1 | Page
Barbri Evidence Questions and Correct Answers/
Latest Update / Already Graded
The Funnel
Ans: Course
Area
Rule
Exception
C.A.R.E.
Corporation Central agrees to sell Merchant Tile Company 10,000 tiles, to be
delivered on July 1. Corporation Central does not deliver and Merchant Tile sues
in court. Merchant Tile calls Eddie Expert to the stand and Eddie is asked on cross
examination, "Isn't it true, Mr. Expert, that you lied on your driver's license
examination 11 years ago?"
This question is:
(A) Permissible if offered as propensity character evidence.
(B) Permissible if asked on cross-examination.
(C) Impermissible since it does not concern the substantive issues of the case.
(D) Impermissible as a violation of the best evidence rule.
Ans: (B) Permissible if asked on cross-examination.
Prior Untruthful Acts
No extrinsic evidence is allowed
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Is the evidence offered to prove an element of a claim, cause of action, or
defense?
Ans: Yes, if:
• Relevance
• Character
• Hearsay
• Privilege
• Witnesses
• Writings
Is the evidence offered to impeach a witness?
Ans: Yes, if the evidence attacks a witness's truthfulness or accuracy.
Stages:
• Intrinsic - cross examination
• Extrinsic - new evidence
• Rehabilitation
Evidence offered to prove an element and impeach a witness (two-way evidence).
Ans: EXAMPLES
Some admissions, prior witness statements, and learned treatises.
2 RELEVANCE
2.1 TYPES
Logical Relevance—The Gatekeeper
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
Ans: Evidence that has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than
it would be without the evidence (FRE 401).
What does this really mean?
Watch out: Evidence might not be logically relevant if it involves some other time,
event, or person than the one directly involved in the litigation.
Legal—Discretionary or Policy-Based—Relevance
(Rule 403)
Ans: Even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:
• Unfair prejudice
• Confusion of the issues
• Misleading the jury
• Undue delay
• Wasting time
• Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence
Watch out:
(1) Uneven balancing test in Rule 403 (prejudice, etc. must substantially outweigh
probative value) and
(2) no mention of "unfair surprise."
2.2 SIMILAR OCCURRENCES
General rule for other time, place, occurrence, people:
exclude.
Joe slipped and fell on the way into the law school. Joe sued the law school. Three
other people slipped on the way into the law school that week. Joe offers these
other slips in evidence. Are the other slips admissible?
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 4 | Page
Ans: No because other acts are dissimilar and misleading.
Exceptions to general rule: Some evidence may be relevant/admissible even
though it does involve some other time, some other event, or some other person
not directly involved in litigation. Exceptions include:
Ans: Causation - To Prove Cause and Effect
Plaintiff's Prior Accidents or Claims
Intent or State of Mind in Issue - to infer intent from prior conduct. "intent"
means mental state at the time of action
Rebuttal Evidence - to rebut evidence of impossibility
Habit Evidence
Business Routine
Industrial Trade or Custom
Sally eats at Harry's restaurant and gets sick. Sally offers evidence that others who
ate "the same type of food" at same time at restaurant also got sick. Admissible?
Ans: Yes because of substantial similarity
Pl. drives into bridge abutment and sues City that built and maintained bridge.
Def. City seeks to show Pl. has on four other occasions driven into different
stationary objects and sued. Admissible?
Ans: No because we don't know if it the Ps fault.
Admit:
Ans: • To show common plan or scheme of fraud.
• When relevant to the question of damage to the plaintiff.
• Notice or knowledge on the part of the defendant that the instrument was
defective (if same instrument).
• That the instrumentality was defective or dangerous (if same instrument).
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
Barbri Evidence Questions and Correct Answers/
Latest Update / Already Graded
The Funnel
Ans: Course
Area
Rule
Exception
C.A.R.E.
Corporation Central agrees to sell Merchant Tile Company 10,000 tiles, to be
delivered on July 1. Corporation Central does not deliver and Merchant Tile sues
in court. Merchant Tile calls Eddie Expert to the stand and Eddie is asked on cross
examination, "Isn't it true, Mr. Expert, that you lied on your driver's license
examination 11 years ago?"
This question is:
(A) Permissible if offered as propensity character evidence.
(B) Permissible if asked on cross-examination.
(C) Impermissible since it does not concern the substantive issues of the case.
(D) Impermissible as a violation of the best evidence rule.
Ans: (B) Permissible if asked on cross-examination.
Prior Untruthful Acts
No extrinsic evidence is allowed
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Is the evidence offered to prove an element of a claim, cause of action, or
defense?
Ans: Yes, if:
• Relevance
• Character
• Hearsay
• Privilege
• Witnesses
• Writings
Is the evidence offered to impeach a witness?
Ans: Yes, if the evidence attacks a witness's truthfulness or accuracy.
Stages:
• Intrinsic - cross examination
• Extrinsic - new evidence
• Rehabilitation
Evidence offered to prove an element and impeach a witness (two-way evidence).
Ans: EXAMPLES
Some admissions, prior witness statements, and learned treatises.
2 RELEVANCE
2.1 TYPES
Logical Relevance—The Gatekeeper
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
Ans: Evidence that has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than
it would be without the evidence (FRE 401).
What does this really mean?
Watch out: Evidence might not be logically relevant if it involves some other time,
event, or person than the one directly involved in the litigation.
Legal—Discretionary or Policy-Based—Relevance
(Rule 403)
Ans: Even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:
• Unfair prejudice
• Confusion of the issues
• Misleading the jury
• Undue delay
• Wasting time
• Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence
Watch out:
(1) Uneven balancing test in Rule 403 (prejudice, etc. must substantially outweigh
probative value) and
(2) no mention of "unfair surprise."
2.2 SIMILAR OCCURRENCES
General rule for other time, place, occurrence, people:
exclude.
Joe slipped and fell on the way into the law school. Joe sued the law school. Three
other people slipped on the way into the law school that week. Joe offers these
other slips in evidence. Are the other slips admissible?
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 4 | Page
Ans: No because other acts are dissimilar and misleading.
Exceptions to general rule: Some evidence may be relevant/admissible even
though it does involve some other time, some other event, or some other person
not directly involved in litigation. Exceptions include:
Ans: Causation - To Prove Cause and Effect
Plaintiff's Prior Accidents or Claims
Intent or State of Mind in Issue - to infer intent from prior conduct. "intent"
means mental state at the time of action
Rebuttal Evidence - to rebut evidence of impossibility
Habit Evidence
Business Routine
Industrial Trade or Custom
Sally eats at Harry's restaurant and gets sick. Sally offers evidence that others who
ate "the same type of food" at same time at restaurant also got sick. Admissible?
Ans: Yes because of substantial similarity
Pl. drives into bridge abutment and sues City that built and maintained bridge.
Def. City seeks to show Pl. has on four other occasions driven into different
stationary objects and sued. Admissible?
Ans: No because we don't know if it the Ps fault.
Admit:
Ans: • To show common plan or scheme of fraud.
• When relevant to the question of damage to the plaintiff.
• Notice or knowledge on the part of the defendant that the instrument was
defective (if same instrument).
• That the instrumentality was defective or dangerous (if same instrument).
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
