nbsp;need help on 10 Law evidence question
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?
Yes, as an excited utterance.
Yes, as an admission by a party-opponent.
Yes, as a statement of bodily condition.
Yes, because it is relevant to show Bob had knowledge of how dangerous it was to climb the fence on a rainy day.
Phil ran a newspaper stand. At the end of the day, Bob came up to him and robbed him of his profits. Phil wrote a description of Bob and gave it to the police who were then able to locate and arrest Bob. Phil had to leave the country before Bob’s trial. The prosecutor attempts to offer the description written by Phil into evidence. The description is
admissible as a spontaneous declaration.
admissible as eye-witness evidence of the identity of the perpetrator of the crime.
inadmissible because it is hearsay, not within any exception.
admissible as evidence of his present state of mind.
Duke is arrested and charged with the stabbing murder of his girlfriend, Vicki. Duke and Vicki had a very stormy relationship and had numerous altercations in front of Duke’s family. The morning after Vicki’s body was found, Duke’s mother Wilma walked in on Duke as he was washing blood off of his hunting knife in the kitchen. Wilma grabbed Duke’s arm and said “Heaven help us. Did you kill Vicki, my son?” Duke jerked his arm from Wilma and left the room.
At trial, the prosecution offered Wilma’s testimony concerning her confrontation with Duke in the kitchen the morning after Vicki’s body was found. This evidence is
inadmissible, as hearsay not within any exception.
inadmissible, because Duke had no reason to respond to Wilma’s statement.
admissible as a declaration against interest.
admissible as an admission by a party-opponent.
At trial, Duke’s defense attorney asked Duke on direct examination “What did you tell the officer who arrested you?” Duke answered: “I said that I had not seen Vicki in over a week.” Is this testimony admissible or inadmissible?
Inadmissible because it was a self-serving statement by a person with a motive to lie.
Admissible as a prior consistent statement.
Inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception.
Admissible as direct evidence of a material issue in the trial.
Jennifer met her classmate at the local ice cream shop, sporting a new outfit. Her friend, Elizabeth, knowing that Jennifer had no money and seeing a price tag still attached, said jokingly, “ Clothesmart must be missing some clothes!” Jennifer immediately stood up and walked away angrily. Later, Jennifer was prosecuted for shoplifting based on a salesclerk’s report to the police. The prosecution now attempts to admit Elizabeth’s testimony about what happened at the ice cream shop over Jennifer’s objection. Can this evidence be admitted?
Yes, since Jennifer’s silence was basically a statement against interest.
Yes, since it was reasonable for her to deny the implication that she committed a theft.
No, because it is inadmissible hearsay.
No, because Jennifer is constitutionally entitled to stay silent.
Felicia sues Oscar for injuries sustained when the hot air balloon in which she was a passenger crashed when he attempted to land it in a particularly rocky area which was densely populated with cacti. As part of her case, Felicia attempted to bring Oscar’s friend to the stand to testify that Oscar told him one week before the accident “I failed the test for my pilot’s license.” The evidence is:
Admissible as a declaration against interest.
Admissible as an admission by a party opponent.
Inadmissible hearsay which does not fall under any exception.
Admissible as a prior statement.
Jerry was on trial for burglary of a home. The prosecution examined Officer Tom on direct regarding the discovery of Jerry’s fingerprints on the windowpane. On cross-examination, Jerry’s defense attorney asked Officer Tom if he was the officer who was personally conducted the fingerprint investigation, in an attempt to show that Officer Tom was not directly involved in the investigation of the case. The prosecution now seeks to conduct a re-direct examination, during which they intend to elicit information from Officer Tom that he actually supervised a team of officers and investigators who reported to him and kept him apprised of their findings. Will the trial court permit such re-direct?
No, because re-direct examination is limited to matters testified to on direct examination.
Yes, if the prosecution can show that omitting discussion of the chain of command and supervision of the case from the direct exam was due to mistake rather than strategy.
Yes, since the issue of supervision and involvement came up for the first time on cross-examination.
Yes, because the right to re-direct examination cannot be limited when the questions relate to an issue of ultimate fact in the lawsuit.
Dave operated a radio station where Phil worked. Phil was fired and brought suit against Dave for wrongful discharge. At trial, Abraham testified on Phil’s behalf saying that Dave “had it out for Phil” and constantly acted to undermine Phil’s ability to perform his work. On cross-examination, Dave’s attorney asked Abraham if he had any bias against Dave, which Abraham denied. Dave subsequently called Norbert as a witness to testify that he, Abraham, and Phil had all worked together in college and submitted false time sheets. The court should rule that the testimony of Norbert is
admissible, because the credibility of a witness is always in issue and can be proven with extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts.
admissible, because the testimony relates to possible bias.
inadmissible, because Dave may not introduce extrinsic evidence of Abraham’s bias.
inadmissible, because there was no showing that Abraham was convicted of any crime in connection with that prior employment.
Gracie worked for the downtown church as the business manager. Gracie was unaware that the church was a front for a border smuggling operation. Gracie was indicted as part of the undercover sting operation and at trial denied knowledge of the border smuggling operation. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Gracie if it was true she had served jail time for perjury. Is this evidence admissible?
No, because it is far more prejudicial than probative.
No, because the question goes beyond the scope of the direct examination.
Yes, because it is being used to show Gracie’s propensity for criminal activity.
Yes, since the question was designed to impeach Gracie by showing she was untruthful.
Tom and Jerry are partners of an ice cream company. They have retained Consultant Atlas to represent them in all of their business matters. At some point, Jerry began to suspect that Tom was consuming a portion of their profits, to the detriment of their business. When they met with their Consultant to discuss this issue, Tom still denied it but admitted that he had gained a great deal of weight recently. Furthermore, he stated that it was important to test the product to ensure quality was maintained. At trial over the breakup of the business, Jerry sought to put Consultant Atlas on the stand to testify to Tom’s statements. Can Consultant Atlas testify?
No, because the statements are irrelevant.
No, since it is hearsay not within any exception.
Yes, since it is an admission by a party-opponent.
Yes, since it is relevant to prove Tom was eating the ice cream.