NEW
Font size
WorksheetsAdvanced Evidence Application
Total questions: 65
Worksheet time: 33mins
During a civil trial in Miami, a party asks the court to accept that Miami is located in Florida without presenting evidence.
Deny—facts must always be proven through testimony
Grant—this is a fact subject to judicial notice
Deny—geographic facts require expert testimony
Grant only if both parties stipulate
In a civil fraud trial, the defendant calls a former business associate to testify that the defendant was always truthful in financial dealings. On cross-examination, opposing counsel seeks to ask the witness whether, four years earlier, the witness was convicted of felony tax evasion and sentenced to 18 months in federal prison.
Defense counsel objects, arguing that the conviction is unfairly prejudicial and constitutes improper character evidence.
How should the court rule?
Sustain the objection, because evidence of prior crimes may not be used to attack a witness’s credibility unless the witness is a criminal defendant.
Sustain the objection, because evidence of specific bad acts is inadmissible to prove a witness’s character for truthfulness.
Overrule the objection, because a witness’s prior felony conviction involving dishonesty may be admitted to attack the witness’s credibility, subject to the court’s balancing of probative value and unfair prejudice.
Overrule the objection, because the defendant opened the door to all prior misconduct by presenting testimony about honesty.
Defendant introduces evidence of peacefulness in assault case.
Prosecution may not respond
Prosecution may rebut with reputation/opinion
Prosecution may introduce all prior crimes
Surveillance video offered without authentication.
Best evidence
Lack of predicate
Hearsay
Relevance
Witness testifies: “The defendant intended fraud.”
Proper opinion
Expert testimony
Speculation
Ultimate issue
Immediately after a car accident, a witness yelled, "Oh my G*d! The driver of the green car just ran over that pedestrian!" What exception applies?
Present sense impression
Excited utterance
Statement against interest
None
In a negligence lawsuit, a pedestrian claims that a delivery driver ran a red light and caused an accident. At trial, the driver’s employer offers testimony from a supervisor who states that the driver always stops completely at red lights during daily deliveries and has done so the same way for years, regardless of whether anyone is watching.
Is this testimony admissible, and why?
No, because it is improper character evidence used to show the driver acted in conformity with a character trait.
No, because it is an opinion that should only be given by an expert witness.
Yes, because it shows the driver’s habit of responding in a specific, repeated way to a particular situation.
Yes, but only if there was an eyewitness to confirm the driver stopped at the red light.
In a criminal trial for burglary, the defendant is charged with breaking into a neighbor’s house at night. The prosecutor wants to introduce evidence that the defendant has large, threatening tattoos and wears dark clothing, arguing that this makes the defendant “look like the kind of person who would commit a burglary.”
How should the judge rule?
Admit the evidence because it helps show the defendant’s character.
Admit the evidence because it makes the defendant more identifiable to the jury.
Exclude the evidence because its unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.
Exclude the evidence because all appearance-related evidence is automatically inadmissible.
In a civil lawsuit over a car accident, the plaintiff testifies that before the case went to court, the defendant said,
“I’ll pay you $10,000 if you drop the lawsuit. I know I caused the accident.”
The plaintiff offers this statement at trial to prove that the defendant was at fault for the accident.
How should the judge rule?
Admit the statement because it is a direct admission of liability by the defendant.
B. Admit the statement because settlement discussions are always relevant to prove fault.
Exclude the statement only if the defendant actually paid the $10,000.
Exclude the statement because it was made during compromise negotiations and is being used to prove liability.
Defense wants to admit a document that contains hearsay within hearsay. Which of the following is true:
Only one hearsay exception needs to exist to allow it to be used
No hearsay exceptions can be used to admit the documents
Each layer of hearsay must have an exception to hearsay in order for the documents to be used.
The document is automatically excluded
In a robbery trial, a witness testifies that while standing near a convenience store, she heard her friend say on the phone,
“That guy in the red hoodie is running out of the store with a bag right now!” The statement was made while the event was happening and is offered to prove that the man in the red hoodie committed the robbery.
How should the judge rule?
Exclude the statement because it is hearsay and no exception applies.
Admit the statement as a present sense impression because it describes an event as it is happening.
Admit the statement as an excited utterance because the speaker was startled.
Exclude the statement because the declarant was not under oath when the statement was made.
In a criminal trial for arson, the prosecutor wants to introduce evidence that five years earlier, the defendant was arrested for vandalizing abandoned buildings, even though that incident is not connected to the current fire. The prosecutor argues this shows the defendant is the kind of person who destroys property.
How should the judge rule?
Admit the evidence because it shows the defendant’s bad character.
Admit the evidence because all prior crimes are relevant in criminal trials.
Exclude the evidence because it is improper prior bad acts evidence used to show action in conformity with character.
Admit the evidence only if the defendant testifies.
In a civil lawsuit over a slip-and-fall at a grocery store, the store offers a maintenance log showing that the floor was inspected every 30 minutes. The log was written immediately after each inspection, kept as part of the store’s regular business operations, and making such logs is a routine practice of the store. A records manager testifies that this is how the store normally keeps its records, and there is no evidence the log is inaccurate or untrustworthy.
How should the judge rule?
Exclude the record because it is hearsay with no applicable exception.
Admit the record because it was created close in time, kept in the regular course of business, and shown to be trustworthy.
Exclude the record unless the employee who personally wrote it testifies.
Admit the record only if the opposing party agrees it is accurate.
In a criminal trial, the prosecutor asks a defense attorney to testify about a private conversation in which the defendant admitted committing the crime while asking for legal advice. The conversation took place after charges were filed, and no third parties were present.
How should the judge rule?
Require the attorney to testify because the statement is highly relevant.
Require the attorney to testify because admissions by a defendant are never privileged.
Exclude the testimony only if the defendant testifies first.
Exclude the testimony because the communication is protected by attorney–client privilege.
In a civil fraud trial, a witness testifies that the defendant was completely honest in all business dealings. On cross-examination, the opposing attorney seeks to introduce evidence that the witness was convicted two years ago of felony fraud, a crime involving dishonesty.
How should the judge rule?
Exclude the evidence because past crimes are always inadmissible character evidence.
Exclude the evidence because the conviction is unrelated to the facts of the case.
Admit the evidence to impeach the witness’s credibility based on a criminal conviction involving dishonesty.
Admit the evidence only if the witness is the defendant.
In a civil negligence action arising from a multi-vehicle traffic accident, the plaintiff seeks to introduce testimony from a coworker of the defendant stating, “The defendant is known around the office as a reckless and irresponsible driver.” The plaintiff offers the testimony to prove that the defendant was driving negligently at the time of the accident.
Defense counsel objects.
How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because reputation testimony is an acceptable method of proving negligence.
Overrule the objection, because evidence of a person’s general character is relevant whenever conduct is disputed.
Sustain the objection, because evidence of a person’s character is generally inadmissible to prove that the person acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion.
Sustain the objection, because opinion testimony about a person’s driving requires expert qualification.
A defendant is on trial in court for aggravated assault. During the defense case, the defendant calls a longtime neighbor to testify that the defendant has a reputation in the community for being peaceful and nonviolent. The court admits the testimony.
On cross-examination, the prosecution seeks to introduce testimony from a different witness that the defendant has a reputation for being aggressive and short-tempered.
Defense counsel objects.
How should the court rule?
Sustain the objection, because once character evidence is admitted, the prosecution may rebut only with evidence of specific prior violent acts.
Sustain the objection, because character evidence may be introduced only by the defendant and may not be challenged by the prosecution.
Overrule the objection, because the prosecution is entitled to introduce any evidence bearing on the defendant’s character once the defendant testifies.
Overrule the objection, because once the defendant introduces evidence of a pertinent character trait, the prosecution may rebut that evidence using reputation or opinion testimony.
In a criminal trial for embezzlement, the defendant does not testify. During the defense case, the defendant calls a former supervisor who testifies, “In my opinion, the defendant is an honest person.” The court admits the testimony.
On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks the supervisor, “Isn’t it true that two years ago the defendant falsified expense reports at another company?”
Defense counsel objects.
How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because once a character witness gives an opinion, the prosecution may introduce evidence of specific acts to disprove the defendant’s character.
Overrule the objection, because when character evidence is admitted, the prosecution may inquire into relevant specific instances of conduct on cross-examination to test the character witness’s credibility.
Sustain the objection, because evidence of specific bad acts is never admissible to rebut character evidence.
Sustain the objection, because character evidence may be offered only through reputation testimony, not opinion testimony.
In a products-liability action, the plaintiff seeks to introduce a surveillance video that allegedly shows the defendant’s machine malfunctioning. The plaintiff offers the video during trial through a witness who testifies only that she received the video by email the day after the incident. The witness cannot identify who recorded the video, when it was recorded, or whether it accurately depicts the machine at the time of the accident.
Defense counsel objects to the admission of the video.
How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because videos are self-authenticating and do not require foundational testimony.
Overrule the objection, because any deficiencies in how the video was obtained go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
Sustain the objection, because the proponent failed to establish that the video is what it purports to be before it may be admitted.
Sustain the objection, because the contents of the video constitute hearsay and no exception applies.
In a homicide trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce a sworn statement given to police by a witness shortly after the crime. Before trial, the witness is subpoenaed and appears in court but refuses to answer any substantive questions, repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment despite being ordered by the judge to testify.
The prosecution argues that the statement should be admitted under a hearsay exception requiring unavailability. Defense counsel objects.
How should the court rule?
Sustain the objection, because a witness who is physically present in court cannot be considered unavailable for hearsay purposes.
Sustain the objection, because a declarant is unavailable only if the declarant is deceased or cannot be located despite reasonable efforts.
Overrule the objection, because a declarant who refuses to testify despite a court order is considered unavailable, permitting the use of certain hearsay exceptions that require unavailability.
Overrule the objection, because sworn statements given to law enforcement are categorically admissible once the declarant invokes a privilege.
In an arson prosecution, a neighbor testifies that she was standing on her porch when she saw the defendant run from the building moments before flames became visible. The prosecutor then asks the witness, “Based on what you observed, why did the defendant set the fire?”
Defense counsel objects.
How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because the witness may explain her conclusions so long as they are based on firsthand observation.
Overrule the objection, because jurors may benefit from a lay witness’s opinion regarding motive.
Sustain the objection, because the question calls for speculation beyond the witness’s personal knowledge.
Sustain the objection, because the witness is offering an opinion on the ultimate issue reserved for the jury.
In a criminal trial for securities fraud, the government calls a forensic accountant as an expert witness. After testifying about the defendant’s accounting practices and deviations from standard procedures, the prosecutor asks, “Based on your analysis, did the defendant intend to defraud investors?”
Defense counsel objects.
How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because experts may testify to ultimate issues so long as they are properly qualified.
Sustain the objection, because an expert may not offer an opinion about a defendant’s mental state that constitutes an element of a criminal offense.
Overrule the objection, because the question seeks an explanation of accounting practices rather than a legal conclusion.
Sustain the objection, because testimony regarding intent is inadmissible unless the defendant testifies first.
In a civil action for breach of contract, the plaintiff seeks to introduce an internal invoice generated by the defendant’s accounting department showing charges billed to the plaintiff. The invoice was created automatically by the defendant’s accounting software at the time the charges were entered and was kept as part of the company’s regular accounting system.
At trial, the plaintiff offers the invoice through the defendant’s former accounts-receivable manager, who testifies that generating and storing invoices in this manner was a regular practice of the business. The manager did not personally enter the data reflected on the invoice.
Defense counsel objects on hearsay grounds.
How should the court rule?
Sustain the objection, because the witness did not personally create the invoice and therefore lacks firsthand knowledge of the information recorded.
Sustain the objection, because computer-generated records are inadmissible unless the software developer testifies.
Overrule the objection, because the invoice qualifies as a recorded recollection of the witness and may be read into evidence.
Overrule the objection, because a record made at or near the time of the event and kept in the ordinary course of business may be admitted through a qualified witness, even if the witness did not personally make the record.
In a prosecution for armed robbery, a store clerk testifies that approximately two minutes after the robber fled, she ran outside, visibly shaking and crying, and shouted to a passerby, “He just pointed a gun at me and took the money!” The passerby immediately called the police and later testifies to the clerk’s statement at trial.
Defense counsel objects on hearsay grounds.
How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because a statement relating to a startling event made while the declarant was still under the stress of that event is admissible despite being hearsay.
Sustain the objection, because the statement was made after the robbery had ended and therefore cannot qualify as a contemporaneous description of the event.
Sustain the objection, because the clerk’s statement was a narrative description of a past event rather than a spontaneous reaction.
Overrule the objection, because the statement was offered to explain why the passerby contacted the police rather than for its truth.
In a civil action arising from a traffic collision, a bystander did not testify at trial. Another witness testifies that while standing next to the bystander and watching the collision unfold, the bystander said, “That blue truck is speeding through the intersection right now.” The statement was made as the truck entered the intersection, moments before the collision occurred.
Defense counsel objects on hearsay grounds.
How should the court rule?
Sustain the objection, because the bystander’s statement describes a past event and lacks the spontaneity required for admission.
Overrule the objection, because a statement describing or explaining an event made while the declarant was perceiving the event, or immediately thereafter, is admissible despite being hearsay.
Overrule the objection, because the bystander was under the stress of a startling event at the time the statement was made.
Sustain the objection, because the statement was not made to law enforcement and therefore lacks sufficient reliability.
In a criminal prosecution for assault, the defendant admits striking the victim but claims self-defense. The prosecution seeks to introduce photographs of the victim taken at the hospital that depict extensive bruising and blood. The defendant does not dispute the severity of the injuries and stipulates that the victim was seriously injured as a result of the altercation.
Defense counsel objects to the admission of the photographs.
How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because evidence showing the extent of the victim’s injuries is relevant to whether the defendant acted unlawfully.
Overrule the objection, because photographs are the best evidence of physical injury and may not be excluded when offered by the prosecution.
Sustain the objection, because although the photographs are relevant, their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Sustain the objection, because evidence of injury is irrelevant once the defendant concedes the use of force.
In a civil action for breach of contract, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to deliver goods as promised. Prior to trial, the parties engaged in settlement discussions. During those discussions, the defendant stated, “I don’t think I breached the contract, but I’ll pay you $50,000 to end this matter.”
At trial, the plaintiff seeks to introduce the defendant’s statement to prove that the defendant believed it was liable under the contract.
Defense counsel objects.
How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because the defendant’s statement is an admission by a party opponent.
Overrule the objection, because statements made during settlement negotiations are admissible when they include factual assertions.
Sustain the objection, because statements made during compromise negotiations are not admissible to prove liability or the amount of a disputed claim.
Sustain the objection, because offers to settle are inadmissible only in criminal cases.
In a products-liability action, the plaintiff seeks to prove that a machine was negligently operated on the day of an accident. A coworker testifies, “The operator is careless and frequently ignores safety rules.” The plaintiff argues that this shows the operator likely acted negligently on the day in question.
Defense counsel objects.
How should the court rule?
Sustain the objection, because the testimony describes character rather than a specific, routine response to a particular situation.
Overrule the objection, because evidence of a person’s general behavior is admissible to prove conduct on a specific occasion.
Overrule the objection, because testimony about repeated conduct qualifies as habit evidence.
Sustain the objection, because evidence of conduct on prior occasions is admissible only through expert testimony.
In a civil negligence trial, the plaintiff offers an internal accident report prepared by a supervisor. The report includes a statement from another employee stating, “The manager said the machine was defective.”
Defense counsel objects on hearsay grounds.
How should the court rule?
Exclude the report, because each layer of hearsay must independently satisfy a hearsay exception.
Admit the report, because business records are categorically admissible.
Admit the report, because statements contained in business records are not hearsay.
Exclude the report, because statements made by employees are never admissible against an employer.
After a factory accident, the defendant manufacturer redesigned its machine and added new safety guards. At trial, the plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of these changes to show that the original design was negligent.
Defense counsel objects.
How should the court rule?
Admit the evidence, because safety improvements are relevant to whether the product was defective.
Admit the evidence, because post-accident conduct is admissible to show feasibility.
Exclude the evidence, because subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to prove negligence.
Exclude the evidence, because the probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice in all cases.
In a civil trial, a coworker testifies, “Based on what I saw, I think the defendant knew the machine would explode.”
Defense counsel objects.
How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because lay witnesses may testify to conclusions based on personal observation.
Sustain the objection, because the testimony improperly speculates about the defendant’s mental state without specialized expertise.
Overrule the objection, because opinions about intent are helpful to the jury.
Sustain the objection, because opinions on ultimate issues are never admissible.
In a criminal trial for driving under the influence, a police officer testifies that she personally observed the defendant stumbling, slurring his words, and smelling strongly of alcohol. The officer then states,
“Based on what I saw, the defendant appeared drunk.”
How should the judge rule?
Admit the statement because it is a common-sense opinion based on the officer’s own observations.
Admit the statement only if the officer is qualified as a scientific expert.
Exclude the statement because it addresses an ultimate issue in the case.
Exclude the statement because only expert witnesses may give opinions in court.
In a criminal trial, a forensic analyst testifies as an expert about the cause of a fire. The analyst explains that her opinion is based on fire reports prepared by other investigators, laboratory test results, and photographs from the scene, even though some of those reports are not themselves admitted into evidence. The opposing counsel objections to the testimony. How should the judge rule?
Exclude the testimony because an expert may rely only on evidence that has been admitted at trial.
Admit the testimony because experts may base opinions on facts or data reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.
Exclude the testimony because relying on other investigators’ reports is hearsay.
Admit the testimony only if the jury is shown every report the expert relied on.
In a criminal trial, a witness testifies that she saw the defendant at the scene of the crime. On cross-examination, the defense attorney introduces a prior sworn statement the witness made at a preliminary hearing in which she said, “I did not see the defendant that night.” The witness is testifying at trial and subject to cross-examination, and the prior statement was made under oath.
How should the judge rule?
Exclude the statement because it is hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Exclude the statement because prior statements are never admissible.
Admit the statement because it is a prior inconsistent statement made under oath and is not hearsay.
Admit the statement only to show the witness’s bad character for truthfulness.
In a breach of contract lawsuit, a witness testifies,
“The written contract said the delivery deadline was June 1.”
The opposing party objects and asks the court to require the actual written contract instead of the witness’s description of it.
How should the judge rule?
Overrule the objection because witnesses may summarize documents from memory.
Overrule the objection because testimony is always better than written evidence.
Sustain the objection because the contents of a written document must be proved by the original document when available.
Sustain the objection only if the witness admits they never read the contract.
Which of the following qualifies as a “statement” under the Rules of Evidence?
A witness blinking involuntarily during testimony
A person nodding their head intentionally to answer a question
A person’s facial expression showing confusion
A reflexive flinch after a loud noise
Who is the declarant in the following situation?
A witness testifies:
“My coworker told me the light was green.”
Who is the declarant?
The witness testifying in court
The judge
The coworker who said the light was green
The jury
Which of the following is hearsay?
A witness testifying to what they personally saw
A statement offered to show its effect on the listener
A statement made out of court and offered to prove the truth of what it asserts
A question asked during cross-examination
A witness testified at a prior deposition under oath that the light was red. At trial, the witness testifies the light was green. The prior statement is offered for its truth.
Is the prior statement hearsay?
Yes, because it was made out of court
Yes, because it contradicts the witness’s testimony
No, because it was made under oath and the witness is subject to cross-examination
No, because all prior statements are admissible
A witness is accused of recently fabricating their testimony. The opposing party offers a prior consistent statement made before the alleged motive to lie arose.
How should the court rule?
Exclude it as hearsay
Admit it as a statement that is not hearsay
Admit it as character evidence
Exclude it unless the witness is unavailable
A witness testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination. The witness previously identified the defendant in a photo lineup shortly after the crime.
Is the prior identification hearsay?
No, because prior identifications are not hearsay
Yes, because it occurred out of court
Yes, because it is opinion evidence
No, but only if the defendant testifies
The prosecution offers the defendant’s own out-of-court statement against the defendant.
Is this hearsay?
Yes, because it was made outside the courtroom
Yes, unless the defendant testifies
No, because a party’s own statement is not hearsay
No, only if it was made under oath
A suspect remains silent while a friend says, “You committed the robbery,” and the suspect nods in agreement.
The prosecution offers this evidence against the suspect.
Is the statement hearsay?
Yes, because silence is not evidence
Yes, because the suspect did not speak
No, because the suspect adopted the statement
No, because it was made by a friend
A company spokesperson makes a statement about a product defect. The statement is offered against the company.
Is the statement hearsay?
Yes, because the spokesperson is not the defendant
Yes, because it was made outside court
No, only if the spokesperson testifies
No, because it was made by an authorized representative
A witness testifies that while watching a car accident, the declarant said,
“That blue car is running the red light right now.”
The statement was made while the accident was occurring.
How should the court rule?
Admit it as a present sense impression
Exclude it as hearsay because the declarant is not testifying
Exclude it because it describes an event
Admit it only if the declarant is unavailable
Moments after hearing gunshots, a visibly shaken declarant shouted,
“Someone just fired a gun in the hallway!”
The declarant was crying and trembling when the statement was made.
How should the court rule?
Exclude it as hearsay because it was made out of court
Admit it as a present sense impression
Admit it as an excited utterance
Exclude it because the declarant is unavailable
A hospital record documenting a patient’s diagnosis is offered into evidence. The record was created as part of the hospital’s normal record-keeping system.
Which hearsay exception is most applicable?
Statement of family history
None of these exceptions are applicable
Statement against interest
Business records exception
A mechanic records a vehicle inspection immediately after completing it. The mechanic personally performed the inspection.
Which requirement of the business records exception does this satisfy?
Regular practice
Custodian testimony
Made at or near the time by someone with knowledge
Trustworthiness
A company keeps maintenance logs for every vehicle it owns as part of its daily operations.
Which requirement does this fact establish?
The record was made by someone with knowledge
The record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity
The record is trustworthy
The declarant is unavailable
A store manager testifies that employees always complete an incident report after any customer injury.
Which element of the business records exception is satisfied?
Custodian testimony
Trustworthiness
Regular practice of making the record
resent sense impression
A witness invokes the attorney-client privilege, and the court sustains the objection, preventing testimony about the conversation.
For hearsay purposes, is the witness considered unavailable?
Yes, because a privilege exempts the witness from testifying
No, because the witness is physically present
No, unless the witness refuses to testify entirely
Yes, only in criminal cases
A witness refuses to testify even after the judge orders them to answer questions.
Is the witness unavailable under Rule 804?
No, because the witness is present in court
Yes, because refusal continues despite a court order
No, unless the witness invokes a privilege
Yes, but only if the witness is held in contempt
A witness takes the stand and testifies, “I honestly do not remember what happened that day.”
For hearsay purposes, is the witness unavailable?
No, because the witness testified
No, because memory loss is not unavailability
Yes, only if the witness is lying
Yes, because the witness cannot recall the subject matter
A declarant cannot testify because they have died before trial.
Is the declarant unavailable under Rule 804?
No, because death is not listed
Yes, because death makes testimony impossible
No, unless the declarant previously testified
Yes, only in criminal cases
Believing death was imminent, a declarant said, “He stabbed me,” and later died. The statement is offered in a homicide prosecution.
Is the statement admissible?
No, because it is hearsay
No, unless the declarant testified previously
Yes, as a dying declaration
Yes, but only in civil cases
A declarant told a friend, “I forged the documents,” exposing themselves to criminal liability. The declarant is unavailable.
Why may this statement be admissible?
Because it is a confession
Because it was against the declarant’s interest
Because it was made to a friend
Because all unavailable declarants’ statements are admissible
In a burglary trial, the prosecution offers testimony that the defendant is “a dishonest person who steals frequently” to show the defendant committed the charged burglary.
How should the court rule?
Admit the evidence because it shows motive
Admit the evidence because it is relevant
Exclude the evidence as improper character evidence
Admit the evidence only if the defendant testifies
A criminal defendant offers testimony that they are a peaceful and non-violent person in an assault case.
If the court admits this evidence, what may the prosecutor do?
Nothing—the prosecutor is barred from responding
Offer evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts
Offer evidence of the victim’s character only
Offer evidence to rebut the defendant’s character trait
A defendant introduces evidence that the alleged victim has a violent character to support a self-defense claim.
What is the prosecutor permitted to do?
Offer evidence of the defendant’s violent character only
Offer evidence to rebut the victim’s alleged violent character
Offer prior convictions of the victim
Offer no response because the victim is not on trial
A defendant introduces evidence that the alleged victim is violent. The defendant does not introduce evidence about their own character.
Which additional evidence may the prosecutor offer?
Evidence of the defendant’s violent character
Evidence of the victim’s criminal record
Evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts
Evidence of the defendant’s peaceful character
In a homicide case, the defendant claims the victim was the first aggressor. The defendant does not offer character evidence about the victim.
What may the prosecutor do?
Nothing, because the defendant did not open the door
Offer evidence of the victim’s peaceful character
Offer evidence of the defendant’s violent character
Offer evidence of the victim’s prior convictions
In a robbery trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant committed three prior robberies to argue that the defendant committed the charged robbery because “that’s the kind of person he is.”
How should the court rule?
Admit the evidence because prior robberies show a pattern
Admit the evidence because it is relevant
Exclude the evidence as improper character evidence
Admit the evidence if the defendant testifies
In an arson case, the prosecution offers evidence that the defendant previously set fire to a building using the same rare accelerant and ignition method. The prosecution offers the evidence to prove identity, not character.
How should the court rule?
Exclude the evidence because prior crimes are always inadmissible
Admit the evidence because it is offered for a permitted purpose
Exclude the evidence because it suggests bad character
Admit the evidence only if the defendant has a criminal record
In a criminal trial, the defendant introduces evidence of their peaceful character. The defense calls a character witness who testifies, “In my opinion, the defendant is a peaceful person.”
Which of the following is the best ruling regarding how the prosecutor may respond on cross-examination?
The prosecutor may not question the witness about specific acts
The prosecutor may ask about relevant specific instances of conduct
The prosecutor may introduce extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts
The prosecutor may only rebut with reputation testimony
In a defamation case, the defendant claims truth as a defense, arguing the plaintiff actually has the bad character trait alleged. The defendant seeks to introduce evidence of specific acts proving that trait.
How should the court rule?
Exclude the evidence because specific acts are never admissible
Exclude the evidence unless the witness testifies to reputation
Admit the evidence because character is an essential element of the claim
Admit the evidence only for impeachment
