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.
63. Is the jail employee's testimony admissible?
A defendant is on trial for kidnapping. The victim has testified that one of the kidnappers referred to the other as «Speed.» The prosecutor calls a jail employee to testify that, while the defendant was in jail awaiting trial, other inmates addressed the defendant as «Speed.»
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
C is correct. The basic rule to apply here is that hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If the relevance of an out-of-court statement is not the truth of the assertion contained within, the statement is not hearsay. In this case, the jail employee is testifying about inmates calling the defendant by a nickname. The evidence shows that the kidnapper and the defendant have the same nickname. This evidence is admissible as circumstantial evidence of identification.
A is incorrect. The testimony is not considered hearsay because it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, it is being offered as circumstantial evidence to establish identity.
B is incorrect. Relevant evidence may be excluded if it is substantially more prejudicial than probative. This rule favors admissibility. There are no obvious factors here that would cause substantial prejudice. Therefore, the evidence will not be excluded.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. A witness's testimony typically cannot be bolstered unless it has first been attacked. The evidence here will not be admissible to bolster the victim's truthfulness, but rather as evidence of identification.