Hearsay Evidence Rules! Trivia Questions Quiz

Approved & Edited by ProProfs Editorial Team
The editorial team at ProProfs Quizzes consists of a select group of subject experts, trivia writers, and quiz masters who have authored over 10,000 quizzes taken by more than 100 million users. This team includes our in-house seasoned quiz moderators and subject matter experts. Our editorial experts, spread across the world, are rigorously trained using our comprehensive guidelines to ensure that you receive the highest quality quizzes.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Squirrel_power
S
Squirrel_power
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 1 | Total Attempts: 2,864
Questions: 18 | Attempts: 2,878

SettingsSettingsSettings
Evidence Quizzes & Trivia

Learn the hearsay rule and its exceptions


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 

    Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for _______________________ asserted in the statement.

    Explanation
    Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that is offered for the purpose of establishing the truth or asserting the truth contained in the statement. In other words, hearsay is a statement made outside of the courtroom that is being presented as evidence to prove the truth of the matter being asserted in the statement. The purpose of allowing hearsay evidence is to establish the truth of the matter being asserted, which is why it is admissible in certain circumstances.

    Rate this question:

  • 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

    Correct Answer
    C. Admission of a party
    Explanation
    Admission of a party does not require the declarant to be unavailable because it is a statement made by a party to a case against their own interest. This means that the party is willingly admitting or acknowledging something that is detrimental to their own position in the case. Therefore, the declarant's availability or unavailability is not a factor in determining the admissibility of the statement.

    Rate this question:

  • 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.

    Correct Answer(s)
    A. The adverse party had a meaningful opportunity to cross examine the declarant.
    C. The declarant must be currently unavailable.
    Explanation
    For the former testimony exception to hearsay to be applicable, two conditions must be met. Firstly, the adverse party must have had a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the declarant in the past. This ensures that the declarant's statements were subjected to scrutiny and testing during the original proceeding. Secondly, the declarant must be currently unavailable to be cross-examined in the current proceeding. This means that the declarant cannot be present or cannot be reasonably located to provide testimony. Both of these conditions are necessary for the former testimony exception to be applicable.

    Rate this question:

  • 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.

    Correct Answer
    C. Not hearsay because it is excluded from hearsay, thus admissible.
    Explanation
    An admission of a party is not considered hearsay because it is an exception to the hearsay rule. Hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, an admission made by a party involved in the case is considered reliable and trustworthy, and therefore it is excluded from the definition of hearsay. As a result, admissions of a party are admissible as evidence in court.

    Rate this question:

  • 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

    Correct Answer
    A. True
    Explanation
    An admission of a party refers to a statement made by a party involved in a legal case that acknowledges certain facts or allegations. This statement does not necessarily have to be against the interest of the party when it was said. In other words, even if the admission may not be favorable to the party, it can still be considered valid and admissible in court. Therefore, the statement is true.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

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

    • A.

      True

    • B.

      False

    Correct Answer
    B. False
    Explanation
    An explanation for the correct answer, which is False, is that a statement against interest refers to a statement made by someone that is contrary to their own interest. Therefore, it must be against the interest of the declarant when it is said. If the statement is not against their interest, it cannot be considered a statement against interest.

    Rate this question:

  • 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.

    Correct Answer
    B. Sustain. The statement tends to expose Rafeal to criminal liability and nothing was offered to collaborate the statement.
    Explanation
    The court should sustain the prosecution's objection to the testimony. This is because the statement made by Venus tends to expose Rafeal to criminal liability, as he admits to taking the stolen gold lacrosse stick. However, nothing was offered to collaborate or support the truthfulness of this statement. Therefore, without any additional evidence to support the statement, it cannot be considered reliable and admissible in court.

    Rate this question:

  • 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.

    Correct Answer
    D. The statement be made while the declarant believes their death is imminent. However, the declarant need not actually die.
    Explanation
    The Dying Declaration exception to hearsay requires that the statement be made while the declarant believes their death is imminent. However, the declarant does not need to actually die. This means that even if the declarant survives after making the statement, it can still be admissible as evidence. The requirement of imminent belief of death is crucial to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of the statement, as it is assumed that a person on the brink of death would have no motive to lie or fabricate information.

    Rate this question:

  • 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.

    Correct Answer
    B. Gaius shot me.
    Explanation
    The second statement "Gaius shot me" would be admissible at a criminal trial under the dying declaration exception because it directly relates to the circumstances of Apollo's injury. As a dying declaration, it holds significant evidentiary value as it was made by Apollo while he believed he was dying and had no reason to lie or fabricate information. This statement would be considered reliable and relevant in establishing Gaius as the shooter.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

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

    • A.

      True

    • B.

      False

    Correct Answer
    B. False
    Explanation
    The dying declaration exception to hearsay allows for the admission of a statement made by a person who is believed to be on the verge of death, regarding the cause or circumstances of their impending death. However, in Illinois, the dying declaration exception to hearsay is only applicable in criminal cases, not in civil cases. Therefore, the statement that it can be used in a civil case is false.

    Rate this question:

  • 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

    Correct Answer(s)
    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
    Explanation
    The requirements for the excited utterance exception to hearsay typically include:
    A startling event: The statement must be in response to a startling or shocking event that causes a person to be in a state of excitement or shock.
    Statement is made under stress of excitement: The statement must be made while the declarant is still under the emotional stress or excitement caused by the startling event.
    Statement concerns the facts of the startling event: The statement should relate to the event or condition that caused the excitement, providing information or description about that event.
    Almost precise contemporaneousness: The statement should be made shortly after the startling event, demonstrating that it was made while the declarant was still in an excited or shocked state.
    So, all of the provided requirements are typically necessary for the excited utterance exception to hearsay.

    Rate this question:

  • 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

    Correct Answer
    A. True
    Explanation
    Present Sense Impression is a legal doctrine that allows a statement to be admissible in court if it describes an event or situation immediately after it was perceived. This means that the statement can be made without any delay or time for reflection. The question states that the event does not need to be exciting, meaning that the level of excitement or lack thereof is not a determining factor for the admissibility of the statement. Therefore, the correct answer is true, as the statement accurately reflects the requirements of Present Sense Impression.

    Rate this question:

  • 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.

    Correct Answer
    A. The records are kept in the regular course of business.
    Explanation
    The business records exception allows for the admission of records into evidence if they are kept in the regular course of business. This means that the records are routinely created and maintained as part of the normal operations of the business. This requirement ensures that the records are reliable and trustworthy, as they are created as a regular business practice rather than for any specific purpose such as litigation. The other options listed, such as making records solely in anticipation of litigation or having them signed by the head of the company, are not requirements for the business records exception.

    Rate this question:

  • 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.

    Correct Answer
    D. Yes. The accident record is admissible as a business record and Lucille's statement is admissible as an admission.
    Explanation
    The plaintiff can introduce the accident report, with Lucille's statement, into evidence because the accident record is admissible as a business record and Lucille's statement is admissible as an admission.

    Rate this question:

  • 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.

    Correct Answer
    A. The Judge, who is not bound by the FRE when considering which facts to consider.
    Explanation
    The correct answer is "The Judge, who is not bound by the FRE when considering which facts to consider." This is because the judge is responsible for determining the admissibility of evidence and deciding the preliminary questions of fact that are necessary for making that determination. The judge is not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) when considering which facts to consider, allowing them to exercise their discretion in making these decisions. The judge's role is to ensure that the evidence presented in the trial is fair and relevant, and they have the authority to exclude evidence that is deemed inadmissible.

    Rate this question:

  • 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

    Correct Answer
    A. Yes
    Explanation
    Yes, Sowle can offer Warner's statement at trial. Warner made a false statement about the building meeting all the city codes, knowing that there were violations that would require a major renovation. This constitutes intentional misrepresentation, and Sowle can use Warner's statement as evidence to support his claim in the lawsuit.

    Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

  • Current Version
  • Oct 20, 2023
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • Jun 21, 2012
    Quiz Created by
    Squirrel_power

Related Topics

Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.