NYLE Evidence Rules 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under New York law, an excited utterance is admissible as an exception to hearsay because:
- The declarant is present in court and can be cross-examined
- The statement was made under oath
- The startling event reduces the likelihood of fabrication (Correct answer)
- The statement was recorded contemporaneously by police
Correct 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.
Question 2: In a New York negligence case, a defendant offers evidence that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. This evidence is relevant to:
- Whether a duty of care existed
- Apportionment of damages under comparative fault principles (Correct answer)
- Whether the defendant's conduct was intentional
- The admissibility of the plaintiff's medical records
Correct 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.
Question 3: A New York court excludes evidence under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. This ruling means:
- The evidence is inherently unreliable
- The evidence was obtained through an unconstitutional search or seizure (Correct answer)
- The evidence is inadmissible in civil cases as well
- The witness who found the evidence cannot testify at all
Correct 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.
Question 4: Under New York law, which of the following is required to authenticate a document before it can be admitted into evidence?
- Expert testimony in every case
- Sufficient evidence to support a finding that the document is what the proponent claims it to be (Correct answer)
- A notary's seal or certification
- Testimony from the document's author
Correct 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.
Question 5: In New York, which of the following statements about the work-product doctrine is correct?
- It protects all documents prepared by a party's attorney from disclosure
- It protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, with qualified privilege for ordinary work product and absolute protection for opinion work product (Correct answer)
- It is identical to the attorney-client privilege
- It applies only to documents prepared after a lawsuit is filed
Correct answer: It protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, with qualified privilege for ordinary work product and absolute protection for opinion work product
The work-product doctrine protects litigation-preparation materials: ordinary work product has qualified protection (can be overcome by substantial need), while opinion work product reflecting attorney mental impressions has near-absolute protection.
Question 6: 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:
- Admissible because it shows consciousness of liability
- Inadmissible as a matter of public policy to encourage settlements (Correct answer)
- Admissible if the opposing party made the offer in writing
- Inadmissible only if accompanied by an admission of fault
Correct 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.
Question 7: Under New York law, a witness may be impeached by a prior criminal conviction if:
- The conviction involved any crime, regardless of when it occurred
- The conviction was for a felony or crime involving dishonesty, subject to the court's discretion under People v. Sandoval (Correct answer)
- The conviction is less than five years old and was for a felony
- The witness is the defendant and the prosecution opens the door
Correct answer: The conviction was for a felony or crime involving dishonesty, subject to the court's discretion under People v. Sandoval
Under the Sandoval rule, a New York court has discretion to allow impeachment by prior conviction, balancing the probative value of the conviction against the prejudice to the defendant.
NYLE Evidence Rules 5
Under New York law, an excited utterance is admissible as an exception to hearsay because: