Exam 12: Exceptions to Hearsay
Exam 1: Nature and Development of the Laws of Evidence20 Questions
Exam 2: Role of Evidence in the Legal Process19 Questions
Exam 3: Obtaining and Presentation of Evidence20 Questions
Exam 4: Hallenges to Admissibility of Evidence20 Questions
Exam 5: Relevancy20 Questions
Exam 6: Witnesses20 Questions
Exam 7: Opinions and Expert Testimony20 Questions
Exam 8: Scientific Evidence and Testing20 Questions
Exam 9: Physical Evidence20 Questions
Exam 10: Documentary and Demonstrative Evidence20 Questions
Exam 11: Hearsay20 Questions
Exam 12: Exceptions to Hearsay20 Questions
Exam 13: Privileges20 Questions
Exam 14: Constitutional Limitations20 Questions
Exam 15: Closing Arguments: Future of Evidence Law10 Questions
Select questions type
Actions that do not involve speaking or writing are called:
Free
(Multiple Choice)
4.7/5
(42)
Correct Answer:
E
For over a hundred years, the prevailing common-law rule was that a prior consistent statement introduced to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or motive was inadmissible if the statement had been made before the alleged fabrication or motive came into being, but admissible if made afterwards.
Free
(True/False)
4.9/5
(41)
Correct Answer:
False
One of the primary reasons for the hearsay rule is to protect the jury from hearing unreliable out-of-court statements as evidence.
Free
(True/False)
4.8/5
(35)
Correct Answer:
True
A statement is hearsay if offered against a party and was made by a co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
(True/False)
4.7/5
(33)
In this case, the defendant said that he was entrapped and wants to offer statements by a government informant as evidence of his inducement by the government to commit a crime. The court held that statements not offered as an assertion of a fact but, rather, as the fact of an assertion are not hearsay.
(Multiple Choice)
4.8/5
(27)
When the answer of the witness contains any of the damaging hearsay, the opposing party may "move to strike"
the answer from the trial record.
(True/False)
4.9/5
(43)
A prior statement by a witness, when offered under certain circumstances, may not constitute hearsay when offered in evidence at trial.
(True/False)
4.8/5
(31)
Which of the following is not part of the test to determine hearsay?
(Multiple Choice)
4.9/5
(37)
Statements of a real estate agent selling land on behalf of an owner to a prospective buyer may be admitted if owner of the land is a party to a subsequent lawsuit.
(True/False)
4.8/5
(32)
Witness testifies that "on January 2nd, the defendant said to me, 'Yesterday, I was at the city park.'" Which of the following statements is not correct?
(Multiple Choice)
4.9/5
(28)
Where there are two or more parts to a declarant's statement, each must be examined separately to determine if it falls within the hearsay rule or one of its exceptions. This is called:
(Multiple Choice)
4.9/5
(34)
Statements made by a party to a legal action do not constitute hearsay under the rationale that it should satisfy the trustworthiness concern, because the party can explain it if she chooses.
(True/False)
4.8/5
(34)
The hearsay rule simply states that hearsay is admissible unless provided for by exceptions in the Rules of Evidence
(True/False)
4.9/5
(35)
Witness testifies, "My husband told me that morning that he saw the defendant beat his child." Which of the following statements is not correct?
(Multiple Choice)
4.7/5
(34)
In hearsay analysis, a person who makes a statement is called:
(Multiple Choice)
4.8/5
(26)
A common example of an admission by party-opponent is a confession made by a defendant in a criminal action.
(True/False)
4.7/5
(35)
An Admission by a Party-Opponent, when offered under certain circumstances, always constitutes hearsay when offered in evidence at trial.
(True/False)
4.8/5
(27)
The hearsay rule developed along with the evolution of the jury system in the late 1600s in the following country:
(Multiple Choice)
4.8/5
(43)
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)