AZ Bar Evidence 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under FRE 803(2), an excited utterance is a statement relating to a startling event made:
- At any time after learning of the event
- While the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event (Correct answer)
- Only by a participant in the event
- In writing within 24 hours of the event
Correct answer: While the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event
The excited utterance exception under FRE 803(2) applies to statements made while the declarant was still under the stress or excitement of a startling event.
Question 2: Lay witness opinion testimony is admissible under FRE 701 if it is:
- Based on specialized knowledge acquired through training
- Rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful to understand testimony (Correct answer)
- Corroborated by an expert witness
- Limited to descriptions of physical appearance
Correct answer: Rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful to understand testimony
FRE 701 allows lay witnesses to give opinion testimony that is rationally based on personal perception and helpful to understanding their testimony or determining a fact.
Question 3: Under FRE 609, a witness's prior conviction is admissible for impeachment if it was a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, regardless of:
- Whether it resulted in imprisonment over one year (Correct answer)
- The age of the conviction within the 10-year limit
- The nature of the crime
- Whether the conviction was federal or state
Correct answer: Whether it resulted in imprisonment over one year
Crimes involving dishonesty or false statement (crimen falsi) are admissible for impeachment without the one-year imprisonment threshold that applies to other crimes.
Question 4: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment limits admission of which type of hearsay statements in criminal cases?
- Non-testimonial hearsay statements
- Testimonial hearsay statements from unavailable declarants who were not cross-examined (Correct answer)
- All out-of-court statements without exception
- Only statements made to police during investigations
Correct answer: Testimonial hearsay statements from unavailable declarants who were not cross-examined
After Crawford v. Washington, the Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.
Question 5: Under FRE 407, subsequent remedial measures are generally inadmissible to prove:
- Ownership or control of the product
- Feasibility of precautionary measures
- Negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event (Correct answer)
- A witness's credibility
Correct answer: Negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event
Rule 407 bars subsequent remedial measures as proof of negligence or culpable conduct, though they may be admitted to prove ownership, control, or feasibility.
Question 6: Judicial notice under FRE 201 allows a court to accept as established facts that are:
- Agreed upon by counsel during trial
- Not subject to reasonable dispute and either generally known or accurately determinable (Correct answer)
- Testified to by three or more credible witnesses
- Contained in official government documents only
Correct answer: Not subject to reasonable dispute and either generally known or accurately determinable
FRE 201 allows judicial notice of adjudicative facts not subject to reasonable dispute because they are commonly known or can be accurately determined from reliable sources.
AZ Bar Evidence 2
Under FRE 803(2), an excited utterance is a statement relating to a startling event made: