MD Bar Evidence 2

Question 1

A defendant on trial for assault calls a witness to testify that the defendant has a reputation for peacefulness. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks, "Have you heard that the defendant punched a coworker last year?" Is this question proper?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because the prosecutor may test the character witness's knowledge with specific instances of conduct

Answer

Under FRE 405(a), a character witness may be cross-examined about relevant specific instances of the defendant's conduct to test the witness's familiarity with the defendant's reputation.

Question 2

A plaintiff sues a store after slipping on a wet floor. At trial, the plaintiff offers evidence that the day after the fall, the store installed non-slip mats. The store objects. How should the court rule?

Accepted Answer

Exclude it, because subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence

Answer

FRE 407 bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct, though it may be admissible for other purposes such as ownership or feasibility if disputed.

Question 3

During settlement negotiations in a contract dispute, the defendant said, "I know I breached, but I'll pay you half." The case did not settle. At trial, the plaintiff offers the statement. Is it admissible?

Accepted Answer

No, because statements made during compromise negotiations of a disputed claim are inadmissible to prove liability

Answer

FRE 408 excludes both offers to compromise and statements made during compromise negotiations when offered to prove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.

Question 4

A witness to a car crash tells a police officer at the scene, moments after the collision and while visibly shaking, "That truck ran the red light!" The witness is unavailable at trial. Is the statement admissible through the officer?

Accepted Answer

Yes, as an excited utterance

Answer

A statement relating to a startling event made while under the stress of excitement qualifies as an excited utterance under FRE 803(2), which applies regardless of the declarant's availability.

Question 5

In a murder trial, the prosecution offers evidence that the defendant previously committed an unrelated burglary to show the defendant is a criminal by nature. Is the evidence admissible?

Accepted Answer

No, because prior bad acts are inadmissible to prove propensity to commit crimes

Answer

FRE 404(b) prohibits using other crimes or bad acts to prove character in order to show action in conformity, though such evidence may be admitted for non-propensity purposes like motive, intent, or identity.

(MD Bar) Maryland Bar Exam Practice Test

(MD Bar) Maryland Bar Exam Practice Test

MD Bar Evidence 2