Deck 5: Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Question 1

Possession of stolen property can be charged as a crime but cannot be used to establish the defendant's guilt in a theft case.

Answer 1

False

Question 2

The defendant's character is not admissible in a criminal trial.

Answer 2

False

Question 3

If a person has previously reported a crime to the police and it was determined that the person intentionally lied, it can be inferred that a more recent report the same person made to the police is also false.

Answer 3

True

Question 4

The jurors may consider the demeanor of a witness when assessing his/her credibility.

Question 5

Facts are admissible to establish guilt but motive is not.

Question 6

Prior threats to commit a similar crime are never admissible at trial because they are unduly prejudicial.

Question 7

The defendant's offer to plead guilty is not admissible at trial.

Question 8

The prosecution may introduce evidence regarding special skills the defendant possesses if these skills are relevant to the way the crime was committed.

Question 9

Attempts to intimidate witness are admissible as evidence of guilt only if the witness filed a police report about the incident.

Question 10

The fact that the defendant had the means to commit the crime is admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Question 11

The fact that the defendant failed to testify at trial cannot be used as circumstantial evidence of his/her guilt.

Question 12

The suspect's behavior after the crime can be used to infer that the crime was committed but cannot be used to infer that the defendant is innocent.

Question 13

The character traits of the victim are irrelevant in a criminal trial.

Question 14

Both direct and circumstantial evidence require the jury to draw an inference in order to establish the fact.

Question 15

The jurors decide how much weight to give individual pieces of evidence.

Question 16

The victim's habits can be used to show that he or she was not voluntarily involved in criminal conduct.

Question 17

The defendant's modus operandi when committing crimes on prior occasions is admissible only when the prosecutor can convince the judge that the method used was sufficiently unusual to amount to the defendant putting his or her "signature" on it.

Question 18

Testimony regarding the defendant's efforts to destroy evidence is admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Question 19

The jury may infer that the defendant is guilty if he/she attempted to flee the scene of the crime.

Question 20

If the defense is claiming that the eyewitness incorrectly identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime, the prosecution can introduce evidence that the defendant previously committed a similar crime even though he/she was not convicted.

Question 21

The prosecution may introduce evidence to establish modus operandi:

A) whenever the defendant has a prior conviction for the same type of crime.
B) anytime the defense has introduced evidence to show that the defendant lacks the mental capacity to commit the crime.
C) only if the defendant has taken the stand and denied committing the crime.
D) only if the defendant previously committed crimes that were substantially similar to the current offense.

Question 22

The fact that the defendant received $100,000 from a life insurance policy due to the death of the murder victim is:

A) admissible to show motive for the defendant to kill the victim.
B) admissible only if there is physical evidence connecting the defendant to the murder.
C) admissible only if the prosecution can show that the defendant paid for the life insurance policy.
D) inadmissible because it would be unduly prejudicial.

Question 23

Evidence about the victim's character is admissible at trial:

A) whenever the victim takes the witness stand.
B) only if the victim has previously been convicted of perjury.
C) if the defense is based on self-defense, the violent character of the victim is admissible.
D) the victim's character is never admissible.

Question 24

Testimony that a woman who reported that she had been raped previously filed a false police report stating that someone stole her engagement ring is:

A) not admissible due to Rape Shield laws.
B) admissible as character.
C) admissible as Other Acts Evidence.
D) not admissible because the ring is irrelevant to this case.

Question 25

If the defendant testifies that it was physically impossible for him to have committed a crime because he had a bad back and could not lift the heavy object that was stolen:

A) the jurors can infer that he is not guilty of the crime if they believe him.
B) the prosecutor must introduce expert testimony showing he has the capacity to commit the crime.
C) the defendant must provide documentation of his physical disability.
D) defendant's testimony is inadmissible because lack of physical capacity can only be established by an expert witness.

Question 26

Evidence the defendant has previously committed similar crimes is admissible:

A) only if there is sufficient similarity to satisfy a modus operandi.
B) if the defendant is claiming mistaken identity as a defense at the current trial.
C) only if the defendant takes the stand and denies the prior offenses.
D) prior offenses are not admissible because they are prejudicial.

Question 27

At trial, character is introduced by:

A) a psychologist who specializes in behavioral disorders.
B) someone who is familiar with what people in the community say about the person in question.
C) the person in question testimonies about his/her own lifestyle.
D) character can be introduced by any of the above witnesses.

Question 28

The fact that a person suddenly has a lot of money a short time after a robbery of a nearby bank and refuses to explain where the money came from:

A) creates an inference that the person obtained the money from the robbery.
B) creates an inference that the person obtained the money legally.
C) creates a presumption that the person is guilty of robbery.
D) creates a presumption that the person obtained the money legally.

Question 29

In which of the following situations would the prosecution be allowed to introduce evidence about the defendant's motive?

A) any case that goes to trial without a jury
B) for felonies but not misdemeanors
C) in specific intent crimes
D) evidence of motive is admissible in all of these situations

Question 30

X-rays showing numerous broken bones in various stages of healing can be used in a prosecution of a parent for abusing a child:

A) only if there is corroboration that the person on trial inflicted the injuries.
B) to infer that the current injuries were not accidental.
C) only if an expert in the battered child syndrome testifies.
D) not admissible unless defendant was convicted for inflicting the prior injuries.

Question 31

When deciding whether circumstantial evidence should be admitted at trial, the judge considers:

A) whether the evidence is relevant.
B) whether introducing the evidence will take up too much time.
C) whether the evidence will unduly prejudice the jurors.
D) all of these are considered.

Question 32

Attempts to intimidate witnesses so that they will not testify in court in the defendant's murder trial:

A) can be charged as a separate offense but are not admissible at the murder trial.
B) are admissible to show guilt at the murder trial only if corroborated.
C) are admissible to show guilt at the murder trial only if the defendant has been arrested for  intimidating the witnesses.
D) are admissible as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt at the murder trial.

Question 33

The fact that the defendant has a graduate degree in software design is admissible in a case in which a hacker bypassed a company's security system and transferred money to a Swiss bank account:

A) only if the defendant designed software used on the company's computer.
B) only if the prosecutor can show prior acts of hacking by the defendant.
C) only if his degree establishes skill and/or technical knowledge necessary to commit the crime.
D) only if the degree was from an accredited university.

Question 34

The jury is allowed to consider the fact that the defendant previously threatened the victim:

A) whenever the defendant does not deny making the threat.
B) if the threat was made shortly prior to the crime and was very specific.
C) only if the threats can be confirmed by someone other than the victim.
D) only if the defendant had previously threatened other people.

Question 35

In addition to the defense of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, when is the defense allowed to introduce evidence about the defendant's mental capacity?

A) when defense is based on the defendant not knowing something that is obvious to most people
B) when defendant is charged with a crime that requires a specific intent
C) when the crime charged would require a person with superior mental ability
D) all of these

Question 36

Testimony that a man who is on trial for battering his wife also beat up his girlfriend while in college:

A) is inadmissible because it would unduly prejudice the jury.
B) is admissible under Other Acts Evidence.
C) is inadmissible if the statute of limitation has run on the incident that occurred in college.
D) is admissible only if an expert testifies about the battered woman's syndrome.

Question 37

The prosecution can introduce evidence that the defendant tried to conceal evidence:

A) only if the defendant is charged with receiving stolen property.
B) only at the trial of the person charged with helping the defendant hide the evidence.
C) only if the evidence is never found.
D) as circumstantial evidence that the defendant is guilty.

Question 38

Evidence the victim has previously filed false police reports can be used to infer:

A) bad character.
B) motive to lie while testifying.
C) the current report was false.
D) all of these

Question 39

In a jury trial, who determines if a witness is telling the truth?

A) judge
B) jury
C) prosecutor
D) defense attorney

Question 40

Evidence about the defendant's character is admissible at trial:

A) if defense places character at issue.
B) if defendant denies the charges.
C) at the discretion of the prosecutor.
D) at the discretion of the judge .

Question 41

Carl is on trial for the murder of Donna, his wife. The police have discovered the following facts:
· Carl filed a police report stating that Donna had been abducted by three armed men. The report was filed two weeks after Donna was allegedly abducted.
· Carl is an experienced cement mason who pours cement and does finishing work on concrete floors and sidewalks.
· Carl has been having an affair with Eve.
· Donna's body was found concealed under an elaborate patio with a cement floor Which of the following can be used as circumstantial evidence of intent?

A) Carl filed a false police report about Donna's abduction.
B) Carl was an experienced cement mason.
C) Carl had an affair with Eve.
D) Donna's body was found under a cement patio floor.

Question 42

Carl is on trial for the murder of Donna, his wife. The police have discovered the following facts:
· Carl filed a police report stating that Donna had been abducted by three armed men. The report was filed two weeks after Donna was allegedly abducted.
· Carl is an experienced cement mason who pours cement and does finishing work on concrete floors and sidewalks.
· Carl has been having an affair with Eve.
· Donna's body was found concealed under an elaborate patio with a cement floor Which of the following can be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt?

A) Carl filed a false police report about Donna's abduction.
B) Carl was an experienced cement mason.
C) Carl had an affair with Eve.
D) Donna's body was found under a cement patio floor.

Question 43

Fred is on trial for aggravated battery for severely beating George with a pool cue. The defense investigator discovered the following facts:
· Fred has the reputation of being a timid person who avoids physical confrontations.
· On three incidents in the past, Fred has stepped in to help the victim of unprovoked attacks.
· George has the reputation of being a bully.
· George has been involved in numerous bar fights, all of which he provoked. Can the defense introduce evidence that Fred has previously attempted to intervene in fights on behalf of the victim?

A) Yes, the defense can introduce evidence of prior acts that are relevant to the issues in this case.
B) Yes, this can be admitted as character evidence.
C) No, the defense can introduce character evidence only if the prosecution called character witnesses.
D) No, the defense can only introduce evidence directly related to the issue of whether Fred committed the crime charged.

Question 44

Alice is on trial for the murder of Ben, her boyfriend. The police have discovered the following facts:
· Ben had experienced anaphylaxis reactions to peanuts on two prior occasions while with Alice. Each time he had trouble breathing and injected himself with an EpiPen, causing the reaction to stop within 1 minute.
· A search of Alice's computer shows that in the week prior to Ben's death she did three searches using the key words "recipe" and "peanut."
· Alice spent 3 hours preparing kung pao chicken. One of the 5 ingredients in the marinade was peanut oil. The chicken was cooked in a sauce that included peanut oil and flour made from peanuts in addition to 10 other ingredients.No whole peanuts were used.
· Ben had an anaphylaxis reaction to the peanuts in the middle of dinner. His throat tightened and he could not breathe. He began wheezing loudly.
· Ben pulled the EpiPen from his pocket and handed it to Alice.
· Alice threw the EpiPen in the trash.
· Alice did not call 911 until Ben became unconscious. She hung up when the dispatcher directed her to inject Ben with the EpiPen.
· Alice cleared the dining room table and started the dishwasher while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. The fact that Alice cleared the table and started the dishwasher can be introduced as:

A) Circumstantial Evidence of Intent.
B) Circumstantial Evidence of Guilt.
C) Circumstantial Evidence of Ability to Commit the Crime.
D) Other Acts evidence.

Question 45

Fred is on trial for aggravated battery for severely beating George with a pool cue. The defense investigator discovered the following facts:
· Fred has the reputation of being a timid person who avoids physical confrontations.
· On three incidents in the past, Fred has stepped in to help the victim of unprovoked attacks.
· George has the reputation of being a bully.
· George has been involved in numerous bar fights, all of which he provoked. Can the defense call a witness to testify about George's reputation?

A) Yes, the defense can introduce character evidence about all of the prosecution's witnesses.
B) Yes, a reputation for bullying is relevant to Fred's claim of self-defense.
C) No, character evidence must relate to reputation for truthfulness.
D) No, the defense can attack George's character only if the prosecution called character witnesses to testify that George has a good character.

Question 46

Fred is on trial for aggravated battery for severely beating George with a pool cue. The defense investigator discovered the following facts:
· Fred has the reputation of being a timid person who avoids physical confrontations.
· On three incidents in the past, Fred has stepped in to help the victim of unprovoked attacks.
· George has the reputation of being a bully.
· George has been involved in numerous bar fights, all of which he provoked. Can the defense introduce evidence about Fred's reputation for being timid and avoiding fights?

A) Yes, being timid is relevant to the question of whether Fred started the fight.
B) Yes, the defense can introduce any character evidence about the defendant that it wishes.
C) No, the defense is allowed to introduce character evidence about the defendant on the issue of truthfulness but not on other issues.
D) No, the defense is not allowed to introduce evidence about the defendant's character.

Question 47

Explain the rule about introducing evidence of the defendant's ability to commit the crime. Give three examples of evidence that can be used for this purpose.

Question 48

Explain the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Give two examples of each. What is the role of the jury in evaluating the evidence?

Question 49

Alice is on trial for the murder of Ben, her boyfriend. The police have discovered the following facts:
· Ben had experienced anaphylaxis reactions to peanuts on two prior occasions while with Alice. Each time he had trouble breathing and injected himself with an EpiPen, causing the reaction to stop within 1 minute.
· A search of Alice's computer shows that in the week prior to Ben's death she did three searches using the key words "recipe" and "peanut."
· Alice spent 3 hours preparing kung pao chicken. One of the 5 ingredients in the marinade was peanut oil. The chicken was cooked in a sauce that included peanut oil and flour made from peanuts in addition to 10 other ingredients.No whole peanuts were used.
· Ben had an anaphylaxis reaction to the peanuts in the middle of dinner. His throat tightened and he could not breathe. He began wheezing loudly.
· Ben pulled the EpiPen from his pocket and handed it to Alice.
· Alice threw the EpiPen in the trash.
· Alice did not call 911 until Ben became unconscious. She hung up when the dispatcher directed her to inject Ben with the EpiPen.
· Alice cleared the dining room table and started the dishwasher while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. The fact that Alice threw the EpiPen in the trash can be introduced as:

A) Circumstantial Evidence of Intent.
B) Circumstantial Evidence of Guilt.
C) Circumstantial Evidence of Ability to Commit the Crime.
D) Other Acts evidence.

Question 50

Alice is on trial for the murder of Ben, her boyfriend. The police have discovered the following facts:
· Ben had experienced anaphylaxis reactions to peanuts on two prior occasions while with Alice. Each time he had trouble breathing and injected himself with an EpiPen, causing the reaction to stop within 1 minute.
· A search of Alice's computer shows that in the week prior to Ben's death she did three searches using the key words "recipe" and "peanut."
· Alice spent 3 hours preparing kung pao chicken. One of the 5 ingredients in the marinade was peanut oil. The chicken was cooked in a sauce that included peanut oil and flour made from peanuts in addition to 10 other ingredients.No whole peanuts were used.
· Ben had an anaphylaxis reaction to the peanuts in the middle of dinner. His throat tightened and he could not breathe. He began wheezing loudly.
· Ben pulled the EpiPen from his pocket and handed it to Alice.
· Alice threw the EpiPen in the trash.
· Alice did not call 911 until Ben became unconscious. She hung up when the dispatcher directed her to inject Ben with the EpiPen.
· Alice cleared the dining room table and started the dishwasher while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. The fact that Alice searched for recipes containing peanuts can be used:

A) Circumstantial Evidence of Intent.
B) Circumstantial Evidence of Guilt.
C) Circumstantial Evidence of Ability to Commit the Crime.
D) Other Acts evidence.

Question 51

Carl is on trial for the murder of Donna, his wife. The police have discovered the following facts:
· Carl filed a police report stating that Donna had been abducted by three armed men. The report was filed two weeks after Donna was allegedly abducted.
· Carl is an experienced cement mason who pours cement and does finishing work on concrete floors and sidewalks.
· Carl has been having an affair with Eve.
· Donna's body was found concealed under an elaborate patio with a cement floor Which of the following can be used as circumstantial evidence of ability to commit the crime?

A) Carl filed false a police report about Donna's abduction.
B) Carl was an experienced cement mason.
C) Carl had an affair with Eve.
D) Donna's body was found under a cement patio floor.

Question 52

Explain the rules about introducing circumstantial evidence of guilt. Give three examples of evidence that can be used for this purpose.

Question 53

Alice is on trial for the murder of Ben, her boyfriend. The police have discovered the following facts:
· Ben had experienced anaphylaxis reactions to peanuts on two prior occasions while with Alice. Each time he had trouble breathing and injected himself with an EpiPen, causing the reaction to stop within 1 minute.
· A search of Alice's computer shows that in the week prior to Ben's death she did three searches using the key words "recipe" and "peanut."
· Alice spent 3 hours preparing kung pao chicken. One of the 5 ingredients in the marinade was peanut oil. The chicken was cooked in a sauce that included peanut oil and flour made from peanuts in addition to 10 other ingredients.No whole peanuts were used.
· Ben had an anaphylaxis reaction to the peanuts in the middle of dinner. His throat tightened and he could not breathe. He began wheezing loudly.
· Ben pulled the EpiPen from his pocket and handed it to Alice.
· Alice threw the EpiPen in the trash.
· Alice did not call 911 until Ben became unconscious. She hung up when the dispatcher directed her to inject Ben with the EpiPen.
· Alice cleared the dining room table and started the dishwasher while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. The fact that Alice was a gourmet chef can be introduced as:

A) Circumstantial Evidence of Intent.
B) Circumstantial Evidence of Guilt.
C) Circumstantial Evidence of Ability to Commit the Crime.
D) Other Acts evidence.

Question 54

Explain when character can be admitted at a criminal trial by the defense? By the prosecution? When can evidence be introduced about the victim's character?

Question 55

Explain the rules about introducing circumstantial evidence of intent to commit the crime. Give three examples of evidence that can be used for this purpose.