Evidence Flashcards

The prosecution in a burglary case offers evidence that the defendant committed three prior burglaries using an identical unusual method to prove identity. What is the strongest basis for admission?

Answer: Modus operandi showing identity under Rule 404(b) and State v. Lyle

Prior bad acts are admissible for non-propensity purposes such as identity through a distinctive modus operandi, a doctrine South Carolina applies through State v. Lyle and Rule 404(b).

A husband is on trial for a crime, and the State calls his wife to testify about confidential statements he made to her during the marriage. The husband objects. In South Carolina, who holds the privilege for confidential marital communications?

Answer: The communicating spouse may prevent disclosure of confidential marital communications

The marital communications privilege protects confidential communications made during marriage and may be asserted to prevent their disclosure, unlike spousal testimonial privilege which belongs to the witness spouse.

A witness gives testimony at trial inconsistent with a statement she made under oath at a prior deposition. For what purposes may the prior statement be used?

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

A prior inconsistent statement given under oath at a trial, hearing, or deposition is non-hearsay and admissible substantively as well as to impeach.

In a products liability trial, plaintiff's counsel asks the defendant's engineer on cross-examination whether the company carries liability insurance to show the company can pay a judgment. Is the question proper?

Answer: No, evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible to show ability to pay or fault

Rule 411 bars evidence of liability insurance to prove negligence, wrongful conduct, or ability to pay, though it may be admissible for agency, ownership, control, or bias.

A dying declarant tells a nurse, 'John shot me; I know I'm not going to make it.' The declarant survives but is in a coma at the time of the defendant's murder-turned-attempted-murder trial in South Carolina. Can the statement come in as a dying declaration in a civil or homicide case analysis?

Answer: Yes in homicide prosecutions and civil cases, if made under belief of imminent death and the declarant is unavailable; death itself is not required

The dying declaration exception requires belief of imminent death and unavailability, not actual death, and applies in homicide prosecutions and civil actions.

During deliberations, a juror researches the accident scene online and shares findings with other jurors, leading to a verdict. May jurors testify about this when the losing party moves for a new trial?

Answer: Yes, jurors may testify about extraneous prejudicial information brought into deliberations

While Rule 606(b) generally bars juror testimony about deliberations, it permits testimony on whether extraneous prejudicial information or outside influence reached the jury.

A lay witness who observed a car crash offers her opinion that the driver 'was drunk.' Is this admissible lay opinion?

Answer: Yes, if rationally based on her perception and helpful to the jury

Lay opinions on matters like intoxication, speed, and emotional state are admissible when rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful to the trier of fact.