OH Bar Evidence 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A defendant is on trial for assault. The prosecution calls a witness to testify that the defendant has a reputation in the community for violence. The defendant has not yet presented any character evidence. Is the testimony admissible?
- No, because the prosecution may not offer character evidence about the defendant until the defendant opens the door (Correct answer)
- Yes, because reputation testimony is always admissible
- Yes, because violence is directly relevant to an assault charge
- No, because reputation evidence is inadmissible hearsay
Correct answer: No, because the prosecution may not offer character evidence about the defendant until the defendant opens the door
Under Rule 404(a), the prosecution cannot introduce evidence of a defendant's bad character until the defendant first puts character in issue.
Question 2: After a customer slips on a wet floor in a grocery store, the store installs non-slip mats. In the customer's negligence suit, the customer offers evidence of the mat installation to prove the store was negligent. Is the evidence admissible for that purpose?
- No, because subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence (Correct answer)
- Yes, because it shows the store knew the floor was dangerous
- Yes, because remedial measures are party admissions
- No, because the evidence is irrelevant
Correct answer: No, because subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence
Rule 407 bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct.
Question 3: A declarant, believing she was about to die from a gunshot wound, told a paramedic, 'John shot me.' She survived and is unavailable at John's attempted murder trial. Is her statement admissible as a dying declaration?
- No, because dying declarations in criminal cases apply only to homicide prosecutions (Correct answer)
- Yes, because she believed death was imminent
- Yes, because she is unavailable
- No, because she did not actually die
Correct answer: No, because dying declarations in criminal cases apply only to homicide prosecutions
In criminal cases the dying declaration exception under Rule 804(b)(2) applies only in homicide prosecutions, not attempted murder.
Question 4: A plaintiff offers a properly authenticated photocopy of a signed contract. The defendant objects, demanding the original under the best evidence rule. No genuine question exists about the original's authenticity. Should the copy be admitted?
- Yes, because a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original absent a genuine authenticity question (Correct answer)
- No, because the best evidence rule always requires the original
- No, because contracts must be proved by originals
- Yes, but only if the original is proven destroyed
Correct answer: Yes, because a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original absent a genuine authenticity question
Rule 1003 makes duplicates admissible to the same extent as originals unless there is a genuine question about the original's authenticity or admitting the duplicate would be unfair.
Question 5: During settlement negotiations in a contract dispute, the defendant said, 'I know I owe you something, but I'll pay only half.' At trial, the plaintiff offers this statement to prove liability. Is it admissible?
- No, because statements made during compromise negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability (Correct answer)
- Yes, because it is an admission of a party-opponent
- Yes, because only the offer amount is excluded, not accompanying statements
- No, because it is hearsay without an exception
Correct answer: No, because statements made during compromise negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability
Rule 408 excludes both compromise offers and statements made during compromise negotiations when offered to prove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.
Question 6: A witness testifies for the plaintiff. On cross-examination, defense counsel asks about the witness's prior conviction for felony tax fraud entered four years ago. Plaintiff objects. How should the court rule?
- Admit it, because a crime involving dishonesty must be admitted to impeach any witness (Correct answer)
- Exclude it, because civil witnesses cannot be impeached with convictions
- Exclude it, because tax fraud is not a crime of violence
- Admit it only if the witness denies the conviction
Correct answer: Admit it, because a crime involving dishonesty must be admitted to impeach any witness
Under Rule 609(a)(2), convictions involving dishonesty or false statement are automatically admissible to impeach, with no balancing test.
Question 7: A driver sues for injuries from a car crash. She offers testimony that the defendant always rolls through the stop sign at that intersection every morning on his commute. Is this testimony admissible?
- Yes, as habit evidence to prove the defendant acted in accordance with the habit (Correct answer)
- No, because character evidence is inadmissible in civil cases
- No, because prior bad acts cannot prove conduct
- Yes, but only if corroborated by an eyewitness to the crash
Correct answer: Yes, as habit evidence to prove the defendant acted in accordance with the habit
Rule 406 allows evidence of a person's habit — a regular, specific response to a repeated situation — to prove conduct in conformity, without corroboration.
OH Bar Evidence 2
A defendant is on trial for assault.
The prosecution calls a witness to testify that the defendant has a reputation in the community for violence.
The defendant has not yet presented any character evidence.
Is the testimony admissible?