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.
30. The testimony of the defendant is
A plaintiff sued a defendant under an age discrimination statute, alleging that the defendant refused to hire the plaintiff because she was over age 65. The defendant's defense was that he refused to employ the plaintiff because he reasonably believed that she would be unable to perform the job. The defendant seeks to testify that the plaintiff's former employer advised him not to hire the plaintiff because she was unable to perform productively for more than four hours a day.
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
Statements by a declarant that serve as circumstantial evidence of the declarant's state of mind are not hearsay. Such statements are not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted but only that the declarant believed them to be true. Fed. R. Evid. 803(3). Examples of the declarant's state of mind that may be shown include knowledge and intent.
D is correct. The testimony of the defendant is admissible as non-hearsay because it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted — that the plaintiff was actually unable to perform productively more than four hours a day. Rather, the statement establishes the defendant's state of mind, or reason for not hiring the plaintiff, regardless of how many hours the plaintiff could work. Because the defense to the plaintiff's case is that the defendant had a reason other than age when he refused to hire her, the former employer's statement is relevant and admissible.
A is incorrect. Although substantive evidence in the form of witness testimony is generally required to be based on personal knowledge, that rule does not apply here. The admissibility of the defendant's testimony rests upon the fact that it is being offered to establish the defendant's reasoning for not hiring the plaintiff, not for the truth of the matter asserted, and therefore does not have to be based on personal knowledge to be admissible.
B is incorrect. If the statement were being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, it would be considered hearsay. However, as explained above, the statement is offered for the purpose of establishing the defendant's state of mind, rendering it non-hearsay and admissible.
C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the testimony is admissible, it is not for the purpose of showing the plaintiff was actually unable to work more than four hours a day. On the contrary, it is admissible, regardless of whether it is true, to establish the defendant's motivation for not hiring the plaintiff. If the statement were being offered as proof that the plaintiff would not be able to work longer than four hours per day, it would be hearsay.