Evidence (Foundational) Question Pack - Questions and Answers

1. At trial, a witness was shown a photo from the crime scene and asked, “What do you see?” The witness paused and said, “I don’t remember.” The attorney then handed her a copy of her pretrial statement. She read it silently, nodded, and answered the question.

What evidentiary rule permits this procedure?

  1. Use of a leading question on direct examination.
  2. Refreshing recollection with a prior recorded statement.
  3. Admission of hearsay under the recorded recollection exception.
  4. Impeachment using a prior inconsistent statement.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: If a witness cannot recall details, counsel may refresh her memory with a document. The writing itself is not admitted, unless conditions for recorded recollection are met.

Why the other options are incorrect
A doesn’t apply, no leading questions were used.
C requires the witness to still be unable to recall after reviewing.
D applies only when contradicting current testimony.

2. At a personal injury trial, a pedestrian testified that “drivers like the defendant always speed on that street.”

The defense objected. How should the court rule?

  1. Sustain the objection; it’s speculative.
  2. Overrule; the statement describes habit.
  3. Sustain; this is inadmissible character evidence.
  4. Overrule; the statement is admissible opinion testimony.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Testimony describing general behavior of “drivers like the defendant” is character evidence offered to show propensity, which is generally inadmissible in civil cases.

Why the other options are incorrect
A is too vague, may not be speculative.
B misclassifies generalizations as habit.
D lay opinion must be based on personal knowledge.

3. During trial, an expert economist testified about future earnings using data and formulas published in industry journals. On cross, the defense objected, claiming hearsay.

Is the testimony admissible?

  1. Yes, because experts may rely on inadmissible hearsay if it's reasonably relied upon in their field.
  2. No, because learned treatises must be introduced by opposing counsel.
  3. Yes, under the business records exception.
  4. No, because the journals were not authenticated.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: Experts may base opinions on materials not independently admissible, as long as they’re reasonably relied upon in the relevant field.

Why the other options are incorrect
B misstates the rule, either party may use treatises.
C applies to organizational records, not published studies.
D authentication is required to admit the treatise, not for the expert’s reliance.

4. In a criminal case, the defendant’s spouse was called to testify about conversations they had in private. The spouse refused, claiming privilege.

Which privilege applies?

  1. Spousal immunity.
  2. Confidential marital communications.
  3. Attorney-client privilege.
  4. Work product privilege.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Confidential marital communications privilege protects private spousal conversations made during the marriage. It survives divorce.

Why the other options are incorrect
A protects spouses from being compelled to testify but ends with marriage.
C doesn’t apply, no lawyer involved.
D is a civil litigation doctrine.

5. A police officer testifies that a dispatcher told him, “A red truck just fled the scene.” The red truck’s driver is on trial.

Is this statement admissible?

  1. No, because it’s hearsay and not covered by an exception.
  2. Yes, as an excited utterance.
  3. Yes, as a present sense impression.
  4. No, because it violates the confrontation clause.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: A dispatcher describing events as they unfold qualifies as a present sense impression, a recognized hearsay exception.

Why the other options are incorrect
A is incorrect, exception applies.
B may apply but requires stress, no facts indicate excitement.
D applies to testimonial hearsay, which this likely isn’t.

6. An eyewitness is cross-examined and admits he received $500 from the prosecutor’s office after testifying.

Which type of impeachment is this?

  1. Bias or interest.
  2. Prior conviction.
  3. Character for truthfulness.
  4. Contradiction.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: Evidence of payments or incentives may show bias, affecting credibility. Bias is always a proper impeachment method.

Why the other options are incorrect
B is inapplicable, no conviction discussed.
C relates to honesty traits, not motivation.
D requires factual contradiction.

7. A doctor testifies that a patient said, “My back hurts and I can’t sleep.” The statement is offered to prove the patient's condition.

Is it admissible?

  1. No, because it's hearsay.
  2. Yes, under the present sense impression exception.
  3. Yes, as a statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment.
  4. Yes, as a statement of physical condition.

Correct Answer: D

Explanation: Statements describing present physical sensations are admissible under the “state of physical condition” hearsay exception.

Why the other options are incorrect
A misstates the exceptions.
B applies to real-time observations, not feelings.
C typically includes statements made to facilitate diagnosis, which may not be proven here.

8. An attorney seeks to admit a written contract. The opposing party objects, claiming the writing is not the original.

Which rule governs admissibility?

  1. Best evidence rule.
  2. Parol evidence rule.
  3. Authentication rule.
  4. Business records exception.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: When the contents of a writing are at issue, the best evidence rule requires the original or a duplicate unless exceptions apply.

Why the other options are incorrect
B bars inconsistent oral terms, not governs admissibility.
C concerns proving the document is what it claims to be.
D applies only to qualifying business records.

9. At trial, a witness’s credibility is attacked. The attorney calls another witness to testify that the first is "always honest and truthful."

How should the court rule?

  1. Allow the testimony only if the witness’s truthfulness was attacked.
  2. Exclude, because bolstering is never allowed.
  3. Allow under character evidence rules.
  4. Exclude unless the declarant is unavailable.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: Rehabilitation through character for truthfulness is allowed only after credibility is attacked, such as through bias or prior conduct.

Why the other options are incorrect
B is too broad, rehabilitation is allowed under limits.
C is correct only after credibility is challenged.
D doesn’t apply, no hearsay involved.

10. A plaintiff’s medical expert testifies using hospital records. On cross, the defense challenges the records’ accuracy.

What is the proper standard for admitting the records?

  1. They must be created by the treating physician.
  2. They must be created during litigation.
  3. They must be kept in the regular course of business and made at or near the time of events.
  4. They must be shown to be 100% accurate.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Business records are admissible if they’re regularly kept and made contemporaneously by someone with knowledge.

Why the other options are incorrect
A is unnecessary, other personnel may generate valid records.
B actually excludes the record.
D is unrealistic and not required.

11. At trial, a witness testified, “I heard the victim scream, ‘He’s stabbing me!’ just before collapsing.”

Which hearsay exception is most appropriate?

  1. Present sense impression.
  2. Excited utterance.
  3. Statement against interest.
  4. Prior consistent statement.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: A startling event that prompts an immediate declaration qualifies as an excited utterance, admissible under that exception.

Why the other options are incorrect
A applies to contemporaneous observations, not reactions to trauma.
C must be against the speaker’s interest and is typically used when declarant is unavailable.
D applies only to witness rehabilitation.

12. At a contract dispute trial, a witness testifies that a coworker said, “I signed the agreement, and I regret it.”

Which rule governs admissibility?

  1. Statement for medical treatment.
  2. Statement of mental or emotional condition.
  3. Business record exception.
  4. Statement against interest.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Statements reflecting current emotional state may be admissible to show mindset . Here regret indicates a relevant mental condition.

Why the other options are incorrect
A applies only to statements made for diagnosis or treatment.
C concerns routinely kept records, not casual remarks.
D requires the declarant to be unavailable and the statement to expose the speaker to liability.

13. During a civil fraud case, a party offers into evidence an authenticated audio recording of a prior deposition taken in a related proceeding.

Is the recording admissible?

  1. Yes, under the former testimony exception to hearsay.
  2. No, because depositions are inadmissible in subsequent trials.
  3. Yes, because the recording is self-authenticating.
  4. No, because the speaker was not present to testify.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: Prior testimony is admissible if given under oath in a proceeding where the party had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it.

Why the other options are incorrect
B misstates hearsay law.
C is irrelevant, authentication is separate from hearsay.
D applies to confrontation issues, not generally relevant in civil cases.

14. A plaintiff claims she slipped on a wet floor. The defense offers evidence that she previously sued another store for a similar injury.

What is the best basis to exclude the evidence?

  1. Improper impeachment.
  2. Violation of attorney-client privilege.
  3. Character evidence rule.
  4. Irrelevant and prejudicial.

Correct Answer: D

Explanation: Prior claims may be minimally probative but highly prejudicial, risking confusion or unfair assumptions, exclusion under Rule 403 is proper.

Why the other options are incorrect
A applies if credibility is being challenged.
B isn’t implicated.
C is correct for general trait evidence but less specific here.

15. In a breach of contract case, an accountant was called to testify about business projections based on a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is offered into evidence.

What is required under the best evidence rule?

  1. The accountant must testify from personal knowledge.
  2. The spreadsheet must be the original or a duplicate.
  3. The projections must be in the accountant’s handwriting.
  4. The spreadsheet must be publicly available.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: When a writing’s contents are at issue, the best evidence rule requires the original or reliable duplicate unless exceptions apply.

Why the other options are incorrect
A is about witness competency, not document admissibility.
C is not required unless authenticity is disputed.
D is irrelevant to evidentiary standards.

16. At trial, a defendant seeks to admit his spouse’s testimony that she saw someone else commit the crime. The prosecution objects.

Which rule applies?

  1. Spousal immunity prevents her from testifying.
  2. Marital communications privilege prevents her from testifying.
  3. She may testify because the privilege doesn’t apply to observations.
  4. The testimony is barred due to hearsay.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Observations made by a spouse are not protected by marital communication privilege and may be admitted if relevant.

Why the other options are incorrect
A applies only to compelled testimony in criminal trials.
B protects confidential communications, not observations.
D misclassifies firsthand knowledge as hearsay.

17. A forensic technician testifies about lab results based on work done by another technician. The original analyst is unavailable.

What hearsay rule applies?

  1. Business records exception.
  2. Past recollection recorded.
  3. Hearsay within hearsay,  inadmissible.
  4. Public records exception.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: Lab records created as part of routine business may qualify under the business records exception, provided foundation is laid.

Why the other options are incorrect
B applies only if witness has personal memory.
C may apply but exceptions make evidence admissible.
D applies to government records, but business records is more apt here.

18. At trial, a lay witness testifies that “the driver looked drunk to me, she was slurring her words.” 

Is the testimony admissible?

  1. No, because lay opinions are never permitted.
  2. Yes, because it’s based on rational perception.
  3. No, because it’s a legal conclusion.
  4. Yes, only if confirmed by breathalyzer results.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Lay opinion is allowed if based on firsthand knowledge and helpful to understanding evidence or determining a fact.

Why the other options are incorrect
A ignores Rule 701.
C may apply if the statement were “the driver was guilty.”
D is unnecessary for admission.

19. An investigator testifies in a trial about a statement made by a bystander who witnessed the event. The bystander is unavailable.

Which hearsay exception is most likely to apply?

  1. Present sense impression.
  2. Prior inconsistent statement.
  3. Statement against interest.
  4. Residual exception.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: A bystander’s immediate description of events while they occur is admissible under the present sense impression exception.

Why the other options are incorrect
B requires that the declarant testifies.
C applies only if statement harms the speaker’s interest.
D is a last resort used sparingly.

20. A defendant’s prior conviction for fraud is introduced during trial. The conviction occurred five years ago.

Under Rule 609, is the evidence admissible?

  1. Yes, because fraud is a crime of dishonesty.
  2. No, because it is over one year old.
  3. Yes, if the court finds the probative value outweighs prejudice.
  4. No, because the defendant did not testify.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: Crimes involving dishonesty or false statements are automatically admissible for impeachment, regardless of sentence length.

Why the other options are incorrect
B misstates Rule 609.
C applies to other felonies not involving dishonesty.
D is incorrect, Rule 609 applies only when the witness testifies.

21. At trial, a witness testifies, “I saw the defendant at the scene.” On cross-examination, the witness admits he was intoxicated at the time and didn’t have his glasses.

What is the purpose of this impeachment?

  1. To challenge the witness’s character for truthfulness.
  2. To show bias against the defendant.
  3. To attack the witness’s ability to perceive events.
  4. To contradict the witness with prior statements.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Impeachment may be based on a witness’s ability to observe, remember, or relate accurately, intoxication and poor eyesight affect perception.

Why the other options are incorrect
A concerns honesty, not observation.
B relates to motivation, not faculties.
D requires prior inconsistent statements.

22. In a negligence case, a defendant offers evidence that the plaintiff had sued three other businesses for similar injuries in the past.

What’s the likely ruling?

  1. Admit, to show plaintiff’s propensity to sue.
  2. Exclude, as irrelevant character evidence.
  3. Exclude, under Rule 403 balancing.
  4. Admit, as impeachment by prior inconsistent conduct.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Multiple prior lawsuits may have minimal probative value but carry high risk of prejudice and confusion, exclusion is proper under Rule 403.

Why the other options are incorrect
A misstates the use of prior claims.
B is imprecise, not strictly character evidence.
D prior conduct isn’t inconsistent unless shown clearly.

23. At trial, an attorney asks a witness, “You’ve been fired twice for lying to your employer, haven’t you?”

What evidentiary rule governs this question?

  1. Prior bad acts offered to show propensity.
  2. Impeachment by specific instances of conduct reflecting truthfulness.
  3. Hearsay exception for statements of party-opponents.
  4. Character evidence admissible on direct examination.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: On cross, specific instances may be used to impeach truthfulness, though extrinsic evidence is not permitted.

Why the other options are incorrect
A bars propensity use.
C misclassifies, not an opponent's statement.
D restricts character testimony on direct to reputation or opinion.

24. A trial court took judicial notice that July 4 is a federal holiday.

What effect does judicial notice have in a criminal case?

  1. It conclusively establishes the fact.
  2. It shifts the burden of persuasion.
  3. The jury may accept or reject the fact.
  4. It applies only in civil cases.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: In criminal trials, judicially noticed facts must be accepted by the court but may be disregarded by the jury.

Why the other options are incorrect
A applies to civil cases.
B is incorrect, burden doesn’t shift.
D judicial notice applies in all proceedings.

25. During direct examination, a lawyer asked a nervous witness, “You saw the defendant fleeing, didn’t you?”

Was the question appropriate?

  1. Yes, if the witness previously gave a consistent statement.
  2. No, leading questions are generally not allowed on direct.
  3. Yes, because witnesses must be guided when hostile.
  4. No, because it violates the hearsay rule.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Leading questions on direct are generally prohibited unless the witness is hostile or requires help due to incapacity.

Why the other options are incorrect
A consistency doesn’t affect form.
C applies if declared hostile, not shown here.
D misstates rule, question isn’t hearsay.

26. In a sexual assault trial, the defense sought to introduce evidence that the victim had previously engaged in consensual relations with the defendant.

What governs admissibility?

  1. Exclusion under the rape shield rule.
  2. Admission as character evidence.
  3. Relevance as motive evidence.
  4. Admission under prior consistent statements.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: Rape shield laws exclude evidence of a victim’s past sexual behavior, subject to narrow exceptions not triggered here.

Why the other options are incorrect
B barred, sexual conduct isn’t character evidence.
C doesn’t overcome the exclusion rule.
D irrelevant, victim wasn’t testifying.

27. A physician testified, “The patient told me she was experiencing chest pain.”

Is the statement admissible?

  1. No, because it’s hearsay.
  2. Yes, as a statement made for medical diagnosis.
  3. No, because the patient didn’t testify.
  4. Yes, under present sense impression.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Statements made to obtain medical care describing symptoms are admissible for diagnosis and treatment.

Why the other options are incorrect
A ignores the exception.
C presence of the declarant isn’t required.
D present sense impression isn’t applicable.

28. At trial, the prosecution introduces a properly authenticated duplicate of a lost original contract.

 The defense objects. How should the court rule?

  1. Exclude unless the original is produced.
  2. Admit, if the duplicate is accurate and no bad faith is shown.
  3. Exclude under the completeness rule.
  4. Admit only if both parties agree.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Duplicates are admissible unless there’s genuine question about authenticity or unfairness in substitution.

Why the other options are incorrect
A misstates best evidence doctrine.
C applies to incomplete segments, not duplicates.
D agreement isn’t required.

29. A witness testified, “The defendant’s friend told me the defendant confessed.”

How should the court rule?

  1. Exclude, because it’s hearsay within hearsay.
  2. Admit, if both statements fall within exceptions.
  3. Exclude under the confrontation clause.
  4. Admit, as a party-opponent statement.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Double hearsay is admissible only if each layer falls within an exception — here, friend’s statement and defendant’s admission must both qualify.

Why the other options are incorrect
A is incomplete ,may be admissible.
C applies only in criminal cases with testimonial statements.
D applies to the inner statement, not both.

30. During cross-examination, the defense asked a witness about a prior shoplifting conviction from eight years ago.

The prosecution objected. How should the court rule?

  1. Admit, because it relates to dishonesty.
  2. Exclude, due to age of the conviction.
  3. Admit, only if the witness denies it.
  4. Exclude, unless used to show bias.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: Crimes involving dishonesty, like shoplifting, are admissible under Rule 609 if within 10 years and subject to fairness balancing.

Why the other options are incorrect
B age doesn’t bar admission unless past 10 years.
C denial affects method, not admissibility.
D bias is a separate impeachment theory.

31. An expert witness testified about the chemical composition of a product using a widely accepted formula. On cross, the opposing attorney challenged the formula’s scientific reliability.

What rule governs admissibility of this expert testimony?

  1. Rule 403 balancing test.
  2. Hearsay exceptions for scientific data.
  3. Rule 702’s reliability and relevancy standards.
  4. Rule 801(d)(2) party-opponent statements.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that expert testimony be based on reliable principles and methods and relevant to the facts in dispute.

Why the other options are incorrect
A addresses general admissibility, not expert reliability.
B relates to admissibility of sources, not the expert’s own opinion.
D applies to admissions, not expert analysis.

32. An injured party offers hospital records showing vital signs and treatment decisions made during emergency care. The records were made as part of normal procedures.

What exception allows admission?

  1. Business records.
  2. Statements for medical diagnosis and treatment.
  3. Public records.
  4. Past recollection recorded.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: Hospital records created in the ordinary course of business, documenting services provided, are admissible under the business records exception.

Why the other options are incorrect
B applies to statements made by the patient to medical staff.
C applies to government records.
D applies when a witness cannot recall and the record was adopted.

33. A defendant in a fraud trial wishes to call a psychologist to testify about the mental state required to appreciate the wrongfulness of the charged conduct.

What must be established for admissibility?

  1. The expert must have personally observed the defendant during the crime.
  2. The expert must rely only on statements made in court.
  3. The expert must be qualified and testimony must assist the trier of fact.
  4. The expert must have specialized legal training.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Under Rule 702, experts must be qualified and their testimony must be helpful to the jury, based on sufficient facts and reliable principles.

Why the other options are incorrect
A is not required, experts may rely on external data.
B is overly restrictive and not required by the rules.
D legal training is irrelevant for psychological expertise.

34. An attorney offers a photocopy of a receipt to prove payment. The opposing party claims the original is available and was deliberately withheld.

 What should the court consider?

  1. Whether the original would be more persuasive to the jury.
  2. Whether the copy was made in good faith.
  3. Whether there is a genuine question about the original’s authenticity.
  4. Whether the receipt includes handwriting or signatures.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Under the best evidence rule, duplicates are admissible unless there's a genuine dispute over the authenticity of the original or other circumstances make it unfair to admit the copy.

Why the other options are incorrect
A is not the standard for excluding duplicates.
B matters if bad faith affects fairness, but not determinative alone.
D may affect authentication, but not admissibility under best evidence.

35. A party offers testimony that an unavailable declarant once said, “Only a fool would sign that lease.” The statement is offered to show the declarant's state of mind.

Is it admissible?

  1. No, because it is hearsay without an applicable exception.
  2. Yes, under the exception for statements against interest.
  3. Yes, under the state-of-mind exception.
  4. No, because the declarant is unavailable.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Statements expressing present mental condition or attitude may be admissible to show the declarant’s mindset, such as reluctance or skepticism.

Why the other options are incorrect
A ignores the relevant exception.
B applies only if the statement is against penal or financial interest.
D unavailability may trigger exceptions, not a bar by itself.

36. A prosecutor attempts to impeach a witness by offering evidence that the witness was previously convicted of a felony not involving dishonesty.

When is this admissible?

  1. Always, regardless of prejudice.
  2. Only if the witness denies the conviction.
  3. Only if the court finds probative value outweighs unfair prejudice.
  4. Never, unless the witness testifies falsely.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Under Rule 609(a)(1), non-dishonest felony convictions may be used to impeach if the court finds the probative value outweighs prejudice.

Why the other options are incorrect
A disregards required balancing.
B affects impeachment method, not admissibility.
D imposes too strict a condition.

37. During trial, an eyewitness cannot recall a key detail. She previously signed a detailed written statement recorded shortly after the incident.

What is the appropriate evidentiary route?

  1. Refresh the witness’s memory and resume testimony.
  2. Offer the writing as an excited utterance.
  3. Admit the statement under past recollection recorded.
  4. Exclude the writing due to hearsay.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: If the witness cannot recall and the statement was made when the matter was fresh, accurately recorded, and adopted, it may be read into evidence as past recollection recorded.

Why the other options are incorrect
A applies only if memory can be refreshed.
B does not fit , this is a calm written account.
D ignores the specific exception.

38. A defendant claims attorney-client privilege to prevent disclosure of an email between him and his accountant discussing investment strategy.

Should the privilege apply?

  1. Yes, because communications with any professional are protected.
  2. No, because the accountant is not acting as a lawyer.
  3. Yes, if the email involves confidential business strategy.
  4. No, unless the accountant also prepared the defendant’s tax returns.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Attorney-client privilege protects communications made for legal advice. Communications with non-lawyers, even about financial strategy, are not covered.

Why the other options are incorrect
A overextends privilege.
C business strategy is not privileged.
D tax preparation is a service, not legal counsel.

39. A judge offers to exclude a witness from the courtroom until she is called to testify, over party objection.

What rule allows this?

  1. Rule 403.
  2. Rule 615 — exclusion of witnesses.
  3. Rule 702 — expert control.
  4. Rule 104 — preliminary questions.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Rule 615 permits courts to exclude witnesses to prevent tailoring of testimony. It’s generally granted upon request.

Why the other options are incorrect
A governs prejudicial content.
C applies to experts, not attendance.
D governs admissibility hearings.

40. In a federal trial, a party asks the court to take judicial notice that the sun rose at 6:07 a.m. on a given date in that jurisdiction.

How should the court respond?

  1. Deny the request, the fact is subject to reasonable dispute.
  2. Grant judicial notice if the fact is not central to the case.
  3. Grant judicial notice, the fact is capable of accurate determination.
  4. Deny unless both parties agree.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Judicial notice may be taken of facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute and can be verified by reliable sources, such as sunrise times.

Why the other options are incorrect
A mischaracterizes the fact.
B centrality is irrelevant to judicial notice.
D agreement isn’t required.

41. An expert in metallurgy was called to testify about the strength of a bridge component. The expert then testified that the contractor was “negligent and acted irresponsibly.”

Is this testimony admissible?

  1. Yes, because experts may testify to any ultimate issue.
  2. No, because experts cannot opine on legal conclusions.
  3. Yes, if the expert has personal knowledge.
  4. No, unless the defendant calls the expert.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Experts may address ultimate issues, but cannot offer legal conclusions such as whether a party was “negligent”,  that’s for the jury.

Why the other options are incorrect
A overstates Rule 704; legal conclusions are excluded.
C personal knowledge doesn’t override exclusion of legal conclusions.
D admissibility doesn’t depend on which party calls the expert.

42. In a trial for arson, the defendant offered testimony that he has a peaceful nature and avoids conflict.

Should the evidence be admitted?

  1. No, because peacefulness is not pertinent to arson.
  2. Yes, as general character evidence.
  3. Yes, because character is always admissible if offered by a defendant.
  4. No, because it constitutes hearsay.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: In criminal cases, defendants may offer character evidence only if it is pertinent to the charges. Peacefulness is unrelated to arson, which doesn’t involve aggression.

Why the other options are incorrect
B misstates relevance requirement.
C contradicts FRE 404 — only pertinent traits are admissible.
D misclassifies — reputation or opinion testimony is not hearsay.

43. A witness testifies, “I remember writing the memo about the meeting, but I don’t recall the contents.” The memo is shown, and the witness confirms she wrote it but still cannot recall details.

What is the proper evidentiary path?

  1. Refresh her recollection and continue questioning.
  2. Admit the memo under the business records exception.
  3. Read the memo into the record under past recollection recorded.
  4. Exclude the memo as hearsay.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: If a witness made a record when the matter was fresh and now cannot recall, it may be read into evidence under Rule 803(5).

Why the other options are incorrect
A only works if memory can be refreshed, not here.
B requires proper foundation for business records, not given.
D overlooks a valid hearsay exception.

44. At trial, a prosecutor introduces a police report detailing the events of the crime. The officer who created it is available to testify.

Is the report admissible?

  1. No, because criminal police reports are barred under the public records exception.
  2. Yes, if authenticated and the officer is available.
  3. No, because of the business records rule.
  4. Yes, if offered by the defense.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: In criminal cases, public records like police reports prepared for litigation are generally inadmissible against the defendant due to the hearsay rule.

Why the other options are incorrect
B availability doesn’t cure hearsay inadmissibility.
C misidentifies applicable exception.
D defense may use the report, but prosecution is limited.

45. A witness is impeached using a prior inconsistent statement. The attorney wants to admit the prior statement as substantive evidence.

 When is this permitted?

  1. Only if the witness admits the statement.
  2. Only if the statement was made under oath during a formal proceeding.
  3. Always, as impeachment overrides hearsay rules.
  4. Only if the statement was recorded and signed.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Prior inconsistent statements may be used substantively only if made under oath at a trial, hearing, or deposition under Rule 801(d)(1)(A).

Why the other options are incorrect
A isn’t required for admission.
C impeachment use doesn’t allow substantive use automatically.
D signing isn’t a requirement under this exception.

46. During settlement negotiations, a party stated, “Let’s not drag this out — I may owe something.”

Is this statement admissible?

  1. Yes, as an admission by a party-opponent.
  2. No, because it occurred during compromise talks.
  3. Yes, because it expresses present intent.
  4. No, unless the party testifies at trial.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Statements made during settlement discussions are generally inadmissible to prove liability under Rule 408.

Why the other options are incorrect
A doesn’t override the compromise exclusion.
C relevance doesn’t cure exclusionary rule.
D presence doesn’t alter the rule’s application.

47. An eyewitness said, “He ran toward the alley and dropped something,” moments after the crime.

Which hearsay exception applies?

  1. Excited utterance.
  2. Statement against interest.
  3. Present sense impression.
  4. Former testimony.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Descriptions made during or immediately after an event are admissible as present sense impressions under Rule 803(1).

Why the other options are incorrect
A requires emotional excitement, not shown.
B applies only if declarant had something to lose.
D applies to prior proceedings with opportunity for cross.

48. A defense attorney seeks to admit evidence that a prosecution witness has a reputation for dishonesty.

What method of proving character is being used?

  1. Specific acts.
  2. Opinion testimony.
  3. Reputation testimony.
  4. Prior convictions.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: Character for truthfulness may be shown by reputation or opinion under Rule 608(a), but not by specific acts unless on cross.

Why the other options are incorrect
A not allowed on direct for credibility.
B is another valid method but here, it’s reputation.
D relates to Rule 609, no conviction shown. 

49. An officer testifies that he recognized a suspect in surveillance footage. On cross, defense asks whether he previously misidentified another person in a case.

Is this line of questioning proper?

  1. Yes, to impeach ability to perceive or recall.
  2. No, because character evidence must come through conviction.
  3. Yes, because it introduces prior inconsistent statements.
  4. No, unless the officer denies it.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation: Impeachment based on perception errors is allowed to challenge accuracy, prior misidentifications are fair game.

Why the other options are incorrect
B misstates the basis, this isn’t character.
C prior statements aren’t described.
D denial affects method, not propriety.

50. In a personal injury case, the plaintiff offers evidence that the defendant regularly failed to maintain property and often ignored safety rules.

 Is this admissible?

  1. Yes, to show negligence based on propensity.
  2. No, because prior acts are inadmissible character evidence.
  3. Yes, to show intent under Rule 404(b).
  4. No, because evidence must be limited to the incident at issue.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation: Evidence of prior negligent acts to show that the defendant acted similarly now constitutes inadmissible propensity evidence.

Why the other options are incorrect
A misstates the rule, negligence can’t be proved by character.
C intent isn’t relevant in negligence claims.
D too restrictive, relevance isn’t always limited to the incident.