Dave, a waiter at Bill's Caf (Cafe) is on trial by jury for the crime of arson, defined by statute as setting a building afire either intentionally or with gross and reckless disregard for human life.

1. The prosecution's first witness was Sam, a cook at Caf, who testified, over objection, that just prior to the time Caf burst into flames, Bart, another waiter, ran into the kitchen shouting that Dave was spilling gasoline all over the lobby, and that someone should call the police because what Dave was doing would kill them all. Bart cannot be located by either party.

2. Ellen, assistant manager of Grill Restaurant (Grill), was called as a witness by the prosecution and testified, over objection, that Dave had been a busboy at Grill before he become employed at Care, and that she had fired him after she found Dave showing other employees how to construct a gasoline bomb.

3. After the prosecution rested, Dave took the witness stand and testified that he had been ordered to clean the lobby doors and ornamental brasswork at Caf, and that he was using gasoline as a cleaning solution in that work when a patron entered and flipped a lit cigarette butt on the lobby floor, igniting the gasoline. On cross-examination, over objection, the prosecution elicited the fact from Dave that, two years earlier, he had been expelled from college for cheating on a final exam.

4. The defense next called Dr. Hix, a chemist who testified, over objection, that based on his pretrial review of standard scientific treatises, as well as his own experimentation, it was his expert opinion that although use of gasoline as a cleaning fluid cannot be recommended, its use for that purpose in normal circumstances is reasonably safe, if the gasoline vapor is kept from contact with hot filaments or burning objects.

5. In rebuttal, the prosecution, over objection, asked the judge to take judicial notice that gasoline vapor is so combustible that use of gasoline as a cleaning fluid in space occupied by other persons constituted gross and reckless disregard for human life, as a matter of law. The court stated that it took such notice.

Assuming that all objections were properly made, should the evidence objected to in items 1 through 5 have been admitted? Discuss.