Hearsay: Miscellaneous Exceptions Flashcards
The mother in a paternity action seeks to admit the child’s baptismal record indicating that Joe-Bob is the father of the child. Joe-Bob objects on hearsay, lack of firsthand knowledge and beyond business records exception because the reference to him as the father are not religious business facts.
Hearsay Exception under 803(11): Records of Religious Organizations Containing Personal or Family History
The mother in a paternity action offers a photo showing she and the defendant holding the baby. On the back of the photo each of the party’s names are referenced, with the added inscriptions “Mother,” “Father” and “Baby.”
Hearsay Exception under 803(13): Family Records
In a paternity action brought by a mother, testimony that everyone in the family “knows” that Joe-Bob is the father.
Hearsay Exception under 803(19): Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History
What if Joe-Bob was previously convicted of raping Betty-Sue and Betty-Sue is claiming she became pregnant from the rape? Is the rape conviction record inadmissible as hearsay to prove the fact of paternity?
Hearsay Exception under 803(22): Judgment of a Previous Conviction
In a quiet-title action filed by Joe-Bob who purports to have been the husband of rich Betty-Sue, who died intestate from childbirth, recitals in several warranty deeds which reference Joe-Bob and Betty-Sue as husband and wife?
Hearsay Exception under 803(15): Statements in Documents that Affect an Interest in Property
To prove the value of Joe-Bob’s holdings in stock a copy of the Wall Street Journal listing some of Joe-Bob’s stocks and a corresponding price.
Hearsay Exception under 803(17): Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications
In the original paternity action against Joe-Bob, Betty Sue wants to explain to the jury the significance of DNA marking identification evidence from a recognized treatise on DNA and paternity issues.
Not a hearsay exception by itself, but a qualified expert could reference it under 803(18) as a hearsay exception for Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets
True or False?
A’s expert doctor, on cross-examination was asked, “Isn’t it a fact that `S on Y’ is a recognized, authoritative work on the subject of Y?” Assuming the doctor answered “Yes” to the question, the doctor could be cross-examined about statements in the book contrary to the opinion he expressed.
True
A’s expert doctor, on cross-examination was asked, “Isn’t it a fact that `S on Y’ is a recognized, authoritative work on the subject of Y?” Assuming the doctor answered “Yes” to the question, the doctor is cross-examined about statements in the book contrary to the opinion he expressed. Statements from the book contrary to the doctor’s opinion are admissible orally, but only to impeach him the witness’s credibility.
False
In a federal proceeding seeking to denaturalize a citizen based upon his fraudulent representation when procuring his citizenship, the government seeks to introduce World War II service records indicating that the defendant had served as a guard at several Nazi training and concentration camps. In support of the admissibility of the service pass records, the government offers testimony that the service records were found in the Vinnitsa Archives in the Ukraine. Assuming the defendant objects on the grounds of hearsay, the court should
A. Sustain the objection because no witnesses can be cross examined about the truthfulness of any information on the service records.
B. Sustain the objection because records from foreign archives are inherently unreliable.
C. Overrule the objection because 803(16) provides a hearsay objection for the admissibility of ancient documents over 20 years old found in a place that would raise no suspicion as to authenticity.
D. Sustain the objection on the basis of hearsay.
C. Overrule the objection because 803(16) provides a hearsay objection for the admissibility of ancient documents over 20 years old found in a place that would raise no suspicion as to authenticity.
In a suit attacking the validity of a deed executed fifteen years ago, Plaintiff alleges mental incompetency of Joe, the grantor, and offers in evidence a properly authenticated affidavit of Harry, Joe’s brother. The affidavit, which was executed shortly after the deed, stated that Harry had observed Joe closely over a period of weeks, that Joe had engaged in instances of unusual behavior (which were described), and that Joe’s appearance had changed from one of neatness and alertness to one of disorder and absentmindedness. The judge should rule Harry’s affidavit
A. Inadmissible as hearsay, not within any exception.
B. Admissible as a family record ((803(13)).
C. Admissible as an ancient document (803(16)).
D. Admissible as reputation of family history (803(19)).
A. Inadmissible as hearsay, not within any exception.
Post sued Dean for personal injury alleged to have been caused by Dean’s negligence. A major issue at trial was whether Post’s disability was caused solely by trauma or by a preexisting condition of osteoarthritis. Post called Dr. Cox, who testified that the disability was caused by trauma. On cross-examination, Dr. Cox testified that a medical textbook entitled Diseases of the Joints was authoritative and that she agreed with the substance of passages from the textbook that she was directed to look at, but that the passages were inapplicable to Post’s condition because they dealt with rheumatoid arthritis rather than with the osteoarthritis that Post was alleged to have. Dean then called his expert, Dr. Freed, who testifies that, with reference to the issue being litigated, there is no difference between the two kinds of arthritis. Dean’s counsel then asks permission to read to the jury the textbook passages earlier shown to Dr. Cox. The judge should rule the textbook passages
A. Admissible only for the purpose of impeaching Cox.
B. Admissible as substantive evidence if the judge determines that the passages are relevant.
C. Inadmissible, because they are hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, because Cox contended that they are not relevant to Post’s condition.
Admissible as substantive evidence if the judge determines that the passages are relevant.
To prove that he had been legitimated, John, now 45 years of age, offered in evidence a marriage certificate, apparently regular on its face and obviously an old document, which purported to reflect the marriage of John’s mother to his father some three months after John’s birth. John testified that he found the certificate in a trunk in the attic of his family home after the death of both of his parents. The trial judge should rule the certificate
A. Admissible as within the ancient document exception to the hearsay rule (803(16)).
B. Admissible as within the 803(12) exception for certificates of family matters.
C. Inadmissible hearsay.
D. (A) and (B) are correct.
D. (A) and (B) are correct.
To prove that Elvis Presley is really dead, a party calls W, who testifies that she recently went to the Graceland cemetery where he read an inscription on an ornate tomb that read, “Elvis Aaron Presley, born1935 to Vernon and Gladys Presley; Star of 33 films; 150 gold, platinum, or multi-platinum awards for 150 single records; 14 Grammy nominations; soldier; rockstar; died August 16, 1977.” This testimony is
A. Inadmissible because a tombstone can be easily faked or misread and is therefore unreliable.
B. Inadmissible because it is hearsay for which no exception applies.
C. While the dates of birth are admissible under the family record exception 803(13), the statements of fact about his music success are inadmissible.
D. Everything on the tomb is admissible as a family record under 803(13).
C. While the dates of birth are admissible under the family record exception 803(13), the statements of fact about his music success are inadmissible.
Cars driven by Pugh and Davidson collided, and Davidson was charged with driving while intoxicated in connection with the accident. She pleaded guilty and was merely fined, although under the statute the court could have sentenced her to two years in prison. Thereafter, Pugh, alleging that Davidson’s intoxication had caused the collision, sued Davidson for damages. At trial, Pugh offers the properly authenticated record of Davidson’s conviction. The record should be
A. Admitted as proof of Davidson’s intoxication.
B. Excluded, because the conviction was not the result of a trial.
C. Excluded, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
D. The fact of the conviction is admissible, but the finding that the defendant was intoxicated is inadmissible.
A. Admitted as proof of Davidson’s intoxication.
