solution

What do the hearsay exceptions “excited utterance,” “present-sense impression,” and “then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition” have in common, when properly applied?

Question 39 options:

1.Those three exceptions only apply when the declarant is not the defendant.

2.Those three exceptions generally have a temporal limitation between the statement and the events the statement concerns.

3.Those three exceptions only apply when the declarant is unavailable.

4.Those three exceptions only apply when the relevant statements have first been found to be “not hearsay.”

Plaintiff, an estate, brings a wrongful death action against a construction company which built a suspended pedestrian bridge that collapsed. Defendant company calls a witness to testify that she was at the grand opening of the bridge the day before the accident, and saw one of the structural engineers jump up and down on the bridge, yelling wildly, and the bridge did not shake or collapse.

Question 36 options:

Hearsay

Not Hearsay Question 34 In a prosecution for murder, the defendant admits to the killing but claims it was done in self-defense. The prosecution, during its case-in-chief, calls a witness who testified that both she and the victim lived in the same community for over a decade, and that the victim’s reputation is that the victim is very peaceful. The defendant objects as to improper character evidence; how is the court likely to rule? Question 34 options: 1.Because this testimony concerns reputation evidence and not specific instances of conduct, the court should sustain the objection. 2.Because the prosecution introduced character evidence of the victim rather than the defendant, the Court should sustain the objection. 3.Because this is a homicide case and the issue is self-defense, the Court should overrule the objection. 4.Because the defendant has not opened the door to character evidence, the Court should sustain the objection. Question 30 On cross of a prosecution witness, the defendant seeks to introduce into evidence the witness’s felony criminal conviction for assault, which the witness was convicted of five years previously. The prosecution objects; how should the Court rule? Question 30 options: 1.Because the conviction did not require proving a dishonest act or false statement by the witness, the Court should sustain the objection. 2.Because this is a proper impeachment by use of a criminal conviction, the Court should overrule the objection. 3.Because the defendant offered the impeachment first, the Court should overrule the objection; but had the prosecution attempted to introduce the conviction on its direct, the Court would have sustained the objection. 4.Because the conviction is less than ten years old, the Court should sustain the objection.