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.
57. Is the defendant's statement admissible?
A plaintiff has sued a defendant for personal injuries the plaintiff suffered when she was bitten as she was trying to feed a rat that was part of the defendant's caged-rat experiment at a science fair. At trial, the plaintiff offers evidence that immediately after the incident the defendant said to her, «I'd like to give you this $100 bill, because I feel so bad about this.»
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 the FRE 801(d)(2), a statement by an opposing party (traditionally known as an «admission by a party-opponent») is not hearsay. Under this Rule, when the opposing party's statement is offered against that same opposing party and was made in either an individual or representative capacity, it is admissible.
Evidence of compromises or offers to compromise is inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim. Such evidence is also inadmissible to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction. Fed. R. Evid. 408. The FRE also excludes conduct or statements made in the course of negotiating a compromise, as well as the offer to compromise itself; therefore, admissions of fact made during compromise negotiations are inadmissible.
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. A present sense impression is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 803(1).
D is correct. The statement was made out-of-court at the science fair, but it is exempted as an admission by a party-opponent under FRE 801(d)(2). It is a statement by a party (the defendant) being offered against that party and is relevant to the defendant's liability.
A is incorrect. The defendant's statement of contrition and offer of compensation clearly has a tendency to prove that he is liable, and a tendency is all that is required for the evidence to be relevant under Rule 401. The statement is relevant and admissible as the statement of a party-opponent.
B is incorrect. The statement would not be excluded under FRE 408, which precludes statements that are made to settle a claim, because that FRE applies only when the statement is made as a compromise to a disputed claim. Here, at the time the defendant made the statement, he was not contesting that he was at fault. Therefore, there was no disputed claim.
C is incorrect. The exception to the hearsay rule for present sense impressions covers a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made during or immediately after the event or condition. The defendant's statement is just an expression of contrition and not an attempt to explain any event or condition.