MBE: EVIDENCE Adaptibar Questions with Correct Answers 100% Verified|
Guaranteed Success
A defendant is on trial for robbing a bank in State A. She testified that she was in State B at the
time of the robbery. The defendant calls her friend, a witness, to testify that two days before
the robbery the defendant told him that she was going to spend the next three days in State B.
The witness's testimony is
A: admissible, because the statement falls within the present sense impression exception to the
hearsay rule.
B: admissible, because a statement of plans falls within the hearsay exception for then-existing
state of mind.
C: inadmissible, because it is offered to establish an alibi by the defendant's own statement.
D: inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. B: admissible, because a
statement of plans falls within the hearsay exception for then-existing state of mind.
Pike sued Day City Community Church for damages he suffered when Pike crashed his
motorcycle inan attempt to avoid a cow that had escaped from its corral. The cow and corral
belonged to a farm that had recently been left by will to the church. At trial, Pike seeks to ask
Defendant's witness, Winters, whether she is a member of that church.
The question is:
(A) improper, because evidence of a witness's religious beliefs is not admissible to
impeachcredibility.
,(B) improper, because it violates First Amendment and privacy rights.
(C) proper, for the purpose of ascertaining partiality or bias.
(D) proper, for the purpose of showing capacity to appreciate the nature and obligation of an
oath. (C) proper, for the purpose of ascertaining partiality or bias.
A victim was found dead, apparently from a gunshot wound. A friend of the murder victim was
charged with first-degree murder. At trial, the suspect offered an alibi-defense during his case-
in-chief. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the suspect if it was true that he had been
convicted of a misdemeanor for check fraud 2 years earlier. The suspect's lawyer objected.
How should the judge rule?
A. overrule the objection because the suspect's alleged conviction is admissible to show his
tenancy to make false statements
B. overrule the objection because the probative value of the evidence outweighs the possibility
of unfair prejudice against the suspect
C. sustain the objection because the suspect's conviction was for a misdemeanor, not a felony
D. sustain the objection because the conviction was for a non-violent crime A. overrule the
objection because the suspect's alleged conviction is admissible to show his tenancy to make
false statements
**Defendant is on the stand as "witness" so Atty can impeach him (credibility)
, Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of a commercial contract in which Defendant agreed to sell
Plaintiff all of Plaintiff's requirement for widgets. Plaintiff called Expert Witness to testify as to
damages. Defendant seeks to show Expert Witness had provided false testimony as aw witness
in his own divorce proceedings.
This evidence should be:
A. admitted only if elicited from Expert Witness on cross-examination
B. admitted only if the false testimony is established by clear and convincing evidence
C. exclude because it is impeachment on a collateral issue
D. exclude because it is improper character evidence A. admitted only if elicited from Expert
Witness on cross-examination
**"character evidence" are things about one of the PARTIES to the case
**Atty can ALWAYS ask witness on the stand about things related to lying or truthfulness
A man was arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter. the victim died after a head-
on collision with the man's car. The prosecution claimed that the man fell asleep while
operating his car and drove into oncoming traffic, killing the victim. At trial, the prosecution
called a witness to testify that she was visiting the man on the morning of the accident and he
told her, "i did not get any sleep last night because of a terrible headache." This man's attorney
objects to the witness's testimony.
How should the court rule on the testimony?
Guaranteed Success
A defendant is on trial for robbing a bank in State A. She testified that she was in State B at the
time of the robbery. The defendant calls her friend, a witness, to testify that two days before
the robbery the defendant told him that she was going to spend the next three days in State B.
The witness's testimony is
A: admissible, because the statement falls within the present sense impression exception to the
hearsay rule.
B: admissible, because a statement of plans falls within the hearsay exception for then-existing
state of mind.
C: inadmissible, because it is offered to establish an alibi by the defendant's own statement.
D: inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. B: admissible, because a
statement of plans falls within the hearsay exception for then-existing state of mind.
Pike sued Day City Community Church for damages he suffered when Pike crashed his
motorcycle inan attempt to avoid a cow that had escaped from its corral. The cow and corral
belonged to a farm that had recently been left by will to the church. At trial, Pike seeks to ask
Defendant's witness, Winters, whether she is a member of that church.
The question is:
(A) improper, because evidence of a witness's religious beliefs is not admissible to
impeachcredibility.
,(B) improper, because it violates First Amendment and privacy rights.
(C) proper, for the purpose of ascertaining partiality or bias.
(D) proper, for the purpose of showing capacity to appreciate the nature and obligation of an
oath. (C) proper, for the purpose of ascertaining partiality or bias.
A victim was found dead, apparently from a gunshot wound. A friend of the murder victim was
charged with first-degree murder. At trial, the suspect offered an alibi-defense during his case-
in-chief. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the suspect if it was true that he had been
convicted of a misdemeanor for check fraud 2 years earlier. The suspect's lawyer objected.
How should the judge rule?
A. overrule the objection because the suspect's alleged conviction is admissible to show his
tenancy to make false statements
B. overrule the objection because the probative value of the evidence outweighs the possibility
of unfair prejudice against the suspect
C. sustain the objection because the suspect's conviction was for a misdemeanor, not a felony
D. sustain the objection because the conviction was for a non-violent crime A. overrule the
objection because the suspect's alleged conviction is admissible to show his tenancy to make
false statements
**Defendant is on the stand as "witness" so Atty can impeach him (credibility)
, Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of a commercial contract in which Defendant agreed to sell
Plaintiff all of Plaintiff's requirement for widgets. Plaintiff called Expert Witness to testify as to
damages. Defendant seeks to show Expert Witness had provided false testimony as aw witness
in his own divorce proceedings.
This evidence should be:
A. admitted only if elicited from Expert Witness on cross-examination
B. admitted only if the false testimony is established by clear and convincing evidence
C. exclude because it is impeachment on a collateral issue
D. exclude because it is improper character evidence A. admitted only if elicited from Expert
Witness on cross-examination
**"character evidence" are things about one of the PARTIES to the case
**Atty can ALWAYS ask witness on the stand about things related to lying or truthfulness
A man was arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter. the victim died after a head-
on collision with the man's car. The prosecution claimed that the man fell asleep while
operating his car and drove into oncoming traffic, killing the victim. At trial, the prosecution
called a witness to testify that she was visiting the man on the morning of the accident and he
told her, "i did not get any sleep last night because of a terrible headache." This man's attorney
objects to the witness's testimony.
How should the court rule on the testimony?
