EXAM 1 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS STUDY GUIDE |
LATEST UPDATE 2026/2027 | ACTUAL EXAM |
PRACTICE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS | EXAM
REVIEW | 100% CORRECT ANSWERS | VERIFIED
SOLUTIONS
This practice examination is designed as a foundational assessment tool for law
students preparing for Evidence courses, bar examination review, or litigation skills
training. It covers the core principles of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including
relevance, character evidence, impeachment, hearsay, authentication, the Best
Evidence Rule, expert testimony, privileges, and constitutional limitations. The 100
multiple-choice questions are crafted at varying difficulty levels—from basic
application to complex, multi-issue scenarios—to mirror the progression of a
typical law school exam. Each question is accompanied by a concise yet thorough
rationale explaining the correct answer and distinguishing the incorrect choices.
This resource, updated for the 2026–2027 academic cycle, provides verified
solutions to help you diagnose your understanding, reinforce foundational
concepts, and build the analytical skills necessary for success on any evidence
assessment.
Table of Contents
I. Relevance and General Admissibility
II. Character Evidence and Other Acts
III. Impeachment and Witness Examination
IV. Hearsay and Its Exceptions
V. Privileges and Public Policy Exclusions
VI. Authentication and Identification
VII. Best Evidence Rule (Original Document Rule)
VIII. Opinion Testimony and Expert Witnesses
IX. Constitutional Limitations and Confrontation
X. Judicial Notice and Presumptions
, 1. A plaintiff sues a restaurant after slipping on a wet floor. She offers
testimony that another customer complained about the spill 20 minutes
before her fall. The restaurant objects on hearsay grounds. How should the
court rule?
A) Admit the statement as a present sense impression
B) Admit the statement as an excited utterance
C) Exclude the statement as hearsay
D) Admit the statement not for its truth, but to prove the restaurant had
notice of the condition
Correct Answer: D
The statement is not offered to prove the floor was wet, but to prove the
restaurant was on notice of the dangerous condition. Notice is a legally relevant
fact in a premises liability action, and when an out-of-court statement is offered
for a purpose other than its truth, it is not hearsay. Options A and B are hearsay
exceptions that would apply only if the statement were offered for its truth.
Therefore, the court should admit the statement for the limited non-hearsay
purpose of showing notice.
2. In a robbery trial, the prosecution offers evidence that the defendant
purchased a ski mask and a crowbar the day before the crime. The
defendant objects on relevance grounds. The evidence is:
A) Inadmissible because it does not directly prove the defendant committed
the robbery
B) Admissible because it makes it more probable that the defendant
planned and prepared for the robbery
C) Inadmissible character evidence under Rule 404
D) Admissible only if the defendant testifies
Correct Answer: B
Evidence of preparatory acts is relevant under Rule 401 because it tends to make a
fact of consequence more probable. Purchasing tools commonly used in a robbery
is circumstantial evidence of planning and preparation. It is not character
,evidence; it is specific conduct related to the charged crime. Direct proof is not
required. Thus, the evidence is relevant and admissible.
3. A plaintiff in an auto accident case seeks to introduce evidence that the
defendant paid the plaintiff’s medical bills after the collision. The defendant
objects under Rule 409. The court should rule the evidence:
A) Admissible as an admission of liability
B) Inadmissible to prove liability, because Rule 409 bars evidence of paying
medical expenses to prove fault
C) Admissible to show the defendant’s wealth
D) Inadmissible because it is hearsay
Correct Answer: B
Federal Rule of Evidence 409 prohibits the use of evidence that a party has paid,
offered, or promised to pay medical expenses to prove liability for the injury. The
rule encourages humanitarian gestures without fear of being used as admissions.
Option A is incorrect because the rule specifically bars this inference. Options C
and D are not applicable. Thus, the evidence is inadmissible for the purpose of
proving fault.
4. A defendant is on trial for assault. During its case-in-chief, the prosecution
calls a witness to testify that the defendant has a reputation in the
community for being violent. The defendant has not introduced any
character evidence. The court should:
A) Admit the testimony as reputation evidence under Rule 405
B) Exclude the testimony because the prosecution may not initiate evidence
of the defendant’s bad character
C) Admit the testimony only if the prosecution gives advance notice
D) Exclude the testimony because reputation evidence is never admissible
in criminal trials
Correct Answer: B
Rule 404(a)(1) prohibits the prosecution from offering evidence of a defendant’s
character trait to prove action in conformity therewith, unless the defendant first
introduces evidence of good character. Since the defendant has not opened the
, door, the prosecution’s reputation evidence is impermissible character evidence.
Option A misstates the rule. Options C and D are incorrect. Thus, the objection
should be sustained.
5. A witness for the prosecution testifies that she saw the defendant flee the
crime scene. On cross-examination, defense counsel asks the witness about
a pending civil lawsuit she has filed against the defendant. The prosecutor
objects. The court should rule the question:
A) Improper because it is irrelevant to the criminal charges
B) Proper because evidence of bias is always relevant and may be elicited
on cross-examination
C) Improper unless the witness first denies bias
D) Proper only if the defense introduces extrinsic evidence of the lawsuit
Correct Answer: B
Evidence of bias, prejudice, or motive to fabricate is always relevant to a witness’s
credibility. A pending lawsuit against a party can demonstrate the witness’s
potential bias. Bias may be explored on cross-examination, and extrinsic evidence
is also admissible. Option A is incorrect because bias is relevant. Options C and D
are unnecessary. Therefore, the court should allow the question.
6. A plaintiff in a breach of contract action testifies that the defendant orally
promised to deliver goods by a certain date. The defendant objects that the
contract was in writing and demands the original under the Best Evidence
Rule. The plaintiff testifies that the original was destroyed in a flood through
no fault of her own. The court should:
A) Exclude the testimony because the original must be produced
B) Admit the testimony upon a showing that the original was lost or
destroyed and the proponent did not act in bad faith
C) Exclude the testimony unless the defendant admits the contract’s terms
D) Admit the testimony only if a copy is available
Correct Answer: B
Under Rule 1004(a), the original is not required and other evidence of the content
is admissible if all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent
LATEST UPDATE 2026/2027 | ACTUAL EXAM |
PRACTICE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS | EXAM
REVIEW | 100% CORRECT ANSWERS | VERIFIED
SOLUTIONS
This practice examination is designed as a foundational assessment tool for law
students preparing for Evidence courses, bar examination review, or litigation skills
training. It covers the core principles of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including
relevance, character evidence, impeachment, hearsay, authentication, the Best
Evidence Rule, expert testimony, privileges, and constitutional limitations. The 100
multiple-choice questions are crafted at varying difficulty levels—from basic
application to complex, multi-issue scenarios—to mirror the progression of a
typical law school exam. Each question is accompanied by a concise yet thorough
rationale explaining the correct answer and distinguishing the incorrect choices.
This resource, updated for the 2026–2027 academic cycle, provides verified
solutions to help you diagnose your understanding, reinforce foundational
concepts, and build the analytical skills necessary for success on any evidence
assessment.
Table of Contents
I. Relevance and General Admissibility
II. Character Evidence and Other Acts
III. Impeachment and Witness Examination
IV. Hearsay and Its Exceptions
V. Privileges and Public Policy Exclusions
VI. Authentication and Identification
VII. Best Evidence Rule (Original Document Rule)
VIII. Opinion Testimony and Expert Witnesses
IX. Constitutional Limitations and Confrontation
X. Judicial Notice and Presumptions
, 1. A plaintiff sues a restaurant after slipping on a wet floor. She offers
testimony that another customer complained about the spill 20 minutes
before her fall. The restaurant objects on hearsay grounds. How should the
court rule?
A) Admit the statement as a present sense impression
B) Admit the statement as an excited utterance
C) Exclude the statement as hearsay
D) Admit the statement not for its truth, but to prove the restaurant had
notice of the condition
Correct Answer: D
The statement is not offered to prove the floor was wet, but to prove the
restaurant was on notice of the dangerous condition. Notice is a legally relevant
fact in a premises liability action, and when an out-of-court statement is offered
for a purpose other than its truth, it is not hearsay. Options A and B are hearsay
exceptions that would apply only if the statement were offered for its truth.
Therefore, the court should admit the statement for the limited non-hearsay
purpose of showing notice.
2. In a robbery trial, the prosecution offers evidence that the defendant
purchased a ski mask and a crowbar the day before the crime. The
defendant objects on relevance grounds. The evidence is:
A) Inadmissible because it does not directly prove the defendant committed
the robbery
B) Admissible because it makes it more probable that the defendant
planned and prepared for the robbery
C) Inadmissible character evidence under Rule 404
D) Admissible only if the defendant testifies
Correct Answer: B
Evidence of preparatory acts is relevant under Rule 401 because it tends to make a
fact of consequence more probable. Purchasing tools commonly used in a robbery
is circumstantial evidence of planning and preparation. It is not character
,evidence; it is specific conduct related to the charged crime. Direct proof is not
required. Thus, the evidence is relevant and admissible.
3. A plaintiff in an auto accident case seeks to introduce evidence that the
defendant paid the plaintiff’s medical bills after the collision. The defendant
objects under Rule 409. The court should rule the evidence:
A) Admissible as an admission of liability
B) Inadmissible to prove liability, because Rule 409 bars evidence of paying
medical expenses to prove fault
C) Admissible to show the defendant’s wealth
D) Inadmissible because it is hearsay
Correct Answer: B
Federal Rule of Evidence 409 prohibits the use of evidence that a party has paid,
offered, or promised to pay medical expenses to prove liability for the injury. The
rule encourages humanitarian gestures without fear of being used as admissions.
Option A is incorrect because the rule specifically bars this inference. Options C
and D are not applicable. Thus, the evidence is inadmissible for the purpose of
proving fault.
4. A defendant is on trial for assault. During its case-in-chief, the prosecution
calls a witness to testify that the defendant has a reputation in the
community for being violent. The defendant has not introduced any
character evidence. The court should:
A) Admit the testimony as reputation evidence under Rule 405
B) Exclude the testimony because the prosecution may not initiate evidence
of the defendant’s bad character
C) Admit the testimony only if the prosecution gives advance notice
D) Exclude the testimony because reputation evidence is never admissible
in criminal trials
Correct Answer: B
Rule 404(a)(1) prohibits the prosecution from offering evidence of a defendant’s
character trait to prove action in conformity therewith, unless the defendant first
introduces evidence of good character. Since the defendant has not opened the
, door, the prosecution’s reputation evidence is impermissible character evidence.
Option A misstates the rule. Options C and D are incorrect. Thus, the objection
should be sustained.
5. A witness for the prosecution testifies that she saw the defendant flee the
crime scene. On cross-examination, defense counsel asks the witness about
a pending civil lawsuit she has filed against the defendant. The prosecutor
objects. The court should rule the question:
A) Improper because it is irrelevant to the criminal charges
B) Proper because evidence of bias is always relevant and may be elicited
on cross-examination
C) Improper unless the witness first denies bias
D) Proper only if the defense introduces extrinsic evidence of the lawsuit
Correct Answer: B
Evidence of bias, prejudice, or motive to fabricate is always relevant to a witness’s
credibility. A pending lawsuit against a party can demonstrate the witness’s
potential bias. Bias may be explored on cross-examination, and extrinsic evidence
is also admissible. Option A is incorrect because bias is relevant. Options C and D
are unnecessary. Therefore, the court should allow the question.
6. A plaintiff in a breach of contract action testifies that the defendant orally
promised to deliver goods by a certain date. The defendant objects that the
contract was in writing and demands the original under the Best Evidence
Rule. The plaintiff testifies that the original was destroyed in a flood through
no fault of her own. The court should:
A) Exclude the testimony because the original must be produced
B) Admit the testimony upon a showing that the original was lost or
destroyed and the proponent did not act in bad faith
C) Exclude the testimony unless the defendant admits the contract’s terms
D) Admit the testimony only if a copy is available
Correct Answer: B
Under Rule 1004(a), the original is not required and other evidence of the content
is admissible if all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent
