Dave and Vic got in a fight at a bar. During the fight, Dave hit Vic over the head with a beer bottle, killing Vic.
Dave and Vic got in a fight at a bar. During the fight, Dave hit Vic over the head with a beer bottle, killing Vic. Dave was charged with homicide for Vic’s death. Dave asserted that he struck Vic in self-defense because Vic came at Dave with a knife and was, therefore, the first aggressor. At trial in a California Superior Court, Dave offered, over the People’s objection, Wally’s testimony that he personally witnessed Vic attacking individuals without provocation on three separate occasions. Dave was not aware, prior to his fight with Vic, of the specific instances of Vic’s violent conduct to which Wally would testify.
How should the court rule on the prosecution’s objection?
Group of answer choices
The court should overrule the objection because specific instance evidence of the victim’s character in a criminal action is admissible under the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision of Proposition 8.
The court should overrule the objection because specific instance evidence of the victim’s character in a criminal action is admissible under California’s Victim’s Exception.
The court should sustain the objection because specific instance evidence of the victim’s character in a criminal action is inadmissible under California’s Victim’s Exception.
The court should sustain the objection because Dave was not aware, at the time of the fight with Vic, of the prior instances of Vic’s violent character.
2. Dave and Vic got in a fight at a bar. During the fight, Dave hit Vic over the head with a beer bottle, killing Vic. Dave was charged with homicide in the death of Vic. Dave asserted that he struck Vic in self-defense because Vic came at Dave with a knife and was, therefore, the first aggressor. At trial in a California Superior Court, Dave offered, over the People’s objection, Wally’s testimony that he personally witnessed Vic attacking individuals without provocation on three separate occasions. Dave was not aware, prior to his fight with Vic, of the specific instances of Vic’s violent conduct to which Wally would testify. The trial court overruled the prosecution’s objection to Wally’s testimony. In its case-in-rebuttal, the prosecution offered, over the defense’s objection, the testimony of Wilma that she personally witnessed Dave punching individuals without provocation on four separate occasions.
How should the court rule on the defense’s objection?
Group of answer choices
The court should sustain the objection because specific instance evidence of the defendant’s violent character in a criminal action is inadmissible to prove the defendant acted in conformity with the character trait under California’s Defendant’s Exception or “Mercy Rule.”
The court should overrule the objection because specific instance evidence of defendant’s violent character to prove defendant acted in conformity with the character trait is admissible in a homicide case under Proposition 8.
The court should sustain the objection because specific instance evidence of character to prove conduct in conformity with the character trait is inadmissible.
The court should overrule the objection because, in a criminal action, after the defendant offers evidence of the victim’s character to prove conduct of the victim in conformity with the character trait, the prosecution can offer evidence of specific instances of defendant’s character for violence to prove the defendant acted in conformity with the character trait.
3. Plaintiff was injured in an automobile collision with the defendant. Plaintiff sued the defendant for damages. The defendant denied negligence and that the plaintiff’s injuries were severe. At trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence a color photograph of himself made from a videotape taken by a television news crew at the collision scene. The plaintiff has demonstrated that the videotape has since been routinely reused by the television station and that the footage showing the plaintiff was erased. The photograph shows the plaintiff moments after the collision, with his bloodied head protruding at a grotesque angle through his car’s broken windshield.
Should the photograph be admitted over the defendant’s objection?
Group of answer choices
Yes, because a photograph that establishes a disputed fact cannot be excluded as prejudicial.
Yes, because it tends to prove a controverted fact.
No, because the plaintiff has failed to establish that a duplicate could not be found.
No, because the plaintiff has failed to produce the original videotape or a duplicate.
4. A defendant is being prosecuted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. At trial, the government seeks to have its agent testify to a conversation that he overheard between the defendant and a co-conspirator regarding the incoming shipment of a large quantity of cocaine. That conversation was also audiotaped, though critical portions are inaudible. The defendant objects to the agent’s testimony on the ground that it is not the best evidence of the conversation.
Is the testimony admissible?
Group of answer choices
Yes, because the audiotape is partly inaudible.
No, because the agent’s testimony reports hearsay not within any exception.
Yes, because the best evidence rule does not require proof of the conversation through the audiotape.
No, because the agent’s testimony is not the best evidence of the conversation.
5. Don is charged with homicide. At trial in a California Superior Court, Will testified for Don that Don did not murder the victim. On cross-examination of Will, the prosecution asked Will whether he had possessed heroin for sale, which Will denied. Over the defense’s objection, the prosecution called to the stand a witness to testify that Will has, in fact, possessed heroin for sale.
How should the court rule on defense counsel’s objection?
Group of answer choices
Objection sustained, because Will’s possession of heroin for sale is not probative of Will’s truthfulness or veracity.
Objection sustained, because prior bad act evidence is only admissible to impeach a witness’s credibility on cross-examination of that witness.
Objection overruled.
Objection sustained, because prior bad act evidence is never admissible to impeach a witness’s credibility.
6. A defendant was charged with murder. While walking down the hallway during a recess in the defendant’s trial, the judge overheard the defendant say to his attorney, “So what if I did it? There’s not enough proof to convict.” Upon the judge’s reporting the incident to counsel, the prosecutor called the judge as a witness in the trial.
Is the judge’s testimony regarding the defendant’s statement admissible?
Group of answer choices
No, because a judge may never testify in a trial over which he or she is presiding.
No, because the statement was made to his attorney.
Yes, because the defendant’s statement was made without reasonable efforts to preserve confidentiality.
Yes, because the defendant deserves to be convicted.
7. A statute provides that the owner of a motor vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligence of any person driving with said owner’s permission. In an action for personal injuries brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, the plaintiff alleges that she was injured as a result of the negligent driving of a woman operating the defendant’s car with the defendant’s permission at the time of the accident. The defendant denies she owns the vehicle in question. Over the defense attorney’s objection, the plaintiff offers into evidence an insurance policy issued by an insurance company. The policy is authenticated by an officer of the company’s testimony, who states that the policy was purchased by and issued to the defendant, and that on the day of the accident, the policy was in force on the vehicle in question.
The policy and authenticating testimony should be:
Group of answer choices
Admitted, since it is relevant to the defendant’s ability to pay a judgment rendered against her.
Excluded, because policy prohibits the introduction of evidence that a party did or did not have liability insurance on the day of an accident.
Excluded, because it has no probative value relative to the issues in the case.
Admitted, since it tends to establish that the defendant was the vehicle’s owner at the time of the accident.
8. A church’s steeple had recently fallen into the road. A biker sued a local church for damages he suffered when he crashed his motorcycle in an attempt to avoid part of the church’s steeple. At trial, the biker sought to ask a crash witness whether she is a member of the church.
Is that question proper?
Group of answer choices
Yes, for the purpose of ascertaining bias.
No, because evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs is not admissible to impeach credibility.
Yes, for the purpose of showing capacity to appreciate the nature and obligation of an oath.
No, because it is not relevant to any fact at issue.
9. A defendant was on trial for murdering his wife. The defendant was called to testify on his own behalf concerning his wife’s death. On cross-examination, he was asked, “Isn’t it true you were convicted of perjury?” The defendant had in fact been convicted of perjury eight years ago.
How should the trial judge rule on this question?
Group of answer choices
It is proper, because once the accused testifies on his own behalf, he waives his right to assert the privilege against self-incrimination.
It is improper, because cross-examination is limited to matters testified to on direct examination.
It is improper, because the question’s purpose is to elicit highly prejudicial evidence.
It is proper, because on cross-examination, an attorney may inquire into matters bearing upon a witness’s credibility.
10. A plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of a commercial contract. The plaintiff called an expert witness to testify as to damages. To attack the expert’s credibility, the defendant wants to show that the expert witness provided false testimony in his own divorce proceedings. The expert witness was not convicted for this act.
Should this evidence be admitted?
Group of answer choices
Yes, but only if the false testimony is established by clear and convincing extrinsic evidence.
No, because it is improper character evidence.
No, because the expert witness was not convicted.
Yes, but only if it is elicited from the expert witness on cross-examination.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
