Question 1

There is an exception to the hearsay rule known as the "family history and records" or "pedigree" rule. In applying this rule:

Accepted Answer

A)  only matters relating to birth or death are admissible. 
B)  records that are part of a family Bible are admissible, but other records relating to family history are excluded. 
C)  evidence from family records such as a family Bible relating to pedigree, genealogy, and other family matters is sometimes admissible in state courts as an exception to the hearsay rule, but this rule does not apply in federal courts. 
D)  records such as a family Bible are admissible where properly authenticated and where better evidence is not available. 
A)  only matters relating to birth or death are admissible. 
B)  records that are part of a family Bible are admissible, but other records relating to family history are excluded. 
C)  evidence from family records such as a family Bible relating to pedigree, genealogy, and other family matters is sometimes admissible in state courts as an exception to the hearsay rule, but this rule does not apply in federal courts. 
D)  records such as a family Bible are admissible where properly authenticated and where better evidence is not available.

Question 2

In the case of State v. Washington, the Michigan defendant and an accomplice were convicted of armed robbery and assault with intent to do great bodily harm. Police stopped the two men for routine questioning. Later, they heard a radio report of a robbery and shooting. One of the men they stopped blurted out that he was the shooter. He was later identified as the shooter. Because the confessing partner was tried separately, the judge allowed his statement to be admitted in evidence against his partner, Washington, as a declaration against interest. Washington appealed his conviction, contending that the admission of his accomplice's declaration against interest should not have been used against him. How did the appellate court rule? What rationale did it use in making its decision? Were there sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to allow the evidence to be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule? Would you have ruled the same way as the appellate court? Why?

Accepted Answer

The appellate court ruled in favor of th

Question 3

Explain how the "spontaneous or excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule operates. Why should a spontaneous utterance be believed as truthful?

Accepted Answer

The "spontaneous or excited utterance" e

Question 4

A dying declaration, in order to be admissible:

Accepted Answer

A)  may be either written or oral. 
B)  may relate to the killing of the declarant or a third party. 
C)  must always be made in answer to questions posed by police officers. 
D)  must be made to a person who is not an interested party, such as a law enforcement officer. 
A)  may be either written or oral. 
B)  may relate to the killing of the declarant or a third party. 
C)  must always be made in answer to questions posed by police officers. 
D)  must be made to a person who is not an interested party, such as a law enforcement officer.

Question 5

In a prosecution in a criminal case, testimony taken at a previous trial may sometimes be admitted. The rule concerning admissibility is that:

Accepted Answer

A)  such evidence is admissible for the prosecution unless the defense counsel can prove that the witness is available to testify at the trial. 
B)  the fact that a witness is pregnant at the time of trial is sufficient to show unavailability. 
C)  where testimonial evidence is involved, there must be a trial opportunity to cross-examine the witness or a proper earlier proceeding where the right of cross-examination existed and there must be proof of unavailability of the witness. 
D)  the witness's testimony given at a prior state court hearing cannot be considered by a federal court in the future. 
A)  such evidence is admissible for the prosecution unless the defense counsel can prove that the witness is available to testify at the trial. 
B)  the fact that a witness is pregnant at the time of trial is sufficient to show unavailability. 
C)  where testimonial evidence is involved, there must be a trial opportunity to cross-examine the witness or a proper earlier proceeding where the right of cross-examination existed and there must be proof of unavailability of the witness. 
D)  the witness's testimony given at a prior state court hearing cannot be considered by a federal court in the future.

Question 6

In Bell v. State, the Florida victim of an attempted kidnapping at gunpoint stated that she was walking along the street during the daytime when the defendant twice drove up to her in his van and offered to give her a ride to her destination. The defendant changed his location and accosted her by grabbing her around the neck, holding a gun to her head, and attempted to force her into his vehicle. When she broke free and ran into traffic, she pounded on cars and asked for help in getting away. The defendant, while standing nearby, pointed his gun in her direction and threatened to shoot her. When she managed to call police and talk to them at her residence, she was barely able to speak coherently. When she told her story to police, police officers were able to remember it sufficiently to testify about her original statement to police. The defendant argued that the victim's statements failed to meet the excited utterance test because there was a time delay of approximately 50 minutes between the time of the incident and the time the victim became calm enough to speak. According to the defendant, this was sufficient time for the victim to contrive or misrepresent. What are the general requirements for the application of the excited utterance exception? Would the victim have had time for reason to return if it took 50 minutes for her to become coherent? Did the court approve of the admission of an excited utterance exception in this case? Do you agree with the court's decision? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The general requirements for the applica

Question 7

A declaration against the interests of the declarant:

Accepted Answer

A)  is sometimes admissible even though it is offered by someone who did not make the actual declaration, if certain conditions are met. 
B)  cannot be admitted under the Federal Rules as an exception to the hearsay rule unless the statements were against pecuniary interests. 
C)  is admissible under the Federal Rules as an exception to the hearsay rule even though corroborating circumstances do not indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. 
D)  is admissible in civil cases but not criminal cases. 
A)  is sometimes admissible even though it is offered by someone who did not make the actual declaration, if certain conditions are met. 
B)  cannot be admitted under the Federal Rules as an exception to the hearsay rule unless the statements were against pecuniary interests. 
C)  is admissible under the Federal Rules as an exception to the hearsay rule even though corroborating circumstances do not indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. 
D)  is admissible in civil cases but not criminal cases.

Question 8

An accused has a federal constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to confront and cross-examine the witnesses who testify against the accused at a criminal trial. When the defendant's criminal act proves to be the reason a particular witness cannot be present to testify against the accused and hearsay evidence from the witness is sought to be introduced:

Accepted Answer

A)  a defendant may always assert his or her rights under the Sixth Amendment and prevent that witness's hearsay evidence from being used against that defendant. 
B)  a defendant can prevent the hearsay evidence from being introduced in court because the out-of-court witness was not under oath at the time of the statement. 
C)  the evidence is always admissible against a defendant as long as there were several witnesses to corroborate what the witness said out of court. 
D)  the defendant may not be able to successfully exclude the hearsay evidence because the defendant, by his or her act of injuring or killing the witness, has caused the unavailability of the witness and has forfeited the right to complain about the alleged Sixth Amendment violation. 
A)  a defendant may always assert his or her rights under the Sixth Amendment and prevent that witness's hearsay evidence from being used against that defendant. 
B)  a defendant can prevent the hearsay evidence from being introduced in court because the out-of-court witness was not under oath at the time of the statement. 
C)  the evidence is always admissible against a defendant as long as there were several witnesses to corroborate what the witness said out of court. 
D)  the defendant may not be able to successfully exclude the hearsay evidence because the defendant, by his or her act of injuring or killing the witness, has caused the unavailability of the witness and has forfeited the right to complain about the alleged Sixth Amendment violation.

Question 9

In the case of Cox v. State, the Indiana defendant was convicted of a domestic abuse charge for beating his girlfriend. When police officers encountered the girlfriend, she was crying and shaking and appeared to be very upset. The officer also noticed that she was talking very quickly and showed signs of a fresh injury, including a cut above her eye that was bleeding; her left eye was swollen; and she was holding an ice pack to her eye. Additionally, she had marks on her neck that appeared to have been caused by someone grabbing her on the neck. A deputy who heard the victim's story told the court what the victim told him while she was crying and upset. The defendant contended that the excited utterance should not have been applied by the trial court so as to permit the officer to testify what the girlfriend told him. In the decision in this case, the reviewing court found that:

Accepted Answer

A)  the trial court should not have allowed the officer to testify because the injury by the boyfriend should not have resulted in an excitement that would have lasted until police arrived. 
B)  this qualified as an excited utterance by the victim and was non-testimonial in nature and the officer laid the correct foundation sufficient to prove that an exciting event occurred and that the victim talked to the officer prior to cooling down from her being beaten by the boyfriend. 
C)  in order for the spontaneous utterance hearsay exception to apply, the victim must state affirmatively that she fears death from her attacker, and there was no proof that she felt that he would kill her at some point in time. 
D)  the trial court should not have allowed the officer to testify because the girlfriend's statement to the officer was testimonial in nature and was told to him out of court and thus qualified as excludable hearsay evidence that was probably not reliable. 
A)  the trial court should not have allowed the officer to testify because the injury by the boyfriend should not have resulted in an excitement that would have lasted until police arrived. 
B)  this qualified as an excited utterance by the victim and was non-testimonial in nature and the officer laid the correct foundation sufficient to prove that an exciting event occurred and that the victim talked to the officer prior to cooling down from her being beaten by the boyfriend. 
C)  in order for the spontaneous utterance hearsay exception to apply, the victim must state affirmatively that she fears death from her attacker, and there was no proof that she felt that he would kill her at some point in time. 
D)  the trial court should not have allowed the officer to testify because the girlfriend's statement to the officer was testimonial in nature and was told to him out of court and thus qualified as excludable hearsay evidence that was probably not reliable.

Question 10

What is the hearsay rule? Explain the rationale for excluding evidence under the hearsay rule. Define the following terms as they are used in relation to the admission of hearsay evidence: statement, declarant, hearsay, statements that are not hearsay. Give some examples of statements that are not hearsay.

Accepted Answer

The hearsay rule is a legal principle th

Question 11

The reasons for the hearsay rule in the first instance are based on:

Accepted Answer

A)  the fact that the declarant was not under oath to speak the truth 
B)  the demeanor of the person who actually made the statement cannot be observed by the judge and jury. 
C)  there is danger that the statement may be repeated inaccurately. 
D)  all of the above answers collectively support the reasons for the hearsay rule. 
A)  the fact that the declarant was not under oath to speak the truth 
B)  the demeanor of the person who actually made the statement cannot be observed by the judge and jury. 
C)  there is danger that the statement may be repeated inaccurately. 
D)  all of the above answers collectively support the reasons for the hearsay rule.

Question 12

In the case of Bell v. State, the Florida defendant stood trial for attempted kidnapping. He accosted the victim at gunpoint while she was walking along a street. She ran away into traffic and eventually called police. She managed to call police and talk to them at her residence, but she was barely able to speak coherently due to her fear and fright. The defendant argued that the officers should not have been permitted to tell the court what she said because he contended that her statements did not constitute an excited utterance. On review, it was held that:

Accepted Answer

A)  because the statement made by the victim was to a police officer, it was not admissible as a spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule. 
B)  the time lapse between the attempted kidnapping and the utterance to police made the excited utterance exception inapplicable. 
C)  the fact that the statement by the victim was made some distance and some time from the scene of the attempted kidnapping was sufficient to destroy spontaneity and make the statement inadmissible. 
D)  the trial court did not err in admitting the statement under the spontaneous declara?tion exception to the hearsay rule. 
A)  because the statement made by the victim was to a police officer, it was not admissible as a spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule. 
B)  the time lapse between the attempted kidnapping and the utterance to police made the excited utterance exception inapplicable. 
C)  the fact that the statement by the victim was made some distance and some time from the scene of the attempted kidnapping was sufficient to destroy spontaneity and make the statement inadmissible. 
D)  the trial court did not err in admitting the statement under the spontaneous declara?tion exception to the hearsay rule.

Question 13

In the case of Michigan v. Washington, the defendant and an accomplice were convicted of armed robbery and assault with intent to do great bodily harm. Police stopped the two men for routine questioning. Later, the suspects heard a radio report of a robbery and shooting that came over the police radio. One of the men who police stopped blurted out that he was the shooter. The trial court admitted the hearsay statement against the other defendant because they were being tried separately. The trial court decision was appropriate because:

Accepted Answer

A)  the hearsay exception of a confession should be sufficient to allow the introduction of the statement by a fellow defendant who was not tried with the defendant making the statement. 
B)  the statement was properly admitted as a declaration against interest because the declarant was being tried separately. 
C)  a confession by one accomplice, whose statement implicates a second defendant, is generally admissible against the second defendant under the confession exception to the hearsay rule, where the defendants are tried separately. 
D)  the declaration against interest hearsay exception allows police to tell the jury about incriminating information gained from any voluntary statement made by any suspect following an arrest. 
A)  the hearsay exception of a confession should be sufficient to allow the introduction of the statement by a fellow defendant who was not tried with the defendant making the statement. 
B)  the statement was properly admitted as a declaration against interest because the declarant was being tried separately. 
C)  a confession by one accomplice, whose statement implicates a second defendant, is generally admissible against the second defendant under the confession exception to the hearsay rule, where the defendants are tried separately. 
D)  the declaration against interest hearsay exception allows police to tell the jury about incriminating information gained from any voluntary statement made by any suspect following an arrest.

Question 14

Joe Shar Bell came out of his apartment one day and observed a man known to him in the process of stealing the car belonging to Joe Shar Bell. In his excitement over observing the theft of his car, Joe Shar Bell shouted, "José Rodriguez is stealing my car!" Joe Shar Bell's neighbor heard the words shouted by Joe indicating the identity of the car thief. Joe Shar Bell's neighbor:

Accepted Answer

A)  could not come into court and testify concerning what Joe Shar Bell shouted concerning the theft of his automobile because that would constitute hearsay evidence and be prohibited. 
B)  could not come into court and testify concerning the theft of Joe Shar Bell's car because the theft of one's car that one observed would not be an exciting event. 
C)  should be able to come to court and testify concerning the words that Joe Shar Bell shouted that related to the theft of the automobile of Joe Shar Bell because it should constitute an excited utterance, which is a hearsay exception. 
D)  would be permitted to testify concerning what Joe Shar Bell shouted because it is not considered hearsay evidence. 
A)  could not come into court and testify concerning what Joe Shar Bell shouted concerning the theft of his automobile because that would constitute hearsay evidence and be prohibited. 
B)  could not come into court and testify concerning the theft of Joe Shar Bell's car because the theft of one's car that one observed would not be an exciting event. 
C)  should be able to come to court and testify concerning the words that Joe Shar Bell shouted that related to the theft of the automobile of Joe Shar Bell because it should constitute an excited utterance, which is a hearsay exception. 
D)  would be permitted to testify concerning what Joe Shar Bell shouted because it is not considered hearsay evidence.

Question 15

State the four requirements that must be met if a spontaneous utterance is to be admitted as an exception to the rule. Give some examples. What part does time play in determining whether a statement is spontaneous? Does this apply if statements are made to police officers? May a spontaneous utterance be in response to a question by a third party?

Accepted Answer

The four requirements that must be met f

Question 16

What are "residual" exceptions to the hearsay rule? What inquiries are made to determine their admissibility? Explain their application.

Accepted Answer

Residual exceptions to the hearsay rule

Question 17

When the physical or mental state of a person is to be proved, declarations of another that are indicative of the declarant's physical or mental state are admitted. Are such statements hearsay? For what purpose are such statements admitted? Discuss. Distinguish between out-of-court statements offered to prove the matter asserted and statements that are not hearsay.

Accepted Answer

Yes, such statements are considered hear

Question 18

A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is:

Accepted Answer

A)  inadmissible if made more than three hours after the event. 
B)  considered an excited utterance and is admissible even though the declarant had no opportunity to personally observe the matters asserted in his or her statement or declaration. 
C)  considered a spontaneous or excited utterance and may be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule if other requirements are met. 
D)  considered an "excited utterance" and is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule in most states but not under the Federal Rules of Evidence. 
A)  inadmissible if made more than three hours after the event. 
B)  considered an excited utterance and is admissible even though the declarant had no opportunity to personally observe the matters asserted in his or her statement or declaration. 
C)  considered a spontaneous or excited utterance and may be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule if other requirements are met. 
D)  considered an "excited utterance" and is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule in most states but not under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Question 19

Upon responding to a domestic dispute radio call in Cox v. State, Indiana officers observed defendant Cox standing in front of an apartment building talking to another police officer. One deputy found Cox's girlfriend inside an apartment building. He noticed that she was crying and shaking and appeared to be very upset. The officer also noticed that she was talking very quickly and showed signs of a fresh injury, including a cut above her eye that was bleeding; her left eye was swollen; and she was holding an ice pack to her eye. Additionally, she had marks on her neck that appeared to have been caused by someone grabbing her on the neck. Cox contended on appeal that the hearsay testimony of the deputy who told the court some of what the girlfriend told him while she was upset should have been ruled as inadmissible because it failed to fit into any hearsay exception and because his girlfriend did not appear as a witness at the trial. Cox also contended that, if the testimony fell under the excited utterance exception, the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for the evidence. Should the appellate court reverse the case because the excited utterance exception did not apply in this context? Why or why not? Did it seem that there was a sufficiently startling event? How long would it take for a person who has just been beaten by her boyfriend to calm down? Did the evidence in the case indicate that she had returned to rational thought and contemplation? What kind of foundation for a spontaneous utterance could be made in this case?

Accepted Answer

The appellate court should not reverse t

Question 20

Why are declarations against the interests of the declarant admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule? Give some examples.

Accepted Answer

Declarations against interest are admiss

There is an exception to the hearsay rule known as the "family history and records" or "pedigree" rule. In applying this rule:

Explain how the "spontaneous or excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule operates. Why should a spontaneous utterance be believed as truthful?

A dying declaration, in order to be admissible:

In a prosecution in a criminal case, testimony taken at a previous trial may sometimes be admitted. The rule concerning admissibility is that:

A declaration against the interests of the declarant:

The reasons for the hearsay rule in the first instance are based on:

What are "residual" exceptions to the hearsay rule? What inquiries are made to determine their admissibility? Explain their application.

A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is:

Why are declarations against the interests of the declarant admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule? Give some examples.

The Study of Evidence: History, Development, and Approach

Burden of Proof

Proof Via Evidence

Substitutes for Admission of Evidence

Relevancy and Materiality

Competency of Evidence and Witnesses

Examination of Witnesses

Privileges

Opinions and Expert Testimony

Documentary Evidence

Real Evidence

Results of Examinations and Tests

Evidence Unconstitutionally Obtained

Filters

Exam 10: Hearsay Rule and Exceptions

There is an exception to the hearsay rule known as the "family history and records" or "pedigree" rule. In applying this rule:

Explain how the "spontaneous or excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule operates. Why should a spontaneous utterance be believed as truthful?

A dying declaration, in order to be admissible:

In a prosecution in a criminal case, testimony taken at a previous trial may sometimes be admitted. The rule concerning admissibility is that:

A declaration against the interests of the declarant:

The reasons for the hearsay rule in the first instance are based on:

What are "residual" exceptions to the hearsay rule? What inquiries are made to determine their admissibility? Explain their application.

A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is:

Why are declarations against the interests of the declarant admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule? Give some examples.

The Study of Evidence: History, Development, and Approach

Burden of Proof

Proof Via Evidence

Substitutes for Admission of Evidence

Relevancy and Materiality

Competency of Evidence and Witnesses

Examination of Witnesses

Privileges

Opinions and Expert Testimony

Documentary Evidence

Real Evidence

Results of Examinations and Tests

Evidence Unconstitutionally Obtained

Filters