Evidence Rules Flashcards

Under New York law, an excited utterance is admissible as an exception to hearsay because:

Answer: The startling event reduces the likelihood of fabrication

Excited utterances are admissible because the stress of a startling event suppresses the declarant's reflective capacity, reducing the likelihood of deliberate fabrication.

In a New York negligence case, a defendant offers evidence that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. This evidence is relevant to:

Answer: Apportionment of damages under comparative fault principles

In New York, which follows pure comparative fault, evidence of the plaintiff's contributory negligence is relevant to apportioning damages between the parties.

A New York court excludes evidence under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. This ruling means:

Answer: The evidence was obtained through an unconstitutional search or seizure

The exclusionary rule bars evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures from being used in a criminal prosecution.

Under New York law, which of the following is required to authenticate a document before it can be admitted into evidence?

Answer: Sufficient evidence to support a finding that the document is what the proponent claims it to be

Authentication requires sufficient evidence — which can take many forms — to support a finding that the document is what its proponent claims; no single method is always required.

In New York, which of the following statements about the work-product doctrine is correct?

Answer: It protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, with qualified privilege for ordinary work product and absolute protection for opinion work product

CPLR 3101(c) gives absolute immunity to an attorney's work product (materials uniquely the product of a lawyer's learning and professional skills, such as legal research and analysis and mental impressions). CPLR 3101(d)(2) gives conditional protection to other materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, which may be discovered on a showing of substantial need and inability to obtain the equivalent without undue hardship.

A party in a New York civil case seeks to introduce a settlement offer made by the opposing party as evidence of liability. Under New York law, this evidence is:

Answer: Inadmissible as a matter of public policy to encourage settlements

Settlement offers are inadmissible to prove liability in New York as a matter of public policy, encouraging parties to negotiate freely without fear that offers will be used against them.

Under New York law, a witness may be impeached by a prior criminal conviction if:

Answer: Any crime may be used, subject to the court's discretion (Sandoval for a testifying defendant) to limit it where prejudice outweighs probative value; there is no fixed time limit

New York permits cross-examination about any prior criminal conviction, felony or misdemeanor, and about prior immoral, vicious or criminal acts bearing on credibility (CPLR 4513 in civil cases). There is no fixed time bar. For a testifying criminal defendant, People v. Sandoval gives the court discretion to limit the inquiry by balancing probative value on credibility against prejudice.