1. The judge dismissed the driving-under-the-influence case against the defendant in the case of State v. Smith because the judge did not believe that probable cause to arrest existed. The judge relied upon his own personal knowledge of the topography and the conditions of the land on the roadside where the arrest occurred to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact. The appellate court ruled that the trial judge:

a. should not have taken judicial notice of the topography and land conditions in this case because only scientific facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute may be the subject of judicial notice.

b. should not have taken judicial notice because neither party requested that the judge take judicial notice of facts outside the record.

c. should not have taken judicial notice of facts outside the record concerning the land and the condition of shoulder of the road because the condition of the land and the typography of where the arrest occurred were subject to some reasonable dispute.

d. properly took judicial notice concerning the condition of the land and road where the arrest occurred because the judge had personal knowledge of the area.

2. The difference between a presumption and an inference is that:

a. a presumption is an absolute requirement that the jury must follow in a criminal case and an inference allows a jury to ignore the conclusion that is normally drawn with respect to an inference.

b. a presumption has a mandatory effect in criminal cases and an inference has very little effect because its conclusion is so weak.

c. a presumption is the deduction of fact that a jury must draw if the first fact on which it is based is proved, but it is not required to make the deduction in a criminal case, whereas an inference has less strength and a jury has the ability to draw the deduction or to refuse to draw the deduction with respect to an inference in a criminal case.

d. A jury is required to follow an inference in a criminal case but it is has the discretion not to follow a presumption even if the preliminary fact has been proven.

3. Evidence is legally material and admissible:

a. if it relates to a fact in issue.

b. when it has been obtained in conformity with the constitutional requirements.

c. if it significantly affects a matter or issue in a case and satisfies other admissibility requirements.

d. even though it has only a slight bearing on the matter in issue.

4. According to the Federal Rules, evidence, although relevant, may be excluded from evidence for one or more of several reasons. Which one of the following does not apply?

a.

It concerns a motive for the crime.

b. The probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

c. Confusion of the issues is likely to result.

d. There is danger that the jury will be misled.

5. Where an objection to the admission of evidence has been made at a trial, the determination of logical relevancy, legal relevancy, and admissibility is the function of the:

a. witness

b. trial judge

c. jury considering the case

d. prosecutor and defense attorney