Last 4 digits of SS #

EVIDENCE QUIZ

FORTUNE

FEB. 21, 1995

This is a 50 minute quiz consisting of 25 multiple choice

and short answer questions. The Federal Rules of Evidence are

applicable. Answer the short answer questions briefly in the

space provided. Some of the multiple choice responses are in the

form (for example): a) sustained; b) sustained because H is a

party. Choose the specific response if your reason for sustaining

is the reason in the response. Otherwise choose the general

response.

Write the last four digits of your SS # in the space provided

above and on the back of the quiz. Watch your time!

Questions 1-7: Pedestrian v. Driver for injuries sustained when

struck by D's car while crossing the street. P alleges that D was

negligent in driving at a high rate of speed and failing to keep

a proper lookout. D denies these allegations and alleges that P

was negligent in crossing in the middle of the block, failing to

keep a lookout and failing to yield.

l) D offers W who would testify that he has ridden with D on

many occasions and that in his opinion D is a careful driver.

This evidence is:

a) admissible because D's character is an essential element

in the case;

b)admissible because D may introduce character evidence to

prove that he acted in conformity with the character trait;

c) inadmissible because irrelevant;

d) inadmissible character evidence

2) W would further testify that D always uses his turn signal.

This evidence is:

a) admissible as evidence of habit

b) admissible to show D's character as a careful driver;

c) inadmissible character evidence;

d) inadmissible because irrelevant;

) Assume that D testifies that he was driving at a moderate

speed and P darted out in the street in front of him. P wishes to

ask D if he was convicted of misdemeanor Driving Under the

Influence two years before in Ohio, an offense for which he

.served 30 days. An objection to this question should be:

a) overruled because the conviction is relevant to D's

character as a careful driver;

-b) overruled because the conviction is relevant to D's

character for truthfulness;

c) sustained because the conviction was in a different

state;

d) sustained

4) P wishes to ask D if he falsely stated in his application for

a driver's license three days before trial that he had never been

convicted of Driving Under the Influence. The question should be:

a) allowed;

b) allowed if the judge believes in her discretion that it

is sufficiently relevant to the D's character for

truthfulness and its probative value is not outweighed by

prejudice to D;

c) disallowed because the false statement occurred after the

accident which is the subject of the litigation;

d) disallowed;

5) Assume that P is permitted to ask the question in (4). P

offers to call W to testify that he has known D for many years

and that in his opinion D is a truthful person. Should this

testimony be received? Why or why not?

6) If W is permitted to testify that D is a truthful person may

P's counsel ask W if he is aware that D falsely stated to the

Department of Licensing that he had never been convicted of

Driving Under the Influence? Why or why not?

7) Assume that W is not aware of the false statement to the

Department of Licensing. May P's counsel call the clerk of the

Department to introduce the false statement? Why or why not?

Questions 8-10: Assume a bank robbery in which the prosecution's

theory of the case is that the D was waiting in a red stolen car

outside the bank while X went inside and robbed it; that D drove

X from the scene and abandoned the car nearby.

8) The prosecutor calls W who would testify that he was a

customer in the bank on the day in question and that when he got

in his car after transacting his business D was behind the wheel

of a red car parked immediately south of his car. Defense counsel

seeks to ask W the color of the car parked on the other side

(north) of W's car? Should the question be permitted? Why or why

not?

9) Assume W states that the car to the north was a blue Toyota.

Defense counsel would call W2 to testify that the car to the

north was a green Ford pickup. Should this testimony be received?

Why or why not?

0) Defense counsel would further ask W2 the color of the car to

the south (the car in which Wl said D was sitting). If permitted

W2 would say the car was yellow. Should this testimony be

permitted? Why or why not?

Questions 11-13: State v. D for assault on V, who was struck by a

hit and run driver.

11) V can describe the car (a blue Mercedes sedan) and three

digits of a Kentucky license plate (ABA . . .). Licensing records

show that there are three blue Mercedes sedans with Kentucky

license plates beginning ABA. As a result of the ensuing

investigation D was charged. At trial V would testify to his

observations. His testimony should be:

a) admitted only if V can say with certainty that the car

belonged to the D.

b) excluded because the odds of the car belonging to D are

only one in three;

c) excluded because V's testimony would be self-serving;

d) admitted

12) When he was interviewed by Detective, D said, "If you can

persuade V not to prosecute I'll make it worth his while . . .

and worth your while too."

a) D may be asked about this if he testifies but the

prosecutor cannot call Detective to testify to the

statement;

b) The statement is inadmissible as an offer to compromise;

c) The statement is inadmissible as an attempt to negotiate

a plea in a criminal case;

d) The prosecutor may ask Detective about the statement and

may ask D about the statement if he testifies

13) The prosecutor would call Mercedes Dealer to testify that the

day after the hit and run D brought his Mercedes in to have the

fender and headlight replaced. D objects that proof of subsequent

repairs is inadmissible to show negligence or other culpable

conduct. Should the objection be sustained? Why or why not?

Question 14: Products liability action against the manufacturer

of a chain saw. The allegation is that the chain saw is dangerous

in not having a "kill switch" which would kill the engine when

the operator releases the bar grip. Manufacturer denies that the

saw is unreasonably dangerous. P would introduce evidence of ten

chain saw injuries involving this model, all of which allegedly

could have been avoided by the use of a kill switch. This

evidence is:

a) inadmissible as a remedial measure;

b) inadmissible as irrelevant;

c) admissible because the remedial measure rule doesn't

apply in products liability cases;

d) admissible to show the dangerousness of the saw

Questions 15-17: D is charged with murdering W by stabbing her to

death. W was married to H. D and H were co-workers. The defense

is alibi. H and D both testify that they were working together

late at the office at the time of W's death.

15) The state would call X, a motel clerk, to testify that on a

number of occasions prior to the killing D and H shared a hotel

room. This evidence is:

i) admissible to show D's motive;

ii) admissible to show H's bias

* * * *

a) both (i) and (ii)

b) (i) but not (ii)

c) (ii) but not (i)

d) neither (i) nor (ii)

6) The state would offer evidence that a month prior to the

homicide D drowned W's pet rabbit. This evidence is:

i) admissible to show D's modus operandi;

ii) admissible to show D's state of mind toward W;

iii) admissible to show D's violent character

a) (i) and (ii)

b) (ii) and (iii)

c) (ii) only

d) none of the above

17) What is the judge's role in deciding whether to allow the

jury to hear the pet rabbit evidence?

a) the judge decides by a preponderance of the evidence

whether D killed W's rabbit before allowing the jury to hear

the evidence;

b) the judge allows the jury to hear the evidence if she

believes it is sufficient that a jury could find by a

preponderance of the evidence that D killed the rabbit;

c) the judge allows the jury to hear the evidence if she

believes it is sufficient that a jury could find beyond a

reasonable doubt that D killed the rabbit;

d) the judge allows the jury to hear the evidence for what

it's worth

Question 18) An important defense witness has just been arrested

for defrauding an innkeeper out of a large sum of money. The

defense seeks to prevent the prosecutor from referring to this

event if the witness testifies. The judge should:

a) exclude any reference to defrauding because there has

merely an arrest and no conviction;

b) exclude any reference to defrauding because it occurred

after the events the witness would testify to;

c) exercise her discretion to allow the prosecutor to cross-

examine the witness regarding the fraud;

d) exercise her discretion to allow the prosecutor to cross-

examine the witness regarding her arrest and jailing

Question 19) State v. D for assaulting a police officer during a

protest at an abortion clinic. D denies the assault. D calls W

who testifies that he was present, observed the altercation, and

D did not strike the officer. The state seeks to establish that W

and D are both members of Operation Rescue, a well-known anti-

abortion organization. D objects that the state is attempting to

.impeach W by his political and religious beliefs. What ruling and

why?

Question 20) State v. D for assault of V. After the event V

suffered from post-traumatic stress and was unable to provide a

description of his attacker. Under hypnosis V described the

attack and the attacker. This led to the arrest of D. At trial V

would, if permitted, describe the attack and the attacker. The

best objection to this testimony is:

a) The testimony interferes with D's Constitutional right to

Compulsory Process;

b) V is not a competent witness;

c) There is no way to ascertain what portions of V's

recollection are the result of recovered memory and what

portions are the result of confabulation;

d) There is no scientific basis for believing that hypnosis

may result in recovered memory

Question 21) P v. D for injuries sustained when a car driven by A

struck P. To establish that A was acting as D's agent, P calls A

as a witness. On direct examination A testifies that he was

employed by D and was engaged in D's employ at the time of the

accident. On establishing A's agency P has no further questions.

On cross-examination D would ask the following, all of which are

objected to as being outside the scope of the direct:

i) At the time of the accident had you detoured from your

normal route to run a personal errand?

ii) Did P pay you $200 to testify today?

iii) Was P drunk at the time of the accident?

Assuming that D had a good faith basis for the questions, P's

objections should be sustained:

a) to (ii) and (iii)

b) to (ii) only

c) to (iii) only

d) to none of the above

Question 22) State v. W for the murder of H. Defense is alibi. W

testifies that she was at the movies at the time of H's death. On

cross-examination the prosecutor would ask, "Where were you

standing when you shot him?" What is the proper objection?

Question 23-25: State v. D for murder. The prosecution alleges

that D shot V in a domestic disturbance. D claims that V

committed suicide.

23) The state offers morgue photos of the entry wound to show the

absence of powder burns for the purpose of showing that the shot

was fired from several feet away. The judge should:

a) admit the photos;

b) admit the photos unless convinced that prejudice to the

-defendant substantially outweighs the probative value of the

evidence;

c) exclude the photos unless convinced that probative value

substantially outweighs the prejudice to the defendant;

d) exclude the photos

24) The prosecutor offers the following as evidence that D

intentionally shot V. Which of the following most clearly should

be excluded on proper objection?

a) D purchased the gun one week before V's death;

b) D initially denied knowledge of the shooting and changed

the story to suicide after he learned that he had been

identified as running from the house after the shooting;

c) D struck V with a bat three days before V's death;

d) Five years before D was convicted of first degree

manslaughter for the killing of his first wife

25) D calls W to testify that he has known D for the last five

years and that D's reputation for peacefulness is good. The

prosecutor would seek to ask W if is aware that two years earlier

D was arrested for shoplifting. What is D's strongest argument

that the question should not be allowed?

a) the subject of the question is not relevant to the

credibility of W's testimony;

b) the matter is a misdemeanor not a felony

c) W could not be expected to have heard of the arrest

d) allowing the question might necessitate the introduction

of extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter