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.
71. Is the witness's testimony admissible?
A defendant is on trial as one of the armed robbers of a liquor store. The defendant testifies that he robbed the store involuntarily because his fellow gang members threatened to kill him right then if he backed out, as he wanted to do. Thereafter, the defense seeks to call a witness who would testify that six months after the defendant was arrested in connection with the robbery, the defendant told him that he had been threatened when he wanted to pull out of the robbery. The prosecution objects to the witness's testimony.
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
B is incorrect. There is no Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) that automatically prohibits the admission of a criminal defendant's self-serving statement. If such a statement fits a hearsay exception, it may be admissible, notwithstanding its self-serving nature.
C is incorrect. The state of mind exception admits only statements of a declarant's own then-existing physical or mental state. The exception does not admit statements about past facts that the declarant remembers or believes. Because the defendant's statement describes past events (the robbery) and describes a past state of mind (not one existing at the time he was speaking), the statement fails to satisfy the state of mind exception.
D is incorrect. Although the statement at issue is a «prior consistent» statement of the defendant, FRE 801(d)(1)(B) does not admit all prior consistent statements for their truth. It admits only those that rehabilitate the declarant-witness after an impeaching attack on the witness. Based on the facts presented, there was no impeaching attack by the prosecution on the defendant that justifies the admission of the earlier statement. Further, FRE 801(d)(1)(B) admits only «pre-motive» statements when a witness is impeached for recent fabrication. The defendant's statement, made after his arrest, was post-motive and does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 801(d)(1)(B), even if there had been an impeaching attack on the defendant's credibility.