Evidence Flashcards

A declarant's out-of-court statement is offered as a dying declaration in a civil wrongful death case. The statement was made while the declarant believed she was dying, but she later recovered and is now unavailable at trial. Under California law, the dying declaration exception:

Answer: Applies in both civil and criminal cases if the declarant believed death was imminent when making the statement, regardless of whether death actually occurred

Under CEC § 1242, a dying declaration is admissible if the declarant believed death was imminent; actual death is not required, and the exception applies in both civil and criminal cases.

The prosecution introduces a laboratory report identifying a controlled substance. The defendant objects that admitting the report without the analyst's testimony violates the Confrontation Clause. The court should:

Answer: Exclude the report unless the analyst who prepared it testifies or is unavailable and was subject to prior cross-examination

Under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, forensic laboratory reports are testimonial and their admission without the analyst's testimony violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.

At trial, counsel asks her own witness to testify about a prior consistent statement the witness made before any motive to fabricate arose. The prior statement is offered to rehabilitate the witness after opposing counsel implied recent fabrication on cross-examination. This evidence is:

Answer: Admissible as non-hearsay to rebut the charge of recent fabrication, under CEC § 791

Under CEC § 791, a prior consistent statement is admissible to rehabilitate a witness's credibility when the opposing party has implied the testimony is recently fabricated, provided the statement was made before the motive to fabricate arose.

In a products liability case, the plaintiff seeks to admit evidence that the defendant manufacturer received 15 prior complaints about the same defect from other customers. The defendant objects on relevance grounds. The court should:

Answer: Admit the evidence as relevant to notice, knowledge, and the existence of the defect

Evidence of prior similar complaints is admissible in products liability cases to show the defendant's notice and knowledge of the defect, which is directly relevant to the claims.

Under California's spousal privilege, which of the following is CORRECT regarding the privilege not to testify against a spouse in a criminal proceeding?

Answer: The witness spouse holds the privilege and may choose to testify or refuse to testify against the defendant spouse

Under CEC § 970, the witness spouse holds the privilege not to testify against his or her spouse in a criminal proceeding; the defendant spouse cannot invoke it to bar the witness spouse from testifying.

A party seeks to introduce a prior judgment of conviction in a civil action to prove the facts underlying the conviction. The opposing party objects. Under CEC § 1300, this evidence is:

Answer: Admissible as a hearsay exception to prove any fact essential to the criminal judgment

Under CEC § 1300, a judgment of conviction for a felony is admissible in a subsequent civil action as proof of any fact essential to the judgment.

An expert witness is asked to give an opinion on the ultimate issue in a civil case—specifically, whether the defendant's conduct met the applicable standard of care. Under California law, such testimony is:

Answer: Admissible because California does not bar expert testimony on ultimate issues

California does not follow a blanket prohibition on expert testimony about ultimate issues; under CEC § 805, expert opinion on the ultimate issue is permissible if otherwise admissible.