MBE Hearsay Exceptions Quiz

The correct answer is "An exception where unavailability of the person who made the statement is immaterial." This means that even if the person who made the statement is unavailable to testify, the business record can still be admitted as evidence. This exception allows for the admission of business records even if the person who created the record cannot be present in court to testify about it.

The correct answer is an exception where unavailability of the person who made the statement is immaterial. This means that vital statistics and public records can be admitted as evidence even if the person who made the statement is not available to testify. This exception recognizes that these types of records are generally reliable and do not require the availability of the person who made the statement for them to be admissible in court.

This answer is correct because it states that the exception being referred to is one where the unavailability of the person who made the statement is immaterial. In other words, even if the person who made the statement is available, it does not affect the admissibility of the statement. This exception likely applies to certain statements made for the purpose of securing a diagnosis or treatment, which are considered reliable and therefore admissible as evidence regardless of the availability of the speaker.

An Exited Utterance is an exception where the unavailability of the person who made the statement is immaterial. This means that even if the person who made the statement is available to testify, the statement can still be admitted as evidence. This exception allows for the admission of statements made under certain circumstances, such as statements made spontaneously and without time for reflection, which are considered reliable and trustworthy. The focus is on the nature of the statement itself rather than the availability of the speaker.

Ancient Documents are an exception where unavailability of the person who made the statement is immaterial. This means that even if the person who made the statement in the ancient document is not available to testify, the document can still be used as evidence. This exception recognizes the reliability and authenticity of ancient documents, considering them as reliable evidence regardless of the unavailability of the original speaker.

A dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule, which means that it allows a statement made by a person who is about to die to be admitted as evidence in court, even though it would typically be considered hearsay. However, for a dying declaration to be admissible, the person who made the statement must be unavailable, meaning that they are either dead or unable to testify. Therefore, the correct answer is "An exception requiring unavailability of the speaker."

Present Sense Impressions are an exception where unavailability of the person who made the statement is immaterial. This means that the witness does not need to be available for the statement to be admissible as evidence. Present Sense Impressions refer to statements made by a person while perceiving an event or condition, and they are considered reliable because they are made immediately after the perception, without the opportunity for reflection or fabrication. Therefore, even if the person who made the statement is unavailable to testify, their statement can still be admitted as evidence under the Present Sense Impressions exception.

The correct answer is "Not Hearsay." This answer suggests that introducing a statement to show the effect on the listener, knowledge, or notice is not considered hearsay. It implies that the statement is not being presented as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to demonstrate its impact on the listener.

The correct answer is "An exception where unavailability of a the person who made the statement is immaterial." This means that treatises are considered an exception to the hearsay rule, regardless of whether the person who made the statement is available or not. In other words, even if the person who wrote the treatise is not present to testify, the treatise can still be admitted as evidence.

This answer refers to an exception where the unavailability of the person who made the statement is immaterial. In other words, even if the person who made the statement is available, the evidence can still be admitted. This suggests that the exception allows for the admission of property interests documents as evidence, regardless of whether the person who created or signed the documents is present or not.

Verbal acts are considered not hearsay because they are statements made by a person that are relevant to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, for it to be admissible in court, the witness who heard the verbal act must be available to testify. This exception requires the availability of the witness, making the unavailability of the person who made the statement immaterial.

This answer is correct because it states that the exception for a statement of a Present Intention or Condition does not require the unavailability of the person who made the statement. In other words, even if the person who made the statement is available, it can still be admitted as evidence.

A declaration against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule that allows a statement made by someone against their own interest to be admitted as evidence. However, in order for this exception to apply, the speaker must be unavailable. This means that the person who made the statement cannot be present or cannot testify in court. Therefore, the correct answer is "An exception requiring unavailability of the speaker."

This answer is correct because it accurately identifies that former testimony is not hearsay, but the witness must be unavailable for it to be admissible. This exception is based on the principle that if the witness is unavailable to testify in court, their prior testimony can be used as evidence. However, if the witness is available and able to testify, their prior testimony would not be admissible as evidence. Therefore, the answer correctly states that the exception requires unavailability of the speaker.

An Admission of a Party Opponent is not considered hearsay because it is an exception to the hearsay rule. This exception allows for the admission of statements made by a party opponent as evidence, even if the person who made the statement is available as a witness. The availability of the speaker is not a requirement for this exception to apply. Therefore, the correct answer is "Not Hearsay."

Recorded Recollections, or Prior Recollection Recorded, is an exception where the unavailability of the person who made the statement is immaterial. This means that even if the person who made the statement is available to testify, their prior recorded recollection can still be admitted as evidence. This exception allows for the introduction of a witness's prior statement, which they may not remember or be able to testify about accurately at the time of trial. It is considered not hearsay because the statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show that the witness had made a prior consistent statement.

Convictions contained in a Judgment are an exception where unavailability of the person who made the statement is immaterial. This means that even if the person who made the statement is not available to testify, their conviction can still be considered as evidence. In other words, the fact that the person is unavailable does not affect the admissibility of their statement as evidence in a judgment.

A prior identification is not considered hearsay because it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. However, for it to be admissible, the witness who made the prior identification must be available for cross-examination. This requirement ensures that the opposing party has the opportunity to question the witness about the reliability and accuracy of the prior identification. Therefore, the correct answer is "Not hearsay, but the witness must be available."

This answer is correct because it states that the exception for family history requires the unavailability of the speaker. This means that the witness must be unable to testify in court, which could be due to factors such as death, illness, or being out of the jurisdiction. The exception allows for the admission of statements made by family members regarding their own family history, even though it would normally be considered hearsay.

The correct answer is "An exception requiring unavailability of the speaker." This means that when the opponent's wrongdoing is being discussed, it is not considered hearsay as long as the witness who heard the statement is unavailable to testify. In other words, if the person who made the statement is not present to testify, their statement can still be admissible as evidence.