Evidence Flashcards

The State offers a 911 call recording in which a caller frantically describes an ongoing home invasion. The caller does not testify. Under Confrontation Clause analysis, is the call likely admissible?

Answer: Yes, statements made to meet an ongoing emergency are nontestimonial under Davis v. Washington

Under Davis, statements made primarily to enable police assistance during an ongoing emergency are nontestimonial and do not implicate the Confrontation Clause.

A party seeks to authenticate a threatening text message allegedly sent by the opposing party. Which showing is sufficient for authentication?

Answer: Evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the opposing party authored it, such as content only that person would know plus the phone number

Authentication requires only evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what its proponent claims, which for texts can include distinctive content, context, and the associated number.

In a contract dispute, the defendant offers to prove that the plaintiff paid the defendant's medical bills after an unrelated accident, offered to show the plaintiff admitted fault in this contract case. Separately, in an injury case, how are payments of medical expenses treated?

Answer: Payment of medical expenses is inadmissible to prove liability, but accompanying admissions of fact remain admissible

Unlike Rule 408, Rule 409 excludes only the payment or offer to pay medical expenses itself, not factual admissions made alongside it.

A criminal defendant testifies and on direct examination denies ever using drugs. The prosecutor then cross-examines him about a prior drug arrest that did not result in conviction. Is the cross-examination proper?

Answer: Yes, the defendant opened the door and may be cross-examined on specific instances probative of the false statement

A testifying defendant who makes a sweeping denial opens the door to good-faith cross-examination on specific instances contradicting it, though extrinsic evidence on collateral matters is barred.

A company's routine practice is to send a confirmation email for every order received. To prove a specific confirmation was sent, the plaintiff offers testimony of this routine practice. Is it admissible?

Answer: Yes, evidence of an organization's routine practice is admissible to prove conduct in conformity on a particular occasion

Rule 406 allows evidence of an organization's routine practice, with or without corroboration, to prove the organization acted in accordance with it on a specific occasion.

The prosecution's key witness is impeached with a prior inconsistent statement. The prosecution then offers the witness's prior consistent statement made before any alleged motive to fabricate arose. Is the prior consistent statement admissible substantively?

Answer: Yes, a prior consistent statement offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication is non-hearsay if made before the motive arose

A prior consistent statement rebutting a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive is non-hearsay when it predates the alleged motive to fabricate.

During a bench conference, the judge must decide whether an alleged co-conspirator statement qualifies under the hearsay exemption. What standard and materials govern this preliminary admissibility determination?

Answer: The judge decides by a preponderance of the evidence and may consider the statement itself plus independent evidence

Preliminary questions of admissibility are decided by the judge by a preponderance, and the proffered statement may be considered but cannot alone establish the conspiracy.