Deck 12: Exceptions to Hearsay

Question 1

The hearsay rule simply states that hearsay is admissible unless provided for by exceptions in the Rules of Evidence

Answer 1

False

Question 2

One of the primary reasons for the hearsay rule is to protect the jury from hearing unreliable out-of-court statements as evidence.

Answer 2

True

Question 3

A prior statement by a witness, when offered under certain circumstances, may not constitute hearsay when offered in evidence at trial.

Answer 3

True

Question 4

An Admission by a Party-Opponent, when offered under certain circumstances, always constitutes hearsay when offered in evidence at trial.

Question 5

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.

Question 6

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.

Question 7

A common example of an admission by party-opponent is a confession made by a defendant in a criminal action.

Question 8

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.

Question 9

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.

Question 10

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.

Question 11

Which of the following is not part of the test to determine hearsay?

A) Was the statement made out-of-court?
B) Is statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted?
C) Was the statement itself truthful?

Question 12

The hearsay rule developed along with the evolution of the jury system in the late 1600s in the following country:

A) United States
B) England
C) France
D) Rome

Question 13

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:

A) Hearsay Rule
B) Hearsay Within Hearsay
C) Truth of the Matter Asserted
D) Assertion
E) Nonverbal Conduct

Question 14

Action that communicates a statement is called:

A) Hearsay Rule
B) Hearsay Within Hearsay
C) Truth of the Matter Asserted
D) Assertion
E) Nonverbal Conduct

Question 15

Proving what was said is true is called:

A) Hearsay Rule
B) Hearsay Within Hearsay
C) Truth of the Matter Asserted
D) Assertion
E) Nonverbal Conduct

Question 16

Actions that do not involve speaking or writing are called:

A) Hearsay Rule
B) Hearsay Within Hearsay
C) Truth of the Matter Asserted
D) Assertion
E) Nonverbal Conduct

Question 17

Witness testifies, "My husband told me that morning that he saw the defendant beat his child." Which of the following statements is not correct?

A) If this statement is offered to prove that the defendant did in fact beat his child, then it is not hearsay and is admissible.
B) If this statement is offered to prove that the defendant did in fact beat his child, then it is hearsay and not admissible.
C) If that same statement is offered to prove something else, such as that the wife had talked to the husband that morning, then the statement is not hearsay and is admissible.

Question 18

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?

A) If this statement is offered to prove that the defendant was at the city park on January 1st, then it is hearsay.
B) If it is being offered to show that the defendant had spoken to the witness on January 2nd, then it is not hearsay because it is not being offered to prove the truth of what the defendant said.
C) If it is being offered to show that the defendant had spoken to the witness on January 2nd, then it is hearsay because it is being offered to prove the truth of what the defendant said.

Question 19

In hearsay analysis, a person who makes a statement is called:

A) Declarant
B) Declaree
C) Statetor
D) Statetee

Question 20

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.

A) Bourjaily v. United States
B) Tome v. United States
C) United States v. Cantu
D) United States v. Hicks