OK Bar Evidence 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A witness in an Oklahoma civil trial testifies she saw the defendant run a red light. On cross, defense counsel asks about her felony embezzlement conviction from four years ago. Is the conviction admissible to impeach?
- Only if the witness denies the conviction first
- No, because convictions are only admissible in criminal cases
- Only if the conviction resulted in actual imprisonment
- Yes, because embezzlement involves a dishonest act and must be admitted (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Yes, because embezzlement involves a dishonest act and must be admitted
Crimes involving dishonesty or false statement, like embezzlement, are automatically admissible for impeachment without balancing under the evidence rules.
Question 2: In a negligence suit after a stairway fall, the plaintiff offers evidence that the store repaired the broken handrail two days after the accident. The store disputes that it owned the stairway. Is the repair evidence admissible?
- No, unless the plaintiff first proves the handrail was defective
- Yes, to prove the store was negligent
- Yes, to prove ownership or control since the store disputes it (Correct answer)
- No, subsequent remedial measures are always inadmissible
Correct answer: Yes, to prove ownership or control since the store disputes it
Subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence but admissible for other purposes such as proving disputed ownership or control.
Question 3: A murder defendant calls a witness to testify that the defendant has a reputation in the community as a peaceful person. The prosecutor objects. How should the court rule?
- Exclude it, because character evidence is never admissible in criminal cases
- Admit it only if the defendant first testifies
- Exclude it, because reputation testimony is hearsay
- Admit it, because a criminal defendant may offer evidence of a pertinent character trait (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Admit it, because a criminal defendant may offer evidence of a pertinent character trait
A criminal defendant may open the door by offering reputation or opinion evidence of a pertinent character trait such as peacefulness.
Question 4: During settlement negotiations over a contract dispute, the defendant said, "I know I owe you something, but I'll only pay half." At trial, the plaintiff offers this statement. Is it admissible?
- Yes, because it is an admission by a party-opponent
- Yes, because only the settlement offer itself is excluded, not surrounding statements
- No, statements made during compromise negotiations of a disputed claim are inadmissible to prove liability (Correct answer)
- No, unless the negotiations were conducted through attorneys
Correct answer: No, statements made during compromise negotiations of a disputed claim are inadmissible to prove liability
Both the offer to compromise and statements made during compromise negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability for or the amount of a disputed claim.
Question 5: A witness cannot recall the license plate she reported to police right after a hit-and-run. The prosecutor shows her the police report, but her memory is not refreshed. She testified she was sure the number was accurate when reported. How may the plate number come in?
- The report is admitted as a business record exhibit for the jury
- The number is inadmissible because the witness has no present memory
- The witness may simply guess based on the report
- The report may be read into evidence as a recorded recollection, but not received as an exhibit unless offered by the adverse party (Correct answer)
Correct answer: The report may be read into evidence as a recorded recollection, but not received as an exhibit unless offered by the adverse party
A recorded recollection may be read into evidence but is received as an exhibit only if offered by the adverse party.
Question 6: In an Oklahoma robbery prosecution, the State offers evidence that the defendant committed a similar robbery two years earlier, using the same distinctive mask and phrase, to prove identity. The defense objects under the character evidence rules. What is the best analysis?
- Inadmissible because prior crimes can never be shown unless the defendant testifies
- Inadmissible unless the prior robbery resulted in a conviction
- Admissible to show the defendant has a propensity to rob
- Admissible as other-crimes evidence offered for the non-character purpose of proving identity through a distinctive modus operandi (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Admissible as other-crimes evidence offered for the non-character purpose of proving identity through a distinctive modus operandi
Other crimes or acts are inadmissible to show propensity but may be admitted for purposes such as identity when the acts share a distinctive modus operandi.
Question 7: A defendant charged with battery claims self-defense and testifies the victim attacked first. The defendant offers a witness to testify to the victim's reputation for violence. The prosecutor objects. Result?
- Inadmissible, because specific acts are required to prove the victim's violence
- Inadmissible, because only the prosecution may raise the victim's character
- Admissible, because a criminal defendant may offer reputation evidence of the alleged victim's pertinent character trait (Correct answer)
- Admissible only if the defendant knew of the victim's reputation at the time
Correct answer: Admissible, because a criminal defendant may offer reputation evidence of the alleged victim's pertinent character trait
A criminal defendant may offer reputation or opinion evidence of a pertinent character trait of the alleged victim, such as violence in a self-defense case.
OK Bar Evidence 2
A witness in an Oklahoma civil trial testifies she saw the defendant run a red light.
On cross, defense counsel asks about her felony embezzlement conviction from four years ago.
Is the conviction admissible to impeach?