Tim went on a blind date with Roberta - Expert Answers

Tim went on a blind date with Roberta. While walking down the street, Roberta’s shoe heel broke and she slipped, falling on her purse, in which she was carrying a loaded pistol. The pistol fired a shot, which entered Roberta’s head, putting her into a coma. Upon hearing the shot, a bystander ran to the scene to see Tim holding the pistol from Roberta’s purse. Although Tim told the police what happened as he was arrested for assault, and he has never told a different story, Tim’s lawyer wanted to make sure that the jury knew that Tim told the same seemingly unbelievable story on more than one occasion. Can Tim testify that he told the same story to the police on the evening he was arrested?

A
No, because it is hearsay.
B
Yes, to prove his innocence.
C
Yes, as rebuttal to any possible claim that the prosecutor might make that his story was false.
D
Yes, as a public record.
Police Officer stopped defendant's car because it was weaving all over the road. The officer administered a standard sobriety test which defendant failed. He transported defendant to the hospital for a Blood Alcohol Level test that well exceeded the legal limit. The officer prepared a report of probable cause relating these facts. The officer was subsequently killed in a traffic accident while on duty. At the preliminary suppression hearing, a hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence at trial, the prosecution introduced the officer's notes. Defense counsel objected that the notes were hearsay. The notes should be:
A
Admitted, if the court determines that they are reliable.
B
Excluded because in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel are not admissible hearsay
C
Admitted because in making its determination on admissibility of evidence it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.
D
Excluded because it is hearsay not within any exception.
 
This one I answered A – this is correct as well! Great job!

Robert told his pal, Burton, that he had just robbed the liquor store and netted $5000. Moreover, he told Burton that he wanted to stash the money at Burton’s house, to which Burton agreed for a percentage of the loot. Robert’s comments were made while standing outside in Burton’s backyard, and were overheard by Burton’s neighbor, Mrs. Snidely. At Burton’s trial for obstructing justice, the prosecution subpeoned Robert to appear as a witness but Robert had fled from the jurisdiction and could not be found despite diligent attempts by the authorities. Mrs. Snidely testified at Burton’s trial as to Robert’s remarks. Burton objected. The testimony is:

A
Inadmissible because the evidence is not relevant to any material issue.
B
Admissible as a declaration against interest.
C
Admissible as an admission.
D
Inadmissible because it is hearsay.
Eva was at the local coffeehouse, and due to a busy morning, there were coffee spills at the self-service bar. Eva slipped in a puddle of coffee and fell. Alleging that she sustained severe back injuries, she brought suit against the coffeehouse owner, Filomena, who admitted that Eva sustained these injuries. Filomena contends that Eva was contributorily negligent.

When the accident occurred, Eva’s boyfriend, Ezekiel, was present. Ezekiel’s testimony at deposition was that “I didn’t see a written warning or hear anyone warn Eva about the puddle.” Ezkeiel then went on a trip to India and died when he was trampled by a runaway elephant. The deposition testimony of Ezekiel is:
A
Admissible as a dying declaration.
B
Admissible as former testimony.
C
Inadmissible, because Ezekiel is not available for cross-examination.
D
Inadmissible hearsay not within any exception.
 
Eva was at the local coffeehouse, and due to a busy morning, there were coffee spills at the self-service bar. Eva slipped in a puddle of coffee and fell. Alleging that she sustained severe back injuries, she brought suit against the coffeehouse owner, Filomena, who admitted that Eva sustained these injuries. Filomena contends that Eva was contributorily negligent.

Filomena called Cassandra to testify that a month before the accident, she spoke with Eva at a yoga class. Eva stated to her that she was unable to do some of the yoga poses because she had injured her back by attempting a backbend improperly at home. The evidence is:

A
Admissible as a declaration against interest.
B
Inadmissible, because it is irrelevant.
C
Admissible as an admission by a party-opponent.
D
Inadmissible hearsay, not within any exception.
“Treehouse for Tots” is a company which build treehouses for children and is located in the Baja desert of California. The owner of the company, Bob, has only started the company recently and has had very little experience building such treehouses, especially given the scarcity of customers in his location. Nevertheless, he started to sell his treehouses over the Internet. Mavis, a mom in Oakdale, ordered a treehouse for her children. After they installed the treehouse according to manufacturer specifications, it fell apart when the children entered the structure. In a subsequent negligence lawsuit for personal injuries on behalf of her children, Mavis alleged that Treehouse for Tots was negligent. Bob then alleged that Mavis was contributorily negligent for allowing the number of children in the house to exceed manufacturer recommendations, as stated in the instructions.

During defense of the case, Treehouse for Tots offered the testimony of John, who had joined a crowd of onlookers watching the ambulance take a few of the children to the hospital 30 minutes after the collapse of the treehouse. John will testify that he heard another person in the crowd, Edwina, say, “The kids were just trying to see how many of them could fit in the treehouse.” Should the court admit John’s testimony over Mavis’ objection?

A
No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
B
No, because it was improper character evidence.
C
Yes, because it is a statement against interest.
Kevin and his wife, Adele, moved into a new home. During his first night in the house, Kevin kept hearing noises coming from the attic, so he called the police to come to the house. Adele heard them also and together, both with baseball bats in hand, they went to investigate. When they got to the attic, there was no light, so they entered in the dark. Kevin heard a noise, and swung his bat, hitting something hard. He heard Adele scream, and he cried out, “Oh god! Adele, I can’t believe I hit you. I am so sorry!” Just then the police entered the room with their flashlights, with Adele bleeding in Kevin’s arms, an open window and both baseball bats on the floor. At trial for the murder of Adele, Kevin testified that there was another intruder in the house who actually hit Adele and then escaped through the window. As part of their case-in-chief, the prosecution has offered the testimony of one of the police officers who will testify that when the officers entered the room, Kevin said “Oh God! Adele, I can’t believe I hit you. I’m so sorry!” Which of the following reasons would not serve as grounds for admitting the testimony over Kevin’s objection?

A
It is a present sense impression.
B
It was an excited utterance.
C
It was a declaration against interest.
D
It was an admission by a party opponent.
Evelyn is an airline attendant who works on shuttle flights between Los Angeles and San Diego. As part of her job, she ensures that the other attendants perform their duties. As manager she is responsible for the smooth operation of all flights. On a particular airline flight, she ordered Jane, one of the other attendants, to provide the first class passengers with complimentary wine and crackers while they circled for an extra hour over Los Angeles due to air traffic. When Jane failed to perform her duties as demanded by Evelyn, she reprimanded her. Jane responded by throwing a glass of wine in Evelyn’s face. A fight ensued with the passengers cheering and taking sides. When the plane landed, both employees were eventually fired by the airline. In a civil suit by Evelyn against Jane for assault, Evelyn sought to introduce evidence that she told another flight attendant, Stacey, that she would have to reprimand Jane according to company policy. Jane objects. Is the evidence admissable.

A
No, because it is self-serving.
B
No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
C
Yes, because it is a prior consistent statement.
D
Yes, because (assuming it is relevant) it is admissable to prove Evilyn did reprimand Jane.
Sharon just won the lottery. Unfortunately, she was beset by so many new friends that she decided she needed to erect a wall around her house with an electronic surveillance camera at a front gate. One rainy evening, Bob, an old admirer, who upon learning of her good fortune, decided to renew his efforts at marriage and went to her home. Undaunted by the gate, the wall, and the rain, he decided to climb the wall with his guitar so he could serenade Sharon under her bedroom window. When Bob scaled the wall right near the gate, he slipped and fell to the ground, crushing his guitar and some body parts. Bob filed suit for personal injuries, Sharon attempts to introduce testimony from the hospital nurse that Bob stated to her when she was changing his bandages the next day at the hospital, “ I shouldn’t have climbed the gate on a rainy day.” Bob objects. Is the testimony of the hospital nurse admissible?
A
Yes, as an excited utterance.
B
Yes, as an admission by a party-opponent.
C
Yes, as a statement of bodily condition.
D
Yes, because it is relevant to show Bob had knowledge of how dangerous it was to climb the fence on a rainy day    
Jennifer was walking down the street when a car driven by Winthrope, who had been looking at a map while driving, struck her. Jennifer sued Winthrope for injuries that left her unable to walk and forever in a wheelchair. Winthrope claims that Jennifer’s condition is a result of a previous accident when she fell off her chair at work. Just before trial, Jennifer visited her physician, Dr. Demento for her annual checkup. At trial, Jennifer called Dr. Demento to the stand. Dr. Demento testified that Jennifer stated that her whole body ached at that time, making it hard for her to walk. Is this testimony admissible?
A
Yes, because it is a statement of her present bodily conditiona
B
Yes, because it indicated her present state of mind.
C
No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D
No, because it was made for the purposes of trial testimony.
Powered by