Practice Test GeeksHI Bar - Hawaii Bar Exam Practice Test
← All HI BAR Flashcard Decks

Evidence Flashcards

6 cards from real HI BAR practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.

Read the first 6 Evidence flashcards as text

  1. Under the Hawaii Rules of Evidence, which standard governs the admissibility of expert scientific testimony?

    Answer: The Daubert reliability standard, as adopted by Hawaii

    Hawaii adopted the Daubert standard, requiring trial courts to act as gatekeepers to ensure expert testimony is based on reliable methodology.

  2. Under HRE Rule 404(b), evidence of prior bad acts is generally inadmissible to prove character, but may be admissible to show:

    Answer: Motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake

    HRE 404(b) permits prior bad act evidence for non-character purposes such as proving motive, intent, knowledge, or identity.

  3. Under the Hawaii Rules of Evidence, a hearsay statement is admissible as a present sense impression if it was made:

    Answer: While the declarant was perceiving or immediately after perceiving the event

    HRE Rule 803(1) allows a present sense impression if the statement was made while or immediately after the declarant perceived the event.

  4. The attorney-client privilege in Hawaii protects confidential communications between attorney and client. Which of the following would MOST LIKELY waive the privilege?

    Answer: Disclosing the communication to a third party not essential to the representation

    Voluntary disclosure of a privileged communication to a third party outside the privilege destroys confidentiality and waives the attorney-client privilege.

  5. Under HRE Rule 801, which of the following is NOT hearsay?

    Answer: A prior inconsistent statement made under oath at a prior proceeding, offered to impeach

    Under HRE 801(b)(1), a prior inconsistent statement made under oath at a prior proceeding is defined as non-hearsay when offered to impeach.

  6. In a Hawaii civil case, relevant evidence may be excluded under HRE Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by:

    Answer: The danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury

    HRE Rule 403 authorizes exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.