Evidence Flashcards

Under Pa. R.E. 804(b)(2), a dying declaration is admissible in Pennsylvania when the declarant:

Answer: Believed their death was imminent and made a statement about its cause or circumstances; Pennsylvania limits this exception to homicide and civil cases

Rule 804(b)(2) admits dying declarations made by a declarant who believed death was imminent about the cause or circumstances of the expected death; in Pennsylvania this applies in homicide prosecutions and civil cases.

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 407 bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove:

Answer: Negligence or culpable conduct in causing the underlying incident

Rule 407 excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for a warning; however, such evidence may be admitted for other purposes such as ownership, control, or feasibility.

Pennsylvania recognizes a marital communications privilege that protects:

Answer: Confidential communications made between spouses during a valid marriage

The marital communications privilege in Pennsylvania protects confidential communications made between spouses during a valid marriage; it does not apply to statements made before marriage or in the presence of third parties.

Under Pa. R.E. 1002 (the Best Evidence Rule), the original of a writing, recording, or photograph must be produced when:

Answer: The contents of that document are disputed at trial

Rule 1002 requires the original document when a party seeks to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph; it does not require originals for collateral references to the document's existence.

Under Pa. R.E. 803(6), business records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if they were made:

Answer: At or near the time of the recorded act by a person with knowledge, as a regular business practice, and kept in the regular course of business

Rule 803(6) requires that business records be created at or near the time of the event by a person with knowledge, pursuant to a regular business practice, and kept in the regular course of that business activity.

Under Pennsylvania law, which doctrine allows the prosecution to introduce evidence of a defendant's silence post-Miranda warnings as substantive evidence of guilt?

Answer: Post-Miranda silence may NOT be used against the defendant as substantive evidence of guilt under Doyle v. Ohio and Pennsylvania case law

Under Doyle v. Ohio (adopted in Pennsylvania), using a defendant's post-Miranda silence as substantive evidence of guilt violates due process because Miranda warnings implicitly assure the defendant that silence will not be used against them.