1.In an action for negligence plaintiff sued the defendant when plaintiff was hit by a car driven by the defendant while plaintiff was in a crosswalk. A witness for the defendant was called to testify that the defendant enjoyed a reputation for being a safe and prudent driver based on his personal knowledge of the def. driving habits.

How should the trial judge rule on the witness testimony?

a. Admissible because reputation as a safe driver may be used to prove the defendant acted in conformity with that reputation at the time in question

b. Admissible because the witness first testified that he has personal knowledge of the def. driving habits

c. inadmissible because evidence of reputation as a safe prudent driver cannot be used to prove that the def. acted in conformity with that reputation at the time in question

d. inadmissible because in a civil case character evidence may only be used after...

2. An employer describes her employee as a "no good embezzler" The employee promptly filed a suit against the employer for defamation. During the presentation of the plaintiff's case, he sought to put a witness on the stand who is prepared to testify that the plaintiff once received a commendation for bravery while serving in the army.

- If the defendant's lawyer objects should the court rule that the testimony is admissible?

a. Yes because the plaintiff has a right to introduce evidence of his good character

b. Yes because the plaintiff's character has been brought into question by the statement

c. No because the witness's testimony is not probative of any material issue

d. No because specific instances of conduct are not admissible to prove character

3. A woman's house was spray painted with vile graffiti that used offensive language and referred to her by name. The victim believes her ex-boyfriend performed the act, but she did not actually see him do it.

- If the ex-boyfriend is arrested and put on trial for criminal harassment which of the following items of the victims proposed testimony is LEAST likely to be admitted?

a. the victim recently moved to a new house and only her ex-boyfriend and a few family members knew the location

b. the victim had testified against her ex-boyfriend's father in a criminal trial

c. on another occasion the victim had seen her ex-boyfriend spray graffiti

d. immediately after the incident the victim heard a voice she recognized as her ex-boyfriend's yell "if you don't start minding your own business, you'll get a lot worse next time"

4. The def. is being tried for murder. The def. denies any involvement in the crime. He calls a W to the stand who testifies that, in his opinion the defendant is a nonviolent and peaceable man.

-Which of the following if offered by the prosecution would most likely be admissible?

a. A neighbor's testimony that the witness has beaten his wife on several occasions

b. A police officer's testimony that the def. has a general reputation in the community as a violent person

c. a neighbor's testimony that the def. has a reputation for being untruthful

d. evidence that the def. has a conviction for aggravated battery

5. A mother was on trial for the murder of her child. During the course of the trial the prosecution sought to introduce evidence that 6 months before the child's deaththe mother had purchased a large insurance policy on the child's life and two weeks prior to the child's death she purchased two more large policies on the child's life from separate insurance carriers.

- If the defends objects to admission of such evidence should the objection be sustained?

a. yes bc such evidence would be more prejudicial then probative

b. yes bc evidence of insurance is inadmissible as a matter of public policy

c. No because the evidence tends to establish motive

d. No because the evidence tends to establish a criminal propensity.

6. The complainant was robbed by a man wielding an unusual organ gun. The def. was arrested and charged with armed robbery of the complainant. At trial the prosecution calls a W to testify that 3 days after the robbery of the complainant she was robbed by the def. with an orange gun.

Should the court rule that the W testimony is admissible?

a. Yes, as showing habit

b. Yes as establishing identifying circumstances

c. No because it is improper character evidence

d No because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice

7. A customer at a restaurant alleged that he received food poisoning at the restaurant and sued the restaurant. His lawsuit based on theories of respond eat superior and negligent hiring alleged that the chef who had been working at the restaurant for 9 months had negligently prepared the customers food. At trial the customer's counsel offers evidence that 6 months before the incident but 3 months after the chef was hired the restaurant instituted new hiring procedures for all potential employees including chef. Included in the new rules was a requirement that all persons must pass through a background check being hired. The chef had multiple incidents in previous years where he had caused food poisoning of his customers. Is this evidence of regarding new employment requirements admissible?

a. No because it is irrelevant

b. No because it is evidence of remedial measures

c. Yes because it is evidence of the restaurant's negligence

d. Yes because it is evidence the chef was incompetent

8.The defendant was on trial for burglary, defined in the jx. as breaking and entering the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a felony. The defendant's defense was that he was merely retrieving his own property because he had sold a gun to a customer, but the customer had refused to pay him for it or return it. A neighbor of the customer testified for the prosecution that he saw the def. carrying a gun from the customers home. The def. attempted to call to stand a witness who was in the def. guns store at the time of the sale to testify as to the transaction between the def. and the customer. The prosecution objects to the testimony claiming it is irrelevant.

The judge should rule that the witness testimony is:

a. Admissible because it is relevant in determining whether the def. had the intent required for burglary

b. Admissible bc it is relevant in establishing the neighbors credibility

c. Inadmissible as irrelevant bc it would tend to impeach the neighbors testimony on a collateral matter

d. Inadmissible as irrelevant bc the probative value of the witness testimony is outweighed by the prejudice

9. The defendant is on trial for assault with a deadly weapon. The sole prosecution witness is the victim who testifies as to his version of the events leading up to and including the charged assault. The defense first witness contradicts the victim's testimony that the defendant engaged in an unprovoked attack. The witness testifies that the victim pulled a knife on the defendant and that the defendant in defending himself wrestled the knife away and accidentally stabbed the victim. The defense's next and final witness intends to testify that the defendant's reputation in the community for honestly and veracity is very good. Aware of the intended testimony the prosecutor removes the in limine to exclude it.

-How should the court rule?

a. For the state because the def. may not introduce evidence of his character to prove that he acted in conformity therewith

b. For the state because the testimony as to the def. honestly and veracity is irrelevant

c. For the defendant because a criminal def. may put his character in issue

10. A defendant is being tried for the armed robbery of a victim. In its case in chief the prosecution seeks to offer evidence that the def. who was arrested one month after the crime had been caught with several grams of cocaine in his car.

This evidence is most likely be

a. Inadmissible, because the def. has not offered evidence of good character

b. Inadmissible bc it has limited probative value and is unduly prejudicial

c. Admissible because it tends to show what the def. did with the money he stole

d. Admissible because it tends to show that the def.is capable of committing serious crimes.

11. A defendant is charged with murder. On cross examination of the def. the prosecution asked her whether she had been convicted of tax fraud six months earlier. Is this question proper?

a. Yes, to show the def. has a bad character

b. Yes, to show the def. is inclined to lie

c. No, because the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice

d. No bc the conviction has insufficient similarity to the crime charged

12. In a civil lawsuit arising from a plane accident, the plaintiff's witness testified that the she observed the pilot drinking alcohol minutes before the flight. The def. then presented evidence impeaching the plaintiff's W. The plaintiff now wishes to call someone else to the stand to testify as to the W good reputation for truthfulness. After which of the following means of impeachment is the court most likely to permit this testimony?

a. the plaintiffs witness was convicted of the felony of aggravated battery five years ago

b. the plaintiff's W had a previous dispute with the pilot

c. the plaintiff's W was not wearing her prescription eyeglasses at the time of observation

d. the plaintiff's witness was his mother.

13. An eyewitness to a crime testifies for the defense and claims that the person who committed the crime was not the defendant. On cross examination by the prosecutor to which of the following questions would a defense objection must likely be sustained?

a. Weren't you convicted of perjury 11 years ago?

b. Weren't you under the influence of heroin at the time you were barbecuing those hamburgers?

c. Haven't you and the def. known each other since grammar school?

d. Didn't you embezzle funds from your most recent employer?

14. A def. was on trial for car theft, and he took the stand in his own defense. On direct examination the def. vigorously denied having committed the crime. Also on direct examination the def.stated that his last regular employment was as a tax preparation specialist. On cross examination the prosecutor asked the def. if he had committed tax fraud for his clients and the def. denied it. The prosecutor than wanted to call a police officer on the stand to testify that when she arrested the def. for tax fraud, the def. admitted the crime to the officer. Assuming that the def. has not yet been tried on tax fraud charges, may the prosecutor call the officer to the stand?

a. Yes, but only for the purposes of impeachment

b. Yes both for impeachment of the def. and as substantive evidence

c. No b the def. has not yet been convicted of tax fraud

d No, bc the evidence would be extrinsic

15. Plaintiff and his 2 children were injured in a car accident by the def. car. During the trial of her personal injury action, plaintiff testified that immediately after the accident the def. stated "if you or your children need medical assistance I'll pay for it. I don't want my negligence to result in a hardship for you" The def. counsel makes a motion to strike all of the plaintiffs testimony and the court does so. Was the court actions correct?

a. Yes bc the entire statement is irrelevant

b. Yes because the statement was made in connection with an offer to pay medical expenses

c. No bc the statement includes an opposing party's statement that he was negligent

d. No bc the statement is a factual admission made in connection with an offer to compromise

16. In a civil action relating to a tort which occurred 3 years ago, previously which of the following questions if asked of a witness for the plaintiff on cross examination by counsel or the def. would most probably be ruled improper for the trial court?

a. Didn't you use your employers computerized accounting system to divert company funds for your personal bank account?

b. As a creditor the plaintiff isn't it true that you stand to gain several thousand dollars if the plaintiff prevails in this lawsuit?

c. Isn't it true that you are currently resident of the city detoxication hospital recovering from an addiction to valium

d. Weren't you convicted of forgery six years ago?