Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
11. The witness's testimony is
A defendant is charged with possession of heroin. The prosecution's witness, an experienced dog trainer, testified that he was in the airport with a dog trained to detect heroin. As the defendant approached, the dog immediately became alert and pawed and barked frantically at the defendant's briefcase. The defendant managed to run outside and throw his briefcase into the river, from which it could not be recovered. After the witness's experience is established, he is asked to testify as an expert that the dog's reaction told him that the defendant's briefcase contained heroin.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
There is no such thing as animal hearsay. Hearsay involves an out-of-court statement by a person. Therefore, the behavior of a drug-sniffing dog in identifying a suspect is not hearsay. A witness may testify to the actions of a drug-sniffing dog in identifying a suspect if there is a foundation showing that the dog was properly trained and is reliable in identifying drug carriers.
A is correct. The primary issue here is whether the expert testimony would be considered hearsay. The rule is that a drug-sniffing dog's behavior in identifying a suspect is not a «statement» for purposes of hearsay. As such, the expert's testimony is not reliant upon an out-of-court «statement,» and is not hearsay. The testimony is therefore admissible as substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt.
B is incorrect. This answer choice incorrectly states that the testimony would rely on hearsay. The dog's identification of the defendant is not considered a statement because it's from an animal, and is therefore not hearsay.
C is incorrect. As explained above, the dog's identification is not hearsay because it is from an animal, not a human, and therefore cannot be considered a «statement» for purposes of hearsay.
D is incorrect. When the proper foundation has been laid, testimony regarding the behavior of a trained drug-sniffing dog may be admissible as evidence of guilt.