Hearsay Quiz

Question 1 of 12

1. Question

Perry and David entered into a contract whereby David promised to maintain Perry’s lawn and garden. Perry alleges that David consistently breached the contract by failing to work each Sunday as he promised. At trial, Perry wants to call a witness, Wally, to testify that one Sunday afternoon he saw David strolling down the street and that he called out to him, “Hey! Aren’t you supposed to be working at Perry’s today?” David did not respond to the question.

David wants to exclude the testimony concerning Wally’s question. What is Perry’s best argument that the testimony is admissible?

The testimony is admissible as an admission of a party opponent.
The testimony is admissible as a declaration against interest.
The testimony is admissible because it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
The testimony is admissible because silence is not a statement for purposes of the hearsay rule.

Question 2 of 12

2. Question

David is on trial for robbery. The prosecutor wants to introduce evidence of a photograph taken by a tourist that coincidentally captures the moment David pulled a gun on the store clerk. The tourist is prepared to testify that he took the picture. David objects to the evidence.

Is the photograph admissible?

Yes, but only to prove that David was in the store, not that he committed an illegal act.
Yes, because the photograph is not hearsay.
No, because the photograph is hearsay to prove that David committed the crime and no exception applies.
No, because the prejudicial effect of the photograph outweighs its probative value.

Question 3 of 12

3. Question

David is on trial for robbery. The prosecutor wants to introduce evidence of a photograph taken by a tourist that coincidentally captures the moment David pulled a gun on the store clerk. The tourist is prepared to testify that he took the picture. Is the testimony, “I took the photograph” admissible?

No, because the testimony concerns an out of court action.
No, because the photograph is an out of court statement.
Yes, because the testimony is not hearsay.
Yes, because the testimony is an exception to the hearsay rule.

Question 4 of 12

4. Question

David is on trial for robbery. Wally saw David commit the robbery and relates what he saw at a grand jury proceeding. Shortly before David’s trial is scheduled to begin, Wally receives a free flight ticket to another country and thousands of dollars to spend “on a vacation until the trial is over.” Wally leaves the country. An investigation reveals that David sent the ticket and money to Wally. Can Wally’s grand jury testimony be admitted into evidence?

Yes, because Wally is unavailable.
Yes, because Wally’s testimony in the grand jury proceeding was required by law.
Yes, because the testimony is non-hearsay.
Yes, because the testimony is an excited utterance.

Question 5 of 12

5. Question

Alice works at a gas station and causes a fire while smoking. The fire injures Perry. Perry wants William to testify that he told the gas station owner, Ollie, that Alice was smoking. Ollie objects to the testimony.

Can William testify as to what he told Ollie?

Yes, because he is testifying as to his own statement.
Yes, to prove that Ollie was informed that Alice was smoking but not to prove that Alice was actually smoking.
No, the testimony should be excluded as hearsay.
No, unless William was under a duty to report the smoking.

Question 6 of 12

6. Question

Darren is on trial for robbing a store. Valerie worked at the store and testifies that she saw Darren commit the robbery. On cross-examination, Valerie testifies that that shortly before the trial Darren, who had been dating Valerie, broke up with her in a callous manner. On redirect, the prosecutor wants Valerie to testify that she told her friend Frieda that Darren robbed the store the day after the robbery occurred. Darren objects on hearsay grounds. How should the court rule?

The court should admit the evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule because the testimony provides logical and relevant evidence of Darren’s guilt.
The court should exclude the evidence as hearsay because Frieda is not available to be cross-examined.
The court should admit the testimony as non-hearsay because the defense counsel attacked Valerie’s credibility.
The court should admit the testimony as an exception to the hearsay rule because Valerie is available to be cross-examined.

Question 7 of 12

7. Question

Paul is a politician who sues Eddy, a newspaper editor, for defaming him by accusing him of taking bribes. Eddy’s article is based in part on a handwritten document that was mailed to the newspaper stating that an anonymous person gave money to Paul in exchange for political favors.

Eddy’s lawyer wants to introduce the document into evidence. Paul objects on hearsay grounds. Should the court exclude the document from evidence?

No, if the document is introduced only as evidence that Eddy had a basis for publishing the article.
No, if the document is only introduced as evidence that Paul took bribes.
Yes, because the document is hearsay.
Yes, because the document is evidence of an ultimate issue that only the jury should decide.

Question 8 of 12

8. Question

Wanda was across the street when an attempted robbery occurred. Wanda did not see any of the people involved but provided police with a detailed description of a red convertible that sped off around the time of the incident. The defendant is accused of being the owner of the convertible. At trial, Wanda says she does not recall the incident at all. Which of the following is a basis to admit her statement to the police into evidence?

As a statement of prior identification.
As a prior consistent statement
To rehabilitate Wanda’s credibility.
None of the above.

Question 9 of 12

9. Question

David is on trial for burglarizing three homes the night of August 22. On August 23 he failed to show up to work and told his supervisor, Sam, that he was too sleepy to work because he was up all night. The prosecutor argues that David was sleepy because he was burglarizing homes the night before. David claims to have been up all night waiting for a phone call from his niece, Nancy. Nancy’s boyfriend, Bob, told David on the morning of August 22 that “Nancy plans to call you tonight and really wants to speak with you. Don’t miss her call!”

Is David’s statement admissible to prove that David was up all night?

Yes, because it is a statement made in the course of business to a supervisor.
Yes, because it is a statement of a party opponent.
No, because it is privileged under the Fifth Amendment.
No, because the statement was made after the fact.

Question 10 of 12

10. Question

David is on trial for burglarizing three homes the night of August 22. On August 23 he failed to show up to work and told his supervisor, Sam, that he was too sleepy to work because he was up all night. The prosecutor argues that David was sleepy because he was burglarizing homes the night before. David claims to have been up all night waiting for a phone call from his niece, Nancy. Nancy’s boyfriend, Bob, told David on the morning of August 22 that “Nancy plans to call you tonight on your home phone and really wants to speak with you. Don’t miss her call!”

Can David testify as to Bob’s statement to him to prove that he was home waiting for Nancy’s call?

No, because Bob’s statement was made out of court and David is testifying that the assertion in the statement was true.
No, because Bob’s statement is being introduced to bolster David’s defense.
Yes, because the statement is only being offered to prove that David was home waiting for Nancy’s call.
Yes, because the statement was made to David by a witness who personally heard the statement.

Question 11 of 12

11. Question

A taxi driven by Darren injures pedestrian Patty. Warren witnessed the accident as he was a passenger in the taxi. A few moments before the injury occurred, Warren allegedly told Darren to “Slow down before we get into an accident!”

Can Warren testify that Darren was driving too fast?

Yes, because Warren is testifying as to his experience.
Yes, because the accident would not have occurred but for the taxi speeding.
No, because Warren is testifying about an out of court event.
No, because Warren’s statement to Darren was an out of court statement.

Question 12 of 12

12. Question

A taxi driven by Darren injures pedestrian Patty. Warren witnessed the accident as he was a passenger in the taxi. A few moments before the injury occurred, Warren allegedly told Darren to “Slow down before we get into an accident!”

Can Warren testify as to what he told Darren?

Yes because it is non-hearsay as Warren is testifying to his own statement made out of court.
Yes because it is non-hearsay as there is no statement of fact in the out of court statement.
No because it is hearsay and no exception applies.
Yes as a present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.

Hearsay Quiz

Hearsay Quiz

Quiz Summary

Information

Results

Results

Categories

1. Question

2. Question

3. Question

4. Question

5. Question

6. Question

7. Question

8. Question

9. Question

10. Question

11. Question

12. Question