Hearsay Evidence Rules! Trivia Questions Quiz

18 Questions | Total Attempts: 1199

SettingsSettingsSettings
Please wait...
Evidence Quizzes & Trivia

Learn the hearsay rule and its exceptions


Related Topics
Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for _______________________ asserted in the statement.
  • 2. 
    Which of the following does not require the declarant to be unavailable?
    • A. 

      Dying Declaration

    • B. 

      Former Testimony

    • C. 

      Admission of a party

    • D. 

      Statement Against Interest

  • 3. 
    For the former testimony exception to hearsay to be applicable, which of the following must be true?
    • A. 

      The adverse party had a meaningful opportunity to cross examine the declarant.

    • B. 

      The declarant must be available to be cross examined in the current proceeding.

    • C. 

      The declarant must be currently unavailable.

  • 4. 
    An admission of a party, being offered against the party, is:
    • A. 

      Hearsay and is inadmissible

    • B. 

      Hearsay, but is admissible as an exception

    • C. 

      Not hearsay because it is excluded from hearsay, thus admissible.

  • 5. 
    An admission of a party does not need to be against the interest of the party when it was said.
    • A. 

      True

    • B. 

      False

  • 6. 
    A statement against interest does not need to be against the interest of the declarant when it is said.
    • A. 

      True

    • B. 

      False

  • 7. 
    Sarena is on trial accused of stealing a solid gold lacross stick. The defense plans to put Venus on the stand to say, "I was with Rafeal when the news of the theft came on TV. He laughed and said 'I took that to add to my collection.'" Rafeal is currently in England. The defense plans to put on no more evidence regarding Rafeal. The prosecution objects to the testimony. The court should: 
    • A. 

      Overrule. The testimony is a statement against interest and is admissible as an exception to hearsay.

    • B. 

      Sustain. The statement tends to expose Rafeal to criminal liability and nothing was offered to collaborate the statement.

  • 8. 
    In addition to requiring the declarant to be unavailable, the Dying Declaration exception to hearsay requires:
    • A. 

      The declarant must have suffered serious bodily injury.

    • B. 

      The declarant, regardless of their belief, must die soon after making the statement.

    • C. 

      The statement be made while the declarant believes their death is imminent and the declarant must actually die.

    • D. 

      The statement be made while the declarant believes their death is imminent. However, the declarant need not actually die.

  • 9. 
    Starbuck finds Apollo on ground in the hanger lying is a pool of his own blood. It is apparent that he had been shot. Apollo whispers, "I am dying, Starbuck. Nothing can save me." He then says a second statement. Starbuck calls for help. Apollo is stablized, but falls into a coma.  Which of the following second statements would be admissible at a criminal trial under the dying declaration exception:
    • A. 

      I changed my will because Giaus threatened me.

    • B. 

      Gaius shot me.

    • C. 

      Last week, I saw Gaius steal military secrets.

    • D. 

      Giaus killed Billy.

  • 10. 
    In Illinois, the dying declaration exception to hearsay can be used in a civil case.
    • A. 

      True

    • B. 

      False

  • 11. 
    Which of the following are required for the excited utterance exception to hearsay:
    • A. 

      A startling event

    • B. 

      Statement is made under stress of excitement

    • C. 

      Statement concerns the facts of the startling event

    • D. 

      Almost precises contemporaneousness

  • 12. 
    Present Sense Impression requires the statement be made while observing the event (or shortly thereafter), but the event does not require the event to be exciting.
    • A. 

      True

    • B. 

      False

  • 13. 
    The business records exception requires the records be made at or near the time of the subject recorded, by a person with knowledge, and:
    • A. 

      The records are kept in the regular course of business.

    • B. 

      The records are made solely in anticipation of litigation.

    • C. 

      The records are kept for any reason, even if it is not related to the business.

    • D. 

      The records are signed by the head of the company.

  • 14. 
    George Michael sues Lucille for negligently operating a vehicle causing it to hit a telephone pole. When the car hit the pole, George Michael, the passenger, was injured. A passerby called 911 and the police arrive at the scene. An officer interviewed Lucille at the scene and wrote Lucille's comments on the accident report, as was required. In the interview, Lucille said, "I don't know what the big deal is, I only had a couple of drinks before getting into the car." Could the plaintiff introduce the accident report, with Lucille's statement, into evidence?
    • A. 

      No. It is double hearsay and there are no applicable exceptions.

    • B. 

      No. While the accident report falls under the business record exception, Lucille's statement is still hearsay without an exception.

    • C. 

      No, while Lucille's statement is an admission and thus not hearsay, the accident report is hearsay that does not fall under any exception.

    • D. 

      Yes. The accident record is admissible as a business record and Lucille's statement is admissible as an admission.

  • 15. 
    Who decideds priminary questions of fact when admissibiliy of evidence requires those facts?
    • A. 

      The Judge, who is not bound by the FRE when considering which facts to consider.

    • B. 

      The Judge who is bound by the FRE when considering which facts to consider.

    • C. 

      The Jury, who are not bound by the FRE when considering which facts to consider.

    • D. 

      The Jury, who are bound by the FRE when considering which facts to consider.

  • 16. 
    Sowle, of Sowle's Seoul Soul Food, want to purchase a building to use as a second location for his restaurant. Warner, of Warner's Wreality Wrealty, shows Sowle a building. Sowle asks Warner if the building meets all the city codes. Warner says, "Yes it does. An inspector came last week and found no problems." The inspector actually did come the previous week. However, he found several violations that would require a major renovation. Warner read and understood the detailed report. Sowle then buys the building. A month later, the city prevents the new restaurant from opening because of the violations. Sowle sues Warner for intentional misrepresentation. Can Sowle offer Warner's statement at trial?
    • A. 

      Yes

    • B. 

      No