EVIDENCE (LAW 543)- FINAL EXAM

PROFESSOR JOHN BARKAI, Fall 200x

Exam No.

This is an open-book exam and will test both Hawaii and Federal Rules of Evidence using Multiple Choice, True/False/Differs and essay questions. Answer the objective questions on the special test form with a #2 pencil. Because there is no penalty for wrong answers to the objective questions, when in doubt, guess! Write the essay answers in bluebooks, and please use every other line.

True/False/Differs questions are numbers 1-85. The Multiple Choice questions are numbers 101-119. There are no questions 86-100.

I think there is one and only one correct answer for each objective question.

I have tried to make the objective questions as unambiguous as possible. I have not tried to create tricky questions, but simply questions that will test your knowledge of evidence.

Let me further explain "Differs" answers. For purposes of this exam, "D" means that the answer "differs" depending on whether you are using the Hawaii or Federal Rules of Evidence. Under one set of rules the answer would be true; under the other set the answer would be false. Let me show you an example of a "Differs" correct answer.

Q. T F D. A statement under belief of impending death (dying declaration) is admissible in any criminal case.

The correct answer to the above question is "Differs" because in criminal cases, Hawaii allows dying declarations in any criminal case but FRE limits them to homicide cases.

Part / Questions / Percent of Exam / Suggested Time
1 / True/False/Differs
(questions 1-85) / 30 / 59 minutes
2 / Multiple Choice
(questions 101-119) / 30 / 59 minutes
3 / Short Essays / 30 / 59 minutes
4 / Cartoon Caption / 10 / 3 minutes
Total / 100 / 180 minutes

Good Luck!!

Part 1 True/False/Differs

(30 percent; 59 minutes)

Answer the following questions as indicated below:
T = True
F = False
D = Differs depending on whether Hawaii or Federal Rules of Evidence applies; i.e., the answer is different depending whether Hawaii or Federal Rules are used.
UNLESS you decide the question is about a foundation, relevance, or a privilege, ASSUME that (1) all the necessary foundations have been offered, (2) the evidence is relevant, and (3) no privilege is applicable. Furthermore, for purposes of admissibility of R 803 hearsay exceptions, assume that the Hawaii Ortiz case does NOT apply - which means that in a criminal case, the government does not have to show the declarant is unavailable for R 803 hearsay exceptions.