Evidence Flashcards

A prosecution witness is impeached with her prior inconsistent statement made in sworn grand jury testimony. For what purposes may the jury use that prior statement?

Answer: Both impeachment and substantive evidence, because it was given under oath at a proceeding

A prior inconsistent statement given under penalty of perjury at a proceeding or deposition is non-hearsay and admissible substantively as well as to impeach.

On cross-examination, defense counsel asks a testifying officer, "Isn't it true you falsified an expense report last year?" in good faith. The officer denies it. May counsel call another witness to prove the falsification?

Answer: No, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to prove specific instances of conduct offered only to attack character for truthfulness

Specific instances of a witness's conduct probative of untruthfulness may be inquired into on cross but may not be proven by extrinsic evidence.

In an Oklahoma sexual assault prosecution, the defense seeks to introduce evidence of the victim's sexual behavior with third parties to suggest consent. Under the rape shield rule, what is the general result?

Answer: Excluded, subject to narrow exceptions such as specific instances with the accused offered on consent or an alternate source of physical evidence

Rape shield provisions generally exclude a victim's other sexual behavior, allowing narrow exceptions like prior acts with the defendant on consent or explaining physical evidence.

A qualified accident reconstruction expert bases her opinion partly on witness statements not admitted into evidence. Is her opinion admissible?

Answer: Yes, if experts in the field reasonably rely on such statements, even though the statements themselves are inadmissible

An expert may base an opinion on inadmissible facts or data if experts in the field would reasonably rely on them, though the underlying data does not automatically come in.

A lay witness who watched a driver stumble, slur his speech, and smell of alcohol offers the opinion, "He was drunk." Is this lay opinion admissible?

Answer: Yes, because it is rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful, and intoxication is a proper subject of lay opinion

Lay opinions rationally based on perception and helpful to the jury, such as apparent intoxication, are admissible without expert qualification.

In a criminal trial, the judge concludes that a piece of relevant evidence's probative value is slightly outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. Under the balancing test, should the evidence be excluded?

Answer: No, exclusion requires that unfair prejudice substantially outweigh probative value

Relevant evidence may be excluded only when its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice.

The State rests its case against a defendant for possession, relying on the presumption that occupants of a car know of drugs found inside. The defense argues the jury instruction on this presumption. In a criminal case, a presumption against the accused:

Answer: May only be treated as a permissive inference the jury is free to accept or reject

In criminal cases, presumptions against the accused operate only as permissive inferences because mandatory presumptions would violate due process.