A man crashed into a woman's car. Shortly after the accident, a police officer arrived at the scene, and the woman told the officer that the man had run the red light and swerved into her car. The police officer wrote her statement in the "Accident Report Form," which he was required to complete after every accident. The woman sued for personal injuries sustained in the accident. On direct examination, her attorney calls her to testify as to her statement to the police officer. The woman's statement is:

A husband and wife are filing for divorce. At issue is the market value of the home that they own. During the divorce proceeding, the husband's lawyer calls a neighbor to testify that the market value of the home exceeds $100,000. She states that her testimony is based on an estimate contained in an appraisal report that she saw. The appraisal has been prepared at the husband's request by a well-known real estate company in the area. Upon objection by the wife's attorney, the neighbor's testimony will be held:

A customer purchased a mattress from a furniture store. The mattress had a defective spring that one of the manufacturer's workers had not properly tied down. When the customer slept on the mattress, she was wounded in the back by the sharp point of the spring. The customer sued the furniture store for negligence and breach of warranty. At trial, the customer testified that the salesman assured her that the furniture store inspected each mattress before delivery. Furthermore, the customer testified that she remembers the salesman telling her: "The furniture sore stands behind all of its mattresses with a lifetime guarantee." She is then asked if the salesman made any other representations about the mattress. The customer stated, "Yes, in fact the day before the mattress was delivered, I received a letter from him thanking me for my patronage at the furniture store. As I recall, he also made some assurances about the manufacturer's mattresses." The customer's atty then asked, "What assurances were made in teh letter?" The customer's answer is:

A doctr is charged wit the murder of his wife. The prosecution alleges that he murdered his wife by giving her a massive injection of succinylcholine while she was asleep. Succinylcholine is a drug used in small quantities by anesthesiologists as a muscle relaxant. The prosecution claims that the fatal dose given to the wife so totally relaxed her lung muscles tha tshe suffocated. During the trial, a toxicologist, who had no previous knowledge of the case, sat in court and heard all of the evidence about the wife's death and autopsy. As part of the doctor's defense, his atty calls the toxicologist to give his opinion on the cause of the wife's death. May the toxicologist testify to the wife's cause of death?

An arson investigator wishes to testify at trial to a statement in his report of the investigation of a suspicious fire at a dry cleaning plant. The report includes a statement by one of the custodians working at the plant that the custodian saw the owner deliver two 50-gallon drums of toxic lighter fluid to the plant on the day before the fire. The arson investigator was certified by the court as an expert W. Based on the custodian's statements and other facts, the expert wants to testify to his opinion that the fire was caused by arson. Can the arson investigator include the custodian's statements in his testimony as the basis for his opinion?

In order to establish the unavailability of a W at trial, the proponent must:

After the death of their mother, a property dispute arose as to the ownership of the family estate. Daughter claims that her mother deeded the family home to her a year before the mother died. The son claims that the property is rightfully his by a previously executed will. The issue in the case is the authenticity and content of the deed. The daughter begins to testify as to the content of the deed, but the son's atty objects. Is the daughter's oral testimony concerning the content of the deed admissible?

Clarence, an informant working for the FBI, arranged to sell a kilo of cocaine to Angelo who agreed to find individuals to distribute the drug. In a tape-recorded telephone conversation with Clarence, Angelo said that he had a "friend" to distribute the cocaine but the "friend" had some questions and wanted to speak to Clarence. In a subsequent telephone call which was also recorded, Clarence spoke to the "friend" about the quality of the cocaine and the price. Clarence and Angelo arranged the details of the purchase which would take place in a designated hotel parking lot. The "friend" would be waiting in the parking lot in his own car. When Clarence arrived at the hotel parking lot, Angelo proceeded to transfer the cocaine from Clarence's vehicle into the friend's car. Angelo received $20,000 in cash from the "friend" and gave it to Clarence. The FBI then moved in and arrested Angelo and the friend who was identified as Tony. At Tony's trial, the Government attempted to introduce Angelo's telephone statements regarding the participation of the friend in the drug transaction. Tony's lawyer objected and the court's ruling should be that the statements are:

own car.

A truck driver was buying gas at a gas station when a car entered the station. The truck driver observed the occupant of the car, who had only one arm, pay a large number of one hundred dollar bills to the attendant and pick up a brief case. When the brief case was open for inspection, the truck driver observed a large number of packets of white powder. The truck driver took the license number of the car and gave it to a police officer, to whom the truck driver also gave a description of the one-armed man as well as a complete account of what he had observed. Shortly thereafter, the officer traced the ownership of the car to a courier, a one-armed man, matching the truck driver's description. When the courier learned that the truck driver had reported the transaction at the gas station to the police, he called the truck driver and told him to leave town during his trial if the truck driver valued his life. The truck driver told the officer of his conversation with the courier and told him that he was not going to be in town during the courier's trial. At trial, the truck driver did not respond to a subpoena. At a voir dire on the admissibility of the truck driver's statements to the officer concerning the transaction at the police station, the officer related his conversation with the truck driver about the courier's threat and the truck driver's intention to leave town during the trial. The prosecution then asked the officer to relate what the truck driver told him about the transaction at the gas station. The judge should rule that testimony:

X is a customer at the Fish Market. He purchased an assortment of fresh fish at the market. Leaving the market, he slipped on a piece of fish while walking along the sidewalk in front of the market. He suffered leg and back injuries. X sued the Fish Market on a theory of negligence. The Fish Market denied any negligence and claimed the affirmative defense that X was contributorily negligent. At trial, the Fish Market calls Y to testify that before X fell he heard someone call out to X "Watch it! You're about to step on a piece of fish." Assuming Y can describe the person who made the statement but does not know the identity of the person, Y's testimony is:

P is suing D for injuries sustained when D's car hit P's motorcycle, throwing P to the ground. At the scene of the accident, a doctor approached P and said, "Sorry, son, but I don't think you're going to make it." P then said to the doctor, "D went through the stop sign and his me." P then lapsed into a coma and has not yet regained consciousness. If the doctor took the stand and was asked what P said to him, his answer would be:

X sues Y as a result of injuries to his right leg that he sustained in an automobile accident. X and Y were both driving their own cars and collide at an intersection in downtown Birmingham. On cross-examination of X's doctor, Y's atty asked the doctor whether or not X told him that his right leg had been permanently stif as a result of a prior motorcycle accident. If X's lawyer objects to this question, the trial judge should rule:

The D was indicted for mail fraud in the sale of a "miracle gas additive." the indictment alleged that the D claimed in advertising sent through the mail that the additive would increase automobile mileage by 15 miles per gallon when, in fact, it contained nothing but kerosene and had no effect on automobile mileage. The trial of the D for mail fraud was recorded by a court stenographer. At the trial, the state called an expert W (a state police chemist and automotive expert), to testify that the substance which the D was selling was kerosene and had no effect upon gasoline mileage. The chemist was cross-examined by the defense atty. In his own defense, the D testified that he did not know the product he was selling was kerosene and that he believed the claims of an

inventor, from whom he bought the product, who told him that it contained a secret polymer which would increase automobile mileage by 15 miles per gallon. The jury acquitted the D. 1 month after his acquittal, the D againsold "miracle gas additive" by means of the same advertising sent through the mail and was again indicted for mail fraud. The state introduced competent evidence through an expert other than the chemist that the product contained only dersene and had no effect upon gasoline mileage. The state then called the stenographer who was present during the chemist's testimony in the first trial, and asked him what the chemist had said on the W stand. Upon objection by the defense counsel, the court should rule the testimony:

X is on trial for the attempted murder of Y. X savagely beat Y with a baseball bat. Y's testimony recounted the incident but he did not testify about any statements he had made after the incident. The prosecution calls W to testify. W proposes to testify that when the beating stopped Y screamed, "I'm dying, X beat me to death with a baseball bat." W's proffered testimony is:

A man, named Jonah Lenin, immigrated to the state of Ohio from Russia in 1920 when he was about 18 years of age. The man lived a modest life, never married, and retired on social security. In July 1993, he bought a lottery ticket and won $1M. Unfortunately, the man did not get much of a chance to enjoy the money b/c he died intestate 1 month later. The local public administrator has filed a petition r administration, claiming that the man has no known heirs. The petition is being contested by a challenger, who claims to be the son of the man's sister. After the man's death, there was substantial newspaper publicity about the irony of the fortune which the man had won escheating to the state as a result of the petition filed by the public administrator. At a family gathering, , where the story of the man was discussed the challenger's father, who lives in Ohio, remarked to the challenger, "Your mother's older brother who left Russia in 1920 was named Jonah Lenin." The challenger's testimony concerning his father's statment is inadmissible:

Viewing the videotape of the individual that she recognized as her husband committing a bank robbery, Mrs. Parks uttered the words "Oh, my God, that looks like Johnny." At trial, Mrs. Parks statement is:

The D was on trial for possession of and intent to sell heroin. The D denied possession of heroin. The arrest grew out of an incident in a city park when a police officer approached the D and his friend. Suddenly, the D and his friend started to run, but they were soon apprehended. During the chase, though, the officer saw one of the two throw a small bag into the bushes. The officer searched and found the bag, which contained heroin. At the trial, the friend had been called to the stand, but claimed the privilege against self-incrimination in response to all questions. On cross-examination, the arresting officer was asked if the friend was closer to the bushes where the heroin was found than the D. He answered, "yes." The officer was then asked, "Didn't the friend admit to you that the heroin you found belonged to him?" Upon objection, the trial judge should rule th equesiton:

Tom offers the testimony of Larry concerning amy's recolleciton of a telephone conversation in order to prove contents of that conversation. Would Ruld 803)3) permit such testimony?

A is charged with the murder of B. At trial, A's atty offers the testimony of C, who is a man on death row. C testified that he hired D to shoot and kill B. this testimony is

At a probable cause hearing at which D was represented by counsel, W testified that he and D burglarized V's house. D was indicted for burglary, and W was called by the prosecution as a W at trial. W refused to answer the prosecutor's questions, claiming the privilege aginst self-incrimination. Thereafter, the prosecution offered a duly authenticated transcript of W's testimony at the probable cause hearing. The trial judge should:

X is charged with murder of Y. X relies upon a claim of self defense. At trial, X attempts to show that prior to the killing he was told by w that "Y has killed 5 men and would as soon kill a man as look at him." If W's statement is offered into evidence to prove that Y, in fact, killed the 5 men, the statement should be ruled:

In a lawsuit, the P has taken the deposition of a W. The D attended the deposition but did not cross-examine the W. the W died prior to trial. At trial, the P offers in evidence relevant portions of the W's deposition. The trial judge should rule the evidence:

A is charged with the stabbing death of B. At trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce the following statement of C who was a W to the stabbing: "Grab that knife. Don't let A stab him again." C is unavailable at trial, but C's statement is included in the police report of the first officer who responded to the incident and began the investigation of the potential crime. W did not see the stabbing but overheard C make the statement. A's defense is that he did not stab B. If the prosecution calls the police officer to testify as to C's statement and A's atty objects, the trial judge should rule the statement:

Under the present sense impression or excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule, does the proponent of the hearsay statement have to show that the declarant is unavailable before the statement is admissible?

Winter sued Hyland for $100K for injuries received in a traffic accident. Hyland charges Winter with contributory negligence and alleges that Winter failed to have his lights on at a time when it was dark enough to require them. Hyland calls Bystander to testify that Passenger, who was riding in Winter's automobile and who also was injured, confided to him at the scene of tehe accident that "we should have ahd our lights on." Bystander's testimony is:

Prosecution of D for robbery of an ice cream parlor. The robbery occurred at 10:30pm on a certain date. D's defense is that she was at home in bed at the time the crime was committed. Husband takes the stand to testify that at 9:00pm on the evening of the robbery, D, his wife, said to him, "Honey, I'm feeling really tired, so I think I'll go to sleep now." Husband also admitted that he fell asleep in front of the TV watching Sports Center. He slept on the couch and left for work the next morning without seeing his wife. The statement of the wife is:

Prosecutioni of D for murder. D claims that he stabbed the V in self-defense. Before the V's body was moved, Q, a police pathologist, visited the scene and examined the body. Shortly thereafter, Q made a report, in which he concluded that from the condition of the body, the V must have been knifed in the back. At D's trial the prosecution calls Q, who identified a document as his report. The prosecutor then moves the admission of the report into evidence. The report is:

Personal injury action by P against D arising out of the crash of P's bicycle and D's motorcycle at an intersection, P offers into evidence a police report written by X, a police officer who went to the scene less than a minute after the accident. The report contains the following statement: "I immediately interviewed Y, who was sobbing uncontrollably. She said she saw the accident and that D rana red light on his motorcycle and struck P who had the green light." The portion of this report containing this statement is:

T1 and T2, identical twins, were charged with the robbery of a convenience store and tried separately. At T1's trial, a customer in the store at the time of the robbery described the 2 robbers, identified T1 as a robber, and testified that the other robber looked just like T1.

T1's atty vigorously cross-examined the customer concerning her ability to identify the robbers. T1's lawyer proved that the customer ordinarily wore glasses which she was not wearing at the time of the robbery, and that the description which she gave to the police indicated that the robbers were taller than T1. T1 was convicted.

After the trial of T1, the customer moved to another state and left no forwarding address. At T2's trial, the prosecution intorduced evidence of its unsuccessful attempts to compel the attendance of the customer and then offered a duly certified transcript of the customer's complete testimony at T1's trial. T2's counsel objected. The trial judge should rule the transcript:

Personal injury action by P, who was struck by D's car while crossing a street. D admits that he struck P, but denied that he was negligent. P takes the stand and testifies that in the hospital 2 hours after the accident, P said to a nurse, "D ran right through that red light!" This evidence is:

In Polk's negligence action against Dell arising out of a multiple-car collision, Witt testified for Polk that Dell went through a red light. On cross examination, Dell seeks to question Will about her statement that the light was yellow, made in a depostion that Witt gave in a separate action against Adam and Baker. The transcript of the deposition is self-authenticating. On propert objeciton, the court should rule the inquiry:

X was seriously injured when he was shot several times outside a pool hall. X had been fooling around with Y's wife for several months, and Y hired Z to shoot X. Several weeks after the shooting, W overheard Y arguing with his wife wherein the wife told Y that "she wasn't scared of him b/c he had X shot." Y did not respond to the statement. U was charged with attempted murder. At trial, the prosecution wants to have W testify as to the statement made by Y's wife. Assuming the statement is one that a reasonable person would deny to if it were not true, the statement is:

D is charged with cocaine distributio, and he claims the defense of entrapment. therefore, the issue is whether the D was unfairly induced to commit a crime that he would not have committed otherwise "but for" the inducement. In other words, was the D predisposed to commit the offense of selling cocaine. The prosecution calls a narcotics officer in charge of the investigation to testify that numerous cocaine addicts told him that they buy their drugs from the D. This testimony is:

Police execute a search warrant at an apartment believed to be Taylor's residence. Inside the aprtment, the police find more marijuana. This time, the police charge Taylor with unlawful possession of marijuana. At trial, Taylor argues that he no longer lives at that address and hasn't lived there in more than a year. Taylor attempts to introduce a jury summons that was addressed to him at the apartment address but was returned undelivered with the following handwritten notations made by the madman on the outside of the envelope "Not at this address" and "Address unknown." The State objects to the jury summons, arguing that the handwritten notations are hearsay. The trial court should:

W picks out X in a live line-up as the perpetrator of the armed robbery. this identification took place at the police station one week after the robbery. At trial, W cannot identify X as the person who robbed her b/c her memory has faded. However, she testifies that she remembers going to boserve a live line-up at the police station one week after the incident and positively identifying someone in the line up. The prosecution calls police officer to testify as to who W identified in the live line-up. Police officer says that W pointed out X as the robber. Police officer's testimony is:

The D is accused of the rape of the V on Sept 15. The D's brother is presentlyin a diabetic coma. At the trial, the D takes the stand and denies that he was the rapist. He is then asked what was said in a conversation with his brother just prior to the time that his brother fell into the diabetic coma. Upon objeciton by the prosectuion, the D's lawyer tells the trial judge at a sidebar conference that the D would answer, "My brother told me that he was the person who raped the V on Sept 15, and that he was sorry that I am taking the heat for it." Should the trial judge permit the D to answer the question in testimony before the jury?