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.
A defendant is on trial for theft of a used car that he took for a test drive and did not return. He was arrested in the car two days later. In his defense, the defendant has testified that he had no intention of keeping the car but got caught up in marital problems and simply delayed returning it. The defendant calls a witness to testify that the defendant told him, during the two days, «I'm going to return this car as soon as I work things out with my wife.»
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
A is incorrect. This is not a proper standard for admissibility. Even self-serving statements may be admissible in certain circumstances.
B is incorrect. Although the statement is hearsay, the statement meets the FRE 803 exception for a then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.
C is incorrect. FRE 801 permits the admission of consistent statements to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. Although the defendant did testify in this case, there is nothing in the fact pattern to suggest that he was attacked in such a way that would allow the admission of a prior consistent statement.