcoholism, which rendered the testator incompetent. Assuming the applicable rules of evidence are the same as the Federal Rules of Evidence, the judge should rule this affidavit to be: A: Admissible, because the attorney's opinion is relevant. B: Admissible, because the testator is unavailable to testify. C: Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. D: Inadmissible, because the attorney CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C is the best answer because there is no hearsay exception or exclusion for the affidavit. The declarant attorney made the statement out of court and it is offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in the affidavit. A is not the best answer because even if true, the affidavit is still hearsay. B is not the best answer because, while also true, there is no hearsay exception or exclusion that applies. D is not the best answer because the attorney has personal knowledge of the the testator's chronic alcoholism, which is relevant to whether the testator lacked the capacity to create a new will, yet the affidavit would still be inadmissible hearsay. Evidence Practice Questions and answers A witness was stopped at an intersection when she saw a car run a red light, strike the victim in the crosswalk, and proceed through the intersection. The witness gave a very detailed description of the driver to the police officer at the scene. Based on this description, the police apprehended the defendant and charged him with several criminal counts for the accident. The witness testified at the criminal trial, but the defendant was acquitted. The victim then filed a civil suit against the defendant to recover for her injuries. Before the trial of the victim's suit, the witness died. In her suit against the defendant, the victim offers into evidence the police report containing the witness's description of the driver. The defendant objects. The court should find the report: A: Admissible, because the declarant is unavailable. B: Admissible, because the report falls within the business records exception to the hear CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C is the best answer because the eye-witness's statement is hearsay, even if the police report were to qualify as a public record. D is not the best answer because it misstates the test for whether police reports may qualify as admissible public records in a civil case. A is not the best answer because the witness's statement was not given under oath. B is not the best answer because public records cannot qualify as business records. In its lead editorial in the Sunday editon, a suburban daily newspaper characterized a real estate developer as a "common thief." The developer filed suit against the newspaper for defamation. The developer calls a witness to the stand who is prepared to testify that the plaintiff once risked his life to save a fellow soldier in Vietnam. If the newspaper's lawyer objects, the court should rule that the testimony is: Evidence Practice Questions and answers defendant run a red light at the time of the collision with the plaintiff's car. Both the plaintiff's and the defendant's attorneys were present at the deposition. The defendant objects in the appropriate manner to the introduction of the witness's statement. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the deposition? A: Admissible, because the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the time the deposition was taken. B: Admissible, as a dying declaration. C: Inadmissible, because the statement was not made while the witness was testifying in court. D: Inadmissible, because the defendant has no opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ A is the best answer because the deposition qualifies as former testimony under Rule 804. Thus, C is not the best answer because it is admissible as a hearsay exception. B is not the best answer because nothing suggests the statement was made when the declarant knew death was imminent. D is not the best answer because the opponent must have had an opportunity and motive to cross examine at the former testimony - the deposition - not in court. Contrast this rule with the prior testimony rule where the witness must testify in court. A Defendant is being prosecuted for murder. Defendant testifies that she did not commit the crime. During its rebuttal case, the prosecutor authenticates and offers into evidence a "judgment of conviction" of Defendant for Evidence Practice Questions and answers misdemeanor assault, carrying a maximum penalty of 6 months in jail. Defendant has appealed the conviction and the appeal is still pending. How is the court most likely to rule on whether this evidence is admissible? A: The judgment of conviction is admissible to impeach Defendant because the evidence is relevant to show she had a violent character and is more likely to have committed the charged act of violence. B: The judgment of conviction is admissible to impeach Defendant because the conviction is not final due to the pending appeal. C: The judgment of conviction is inadmissible to impeach Defendant because it does not involve a crime punishable by more than one year of confinement and is not CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C is the best answer because the prior conviction does not meet the requirements of Rule 609. A is not the best answer because Rule 404 generally makes evidence of a person's character inadmissible if offered to prove conduct in conformance with that character trait, which is the only possible relevance of the conviction under the facts given, particularly because the two crimes are too distinct - making the Rule 404(b) exception for proving things like identity inapplicable. B is not the best answer because convictions can be admissible even when the conviction is the subject of a pending appeal under Rule 609(e). D is not the best answer because the special reverse-403 balancing test automatically applies only when the witness is the criminal defendant AND the crime is one punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year. A husband and a wife were arrested and charged with distributing obscene materials through the United States mails. When called before a grand jury, the wife refused to say anything, properly invoking her Fifth Amendment Evidence Practice Questions and answers privilege against self-incrimination. The husband admitted to the grand jury that he alone sent obscene matter through the mail and that his wife played no role in helping him. The husband then died in a car accident on the way home from testifying. A month later, the wife went to trial and the wife's lawyer offers the entire transcript of the husband's grand jury testimony into evidence. The prosecutor objects on the basis of hearsay. The court should rule that the transcript of the husband's testimony before the grand jury is: A: Admissible as former testimony, because the prosecutor had an opportunity and motive to develop the husband's testimony. B: Admissible as a statement against the declarant CORRECT ANSWERS✅ A is the best answer because the prosecutor did have a motive to develop the now- unavailable husband's former testimony in order to have the grand jury indict both the husband and wife and, in fact, was the only lawyer with an opportunity to do so. B is not the best answer because the exculpatory portion of the transcript, exonerating the wife, was not against the declarant's interest at the time it was made. In other words, that portion admitting wrongdoing and exonerating his wife of wrongdoing would not tend to subject the husband to criminal or civil liability or render a claim he may have as invalid. Note that you could not use the statement against interest exception because the husband ಬ s statement ದ to the extent it puts all the blame on himself and exonerates his wife ದ is not against his interest. In fact, the statement was likely in his interest to protect his wife. It also does not meet 804(b)(3)(B) because the statement tends to exculpate the declarant's If an out of court statement by a declarant is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted and is being Evidence Practice Questions and answers A: The records of the Republican National Party. B: The records of the New York Times. C: The records of the Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals. D: The records of the justice of the peace court. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D Which of the following IS an example of a witness who is "unavailable"? A: A witness who refuses to testify on the basis of privilege. B: A witness who is absent but the proponent of the former testimony has made no effort to procure the witness's attendance. C: A witness whom the proponent of the evidence has killed to prevent from testifying. D: A witness who testifies inaccurately. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ A Even where the witness testifies to the predicate facts necessary to establish a document is a business record, the court can still exclude the document if: Question Not Answered A: The source of the information appears untrustworthy. B: The circumstances of its preparation seem untrustworthy. C: The probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. D: All of the above. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D A prosecutor offers your testimony that your neighbor's dog barked at 2am. 2am was when the medical examiner Evidence Practice Questions and answers determined was the most likely time of the neighbor's death. Is your testimony hearsay? Question Not Answered A: Yes, because it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. B: Yes, because you lack personal knowledge of when the neighbor was killed. C: No, because there is no declarant. D: No, because the barking is not being offered to prove who killed the neighbor. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C is the best answer because the witness's testimony recounts the sounds made by an animal, which cannot be a declarant or statement. A and D are not the best answers because, although true, there is still no declarant or statement to make this hearsay in the first instance. B focuses on the wrong rule (the objection was hearsay) and the witness only needs personal knowledge of the barking and the time - both of which can be easily established in the context of this testimony. A declarant's prior consistent statement is not admissible if: Question Not Answered A: The declarant does not testify as a witness. B: The witness/declarant is not subject to cross examination. C: The prior consistent statement was made after the improper motive arose. D: All of the above. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ D A witness was convicted two years ago as an adult of third degree felony sexual assault carrying a maximum Evidence Practice Questions and answers sentence of six months' imprisonment. The witness was given a suspended sentence and never pardoned. Will the Court likely allow the person who called the witness to impeach the witness with this conviction? Question Not Answered A: Yes, because the conviction is a felony, a serious crime. B: Yes, because the witness was convicted of a felony as an adult and has never been pardoned. C: No, because the crime does not carry a maximum sentence in excess of 1 year imprisonment. D: No, because the party who calls a witness cannot impeach that witness. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ C is the best answer because the conviction does not meet any of the standards of Rule 609. It does not matter that it is called a "felony" - the maximum incarceration or the nature of the crime (dishonesty) control. A witness who is not the accused testifies in a criminal case for the prosecution. The defense wants to impeach the witness with a prior conviction. The witness was convicted of perjury 15 years ago, served 10 years, and was released from prison 5 years ago. Her conviction is: A: Admissible. B: Admissible, subject to Rule 403's balancing test. C: Inadmissible because the witness was convicted more than 10 years ago. D: Inadmissible because the probative value does not outweight its prejudicial effect. CORRECT ANSWERS✅ A is the best answer. B is not the best answer because Rule 403 does not apply to crimes of dishonesty or false