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.
18. The tape recording of the wife stating the license is
A defendant is on trial for theft. At trial, the prosecutor called a husband and wife. They testified that, as they looked out their apartment window, they saw thieves across the street break the window of a jewelry store, take jewelry, and leave in a car. The wife telephoned the police and relayed to them the license number of the thieves' car as her husband looked out the window with binoculars and read it to her. Neither of them has any present memory of the number. The prosecutor offers as evidence a properly authenticated police tape recording of the wife's telephone call with her voice giving the license number, which is independently shown to belong to the defendant's car.
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
Under FRE 803(1), a present sense impression is a statement that describes or explains an event or condition and is made while or immediately after the declarant perceives the event or condition. The present sense impression exception requires that the witness actually hear the declarant make the statement at the time that the declarant is observing the event.
A statement that contains hearsay within hearsay may be admissible as long as each part of the combined statement conforms to a hearsay exception. Fed. R. Evid. 805.
A is correct. The tape recording of the wife reporting the license plate number is admissible as a hearsay exception under FRE 803(1), present sense impressions. The wife telephoned the police while perceiving the event and described the license plate to the police. The wife heard the husband read the license plate number to her while he was observing it. Both the wife's statement to the police and the husband's relaying of the license plate number satisfy the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The tape recording is admissible, but not as non-hearsay circumstantial evidence. The recording is an out-of-court statement being offered for its truth (the license plate number), which renders it hearsay. However, it satisfies the exception for present sense impressions, as explained above, and is admissible.
C is incorrect. As previously explained, the recording of the statement by the wife is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the license plate number. Therefore, her statement is hearsay. However, the statement is still admissible as a present sense impression under FRE 803(1). The husband and wife observed the theft, and the wife heard the husband state the license plate number. Therefore, the statement is hearsay with an exception to the rule.
D is incorrect. The husband reported the license plate number in real-time, as he was observing it. The wife simultaneously reported the number as he read it to her. The wife's reporting the license plate number to the police was thus based on the husband's direct witnessing of the event. The present sense impression exception requires that the witness actually hear the declarant make the statement at the time that the declarant is observing the event. As such, the wife does not need firsthand knowledge as long as she heard her husband state the license plate number as he was observing it.