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.
19. The question is
A plaintiff is suing a defendant for injuries suffered in an automobile collision. At trial the plaintiff's first witness testified that, although she did not see the accident, she heard her friend say just before the crash, «Look at the crazy way old [defendant] is driving!» The defendant offers evidence to impeach the witness's friend by asking the witness, «Isn't it true that [the friend] beat up [the defendant] just the day before the collision?»
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. Except for being relevant to the friend's motive to lie about the defendant, the fact that the friend beat up the defendant has no relevance to the friend's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. The friend's character for beating people up would be inadmissible.
C is incorrect. The friend need not have an opportunity to explain or deny before the question can properly be asked. Because the question is relevant to show why the friend may have made the statement, it is proper for the defendant to ask it.
D is incorrect. The question is being asked to establish the friend's motive to lie about the defendant in his statement, and is proper. Additionally, specific instances of conduct, if for the purpose of attacking a witness's credibility, can be inquired into on cross-examination.