Evidence question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
dalpods
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:06 pm

Evidence question

Postby dalpods » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:08 pm

Can anyone help me with these evidence questions?

Whenever evidence is more prejudicial than probative, it must be excluded from the trial.
(a) true (b) false

Under 413 and 414, evidence of certain prior offenses is admissible precisely to demonstrate propensity to act in conformity with character, despite the bar to such evidence in 404. The proof of the prior offenses, however, must be a conviction, in order to guard against unfair prejudice.
(a) true
(b) false.

Although 413 and 414 provide that certain propensity evidence “may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant” in a criminal case when offered against the accused, courts have ruled that it must not violate 403 even though 413 and 414 are silent on that matter.
(a) true
(b) false.

dalpods
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Evidence question

Postby dalpods » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:12 pm

also these:

5. P sues D for damage to her property. P testifies that late one night she heard a disturbance in the street outside her house. Noticing a small but noisy group of Red Sox fans still celebrating that day’s win over the Yankees, P opened her window and yelled out: “Shut up out there! I’m trying to sleep!” Whereupon a person P later identified as D yelled back “You shut up!” and threw a beer bottle at her which crashed through her window. She called the police, but the small crowd had dispersed before the police arrived. At trial, P identifies D as the person who yelled at her and who threw the beer bottle. Specifically, her testimony is “I didn’t get a great look at him, but I recognized his voice. I’ve known him for years. He lives down the street. And he often wears a Red Sox shirt which he was wearing that night.” On cross-examination of P, the following occurs (DC = Defense Counsel):

DC: Isn’t it true that you don’t like D?
P: No.
DC: Isn’t it true that you think he always does annoying things, like grilling when there’s no wind and the smoke gets in your house and playing loud music at night.
P: No.
DC: Isn’t it true that you have complained to your neighbors about D’s behavior?
P: No.
DC: Isn’t it true that you told one of your neighbors that you weren’t sure whether it was D who threw the beer bottle?
P: No.

These questions are
(a) irrelevant and inadmissible
(b) unfairly prejudicial
(c) go to the weight and credibility of P’s testimony against D
(d) extrinsic evidence
------------------------------------------
6. Same as Question 5. Defense Counsel calls N1, a neighbor of P, who will testify that P said to N1: “I hate D. He’s always doing annoying things.” That testimony will
(a) be extrinsic impeachment under 608(b) and presumptively inadmissible
(b) be extrinsic evidence of bias and admissible
(c) be a prior inconsistent statement of P and admissible
(d) all of the above
------------------------------------------
7. Same as Questions 5 and 6. P calls to the stand Police Officer 1, who will testify that he responded to the disturbance in question, arriving approximately thirty minutes after P phoned the police. While he was speaking with P at the scene, his colleague Police Officer 2 located D and drove him by the scene. PO1 and P were standing on her front porch, approximately thirty feet back from the curb, and though there is a porch light on P’s house there is no street lighting. PO2 stopped his patrol car and PO1 asked P to look out at the person in the back seat, whereupon P blurted out “Ohmagod! That’s him! That’s the guy who threw the beer bottle! I hope you get him! He belongs in jail.” On the issue of whether D threw the beer bottle, what PO1 says P said to PO1 is:
(a) inadmissible hearsay
(b) hearsay admissible as a state of mind statement
(c) not hearsay at all
(d) hearsay admissible as a present sense impression
------------------------------------------
8. After the institution of the civil suit mentioned in Question 5, D writes a letter to P which says, in pertinent part: “Dear P, I am sorry I broke your window. If you drop your lawsuit I’ll pay for the damage. Sincerely, D.” D stipulates he wrote this letter. P’s lawyer offers the letter into evidence at trial. It is
(a) irrelevant as evidence that D is liable for breaking P’s window
(b) relevant as evidence that D is liable for breaking P’s window if D testifies he did not throw the beer bottle
(c) relevant though possibly unfairly prejudicial as evidence of character for truthfulness, should D testify he did not throw the beer bottle
(d) (a) and (c)
(e) all of the above
------------------------------------------
Same as Question 5 et seq. D testifies he did not throw the beer bottle, could not have been among the Red Sox fans outside P’s house that night because he was out of town, was not drunk that day because he has never been drunk, and has a reputation for not drinking alcohol. P may offer evidence to prove that D

9. has a reputation for being a drunkard
(a) true (b) false

10. has three prior arrests for being drunk in public
(a) true (b) false

11. vomited while at a local town bar where he was watching the Red Sox game on the day in question, then passed out, spilling a beer all over himself
(a) true (b) false

12. has two prior misdemeanor convictions for public drunkenness
(a) true (b) false

13. has a prior misdemeanor conviction for drunken driving
(a) true (b) false

14. failed to report to his insurance company that he was convicted for drunken driving despite a legal requirement that he do so
(a) true
(b) false

15. Same as Questions 5, 6 and 7. D is being prosecuted for malicious destruction of property. If P is unavailable to testify at trial, her statement identifying D as the person who threw the beer bottle is
(a) admissible under 801(d)(1)(c) because it is not hearsay
(b) admissible under 803(1) as a present sense impression
(c) admissible under 803(3) as a state of mind statement
(d) inadmissible for constitutional reasons
(e) all of the above

dougroberts
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:18 am

Re: Evidence question

Postby dougroberts » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:22 pm

What are these, your Evidence exam questions from a summer course?
Perhaps you should do your own exams . . .

dalpods
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Evidence question

Postby dalpods » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:24 pm

dougroberts wrote:What are these, your Evidence exam questions from a summer course?
Perhaps you should do your own exams . . .


it's a practice exam, actually.

User avatar
SeymourShowz
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Evidence question

Postby SeymourShowz » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:25 pm

a,c,d,a,a,b,a,b

ChallengeAccepted
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:40 am

Re: Evidence question

Postby ChallengeAccepted » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:33 pm

dalpods wrote:
Whenever evidence is more prejudicial than probative, it must be excluded from the trial.
(a) true (b) false


Can't help you with the rest but this is false. the danger of unfair prejudice has to substantially outweigh the probative value.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LawHammer and 5 guests