1. Sherry was an eyewitness to a crime and testifies for the defense. She 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?

2 Dani the defendant is charged with murder. On cross examination of the defendant Dani 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 because the conviction has insufficient similarity to the crime charged

3. 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.

4 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