Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Hearsay Exceptions Available

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Hearsay Exceptions AvailableQuestion 1 of 20

In a personal injury lawsuit arising from a slip-and-fall on an icy sidewalk, the plaintiff seeks to introduce a certified report from the National Weather Service, a federal agency. The report contains data showing that the temperature was below freezing and that there was significant precipitation in the 24 hours preceding the plaintiff's fall. The defendant, the property owner, objects to the report's admission, claiming it is hearsay and that the meteorologist who prepared it must be called to testify.

Is the weather report admissible over the defendant's objection? Select one.

Yes, because it is a public record setting out factual findings from a legally authorized investigation.

Yes, because it is a business record of a government agency, and the data is recorded in the regular course of business.

No, because in a civil case, factual findings from a government investigation are only admissible against the government.

No, because the report contains scientific conclusions that must be presented through live expert testimony.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Hearsay Exceptions Available

Practice Hearsay Exceptions Available in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Hearsay Exceptions Available, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Is the weather report admissible over the defendant's objection? Select one.

Yes, because it is a public record setting out factual findings from a legally authorized investigation. (correct answer)
Yes, because it is a business record of a government agency, and the data is recorded in the regular course of business.
No, because in a civil case, factual findings from a government investigation are only admissible against the government.
No, because the report contains scientific conclusions that must be presented through live expert testimony.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The report is admissible under the public records exception, FRE 803(8). This exception allows for a record or statement of a public office if it sets out the office's activities, a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, or, in a civil case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation. A National Weather Service report containing weather data and observations fits squarely within this exception. (B) is a plausible alternative, as a public record may also meet the business record definition, but FRE 803(8) is the more specific and appropriate exception. (C) misstates the rule; the limitation on using investigatory findings against a party applies to the government using them against a criminal defendant, not to their use in civil cases. (D) is incorrect because a key purpose of the public records exception is to avoid the need for public officials to testify about routine matters they likely do not remember specifically.

Question 2

In a civil trial for battery, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a professional boxer, punched him without provocation at a bar. The plaintiff calls a witness who was on a video call with a friend who was present at the bar when the incident occurred. The plaintiff's attorney seeks to have the witness testify that, during the video call, her friend exclaimed, "Oh my gosh, that boxer just knocked a guy out with one punch!" The friend made the statement less than a second after the punch was thrown. The defendant objects to the testimony as hearsay.

How should the court rule on the defendant's objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the statement was made by an out-of-court declarant who is not subject to cross-examination.
Sustain the objection, because the witness on the stand lacks personal knowledge of the event described.
Overrule the objection, because the statement is an excited utterance made under the stress of a startling event.
Overrule the objection, because the statement is a present sense impression describing an event as the declarant perceived it. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The statement is admissible under the hearsay exception for a present sense impression, FRE 803(1). This exception applies to a statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Here, the declarant (the friend at the bar) described the event (the punch) less than a second after perceiving it. The witness on the stand is merely the conduit for this admissible hearsay statement. (A) is incorrect because the very purpose of a hearsay exception is to allow such statements into evidence despite the declarant not being on the stand. (B) is incorrect because while the testifying witness lacks personal knowledge of the punch, they have personal knowledge of what the declarant said; the declarant's personal knowledge is what matters for the hearsay statement itself. (C) is a close call but less precise than (D). While the event was likely startling, the core of a present sense impression is the extreme contemporaneity of the statement with the event, which is clearly established here. The essence of the statement is descriptive, fitting 803(1) perfectly.

Question 3

A plaintiff sued a shipping company for losing a valuable package. To prove the date the package was sent, the plaintiff offers a copy of the company's electronic shipping log. The company's records custodian provides a sworn affidavit stating that the log is generated automatically whenever a package is scanned, the entries are made at or near the time of scanning by the scanning equipment itself, the log is kept in the course of the company's regularly conducted business activity, and it is the company's regular practice to maintain such a log. The shipping company objects, arguing the log is inadmissible hearsay.

Is the shipping log admissible? Select one.

Yes, because it qualifies as a business record. (correct answer)
Yes, because it is a statement against the shipping company's interest.
No, because the affidavit is not sufficient foundation; the custodian must testify in person.
No, because it was not prepared by a human and therefore lacks a basis of personal knowledge.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The shipping log meets all the requirements of the business records exception under FRE 803(6). The foundation provided by the custodian's affidavit establishes that the record was made at or near the time by something with knowledge (the scanner), kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, and was a regular practice of the business. (B) is incorrect because the statement against interest exception (FRE 804(b)(3)) requires the declarant to be unavailable and does not typically apply to business entities in this manner. (C) is incorrect because FRE 803(6) and FRE 902(11) specifically allow the foundation for business records to be laid by a certification or affidavit, obviating the need for live testimony from the custodian. (D) is incorrect because the personal knowledge requirement can be satisfied by a computer system that accurately records data automatically as part of a regular process.

Question 4

A police officer responds to a silent 911 call that traced to an apartment. When the officer arrives, he knocks, and a man answers the door. A woman is standing behind the man, crying and holding a bloody towel to her head. The officer asks, "What's going on here?" The woman immediately blurts out, "He hit me with a lamp!" In a subsequent prosecution of the man for domestic battery, the woman is unavailable to testify. The prosecutor calls the officer to testify to the woman's statement.

Is the officer's testimony regarding the woman's statement admissible? Select one.

No, because the statement was made in response to police questioning and is testimonial under the Confrontation Clause.
No, because the woman is unavailable, her statement constitutes former testimony which requires a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Yes, because the statement was an excited utterance made while she was still under the stress of a startling event. (correct answer)
Yes, because the statement was a dying declaration made under the belief of imminent death.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The woman's statement is admissible as an excited utterance under FRE 803(2). A startling event occurred (being hit with a lamp), and she made the statement while still under the stress of that event, as evidenced by her crying and visible injury. (A) is incorrect because the statement is not testimonial. Under the primary purpose test from Davis v. Washington, a statement made to police during an ongoing emergency to help resolve it is not testimonial. Here, the officer arrived at a volatile scene, and the woman's statement explained the emergency, making it non-testimonial. (B) is incorrect because it confuses the applicable hearsay exception; former testimony (FRE 804(b)(1)) is an entirely different rule that doesn't apply to these facts. The woman's unavailability is irrelevant for an excited utterance exception. (D) is incorrect as there is no evidence that the woman believed her death was imminent.

Question 5

A five-year-old child was treated in an emergency room for a broken arm. During the examination, the treating physician asked the child, "Can you tell me how this happened?" The child replied, "My babysitter got mad and twisted my arm really hard." In a subsequent criminal prosecution of the babysitter for child abuse, the prosecution calls the physician to testify to the child's statement. The defense objects.

Is the child's statement to the physician admissible? Select one.

Yes, because statements identifying the perpetrator of abuse are reasonably pertinent to a child's medical diagnosis and treatment. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the child is found to be unavailable to testify at trial, as the statement is against the babysitter's interest.
No, because the statement goes beyond describing medical history or symptoms and improperly assigns fault to the defendant.
No, because a five-year-old child is not competent to understand the medical purpose of the physician's questions.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The statement is admissible under FRE 803(4), the exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. This exception covers statements about the cause of a condition if it is reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. In cases of child abuse, the identity of the abuser is considered pertinent to treatment because it relates to the child's physical and psychological well-being, including preventing future harm. (B) is incorrect because it confuses the FRE 803(4) exception, where declarant availability is immaterial, with an FRE 804 exception (statement against interest), which requires unavailability and does not apply here. (C) states the general rule that statements of fault are excluded, but there is a significant exception for identifying abusers in domestic or child abuse cases. (D) is incorrect because the test is whether the statement was made for the purpose of medical treatment, and a child's statement to a doctor about how an injury occurred generally qualifies, regardless of the child's abstract understanding of medical science.

Question 6

Is the officer's testimony regarding the woman's statement admissible? Select one.

No, because the statement was made in response to police questioning and is testimonial under the Confrontation Clause.
No, because the woman is unavailable, her statement constitutes former testimony which requires a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Yes, because the statement was an excited utterance made while she was still under the stress of a startling event. (correct answer)
Yes, because the statement was a dying declaration made under the belief of imminent death.

Question 7

A plaintiff sued a hospital for negligence, alleging an infection was caused by unsanitary conditions. The hospital seeks to introduce its internal incident report, which was prepared by a risk management nurse the day after the plaintiff's infection was diagnosed. The report concludes that all sanitation protocols were followed. The report was created pursuant to a hospital policy requiring such a report for any unexpected patient outcome that could potentially lead to litigation. The plaintiff objects to the report's admission.

What is the plaintiff's best argument for excluding the hospital's incident report? Select one.

The report is a public record and is therefore inadmissible when offered by the defendant in a civil case.
The report was not made by a person with knowledge of the sanitation procedures at the time they were performed.
The report lacks trustworthiness because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. (correct answer)
The report is a subsequent remedial measure intended to prevent future infections.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Although the incident report might facially appear to be a business record under FRE 803(6), the exception allows a record to be excluded if "the opponent shows that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness." Because the report was created by the hospital specifically in anticipation of potential litigation, it has a strong self-serving motive, which is a classic indicator of a lack of trustworthiness. Courts often exclude such documents on this basis. (A) is incorrect because the document is a record of a private hospital, not a public agency, so the public records exception does not apply. (B) might be true, but the stronger and more direct argument is the lack of trustworthiness due to the litigation-anticipation motive. (D) is incorrect because the report itself is not a remedial measure; it is an investigation. A subsequent remedial measure would be an action like changing sanitation protocols after the event.

Question 8

A driver is being prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter after a fatal intersection collision. The prosecution's key witness is a pedestrian who saw the accident. The pedestrian was so shaken by the event that he ran two blocks away to his apartment. Approximately ten minutes after the crash, his roommate arrived home and found the pedestrian crying and hyperventilating. The roommate asked what was wrong, and the pedestrian screamed, "A red truck! It just blew through the stop sign and killed someone! I can't believe it!" At trial, the prosecution calls the roommate to testify to the pedestrian's statement. The defense objects on hearsay grounds.

Is the roommate's testimony regarding the pedestrian's statement admissible? Select one.

Yes, because the statement qualifies as an excited utterance. (correct answer)
Yes, because the statement describes the pedestrian's then-existing emotional condition.
No, because ten minutes is too long a period for the statement to be considered a present sense impression.
No, because the statement is testimonial in nature and violates the defendant's confrontation rights.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The statement is admissible under the excited utterance exception, FRE 803(2). The exception applies to a statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Here, the fatal crash was a startling event, and the pedestrian was still visibly under its stress (crying, hyperventilating) when he made the statement. The ten-minute delay does not disqualify the statement as long as the declarant's state of excitement persisted. (B) is incorrect because while the statement reflects an emotional condition, its primary purpose and content relate to the startling event, making excited utterance the more appropriate exception. (C) is incorrect because it confuses the excited utterance exception with the present sense impression exception, which has a much stricter contemporaneity requirement. (D) is incorrect because the statement was made to a roommate in a private setting, not to law enforcement for the primary purpose of investigation, and thus is not considered testimonial under the Confrontation Clause.

Question 9

In a civil trial, a key issue is whether a particular document was delivered to the defendant's office on a certain day. The plaintiff calls the defendant's former secretary to testify. The secretary testifies that she cannot remember the specific day but that it was her invariable practice to stamp every incoming document with the date it was received and place it in the company's inbox. The plaintiff then offers the document in question, which bears a date stamp corresponding to the day in question.

Is the secretary's testimony about her practice admissible to prove the document was received on the date stamped? Select one.

Yes, as a recorded recollection, because the date stamp is a record of her prior knowledge.
Yes, as evidence of a habit or routine practice to prove conduct in conformity with it on a particular occasion. (correct answer)
No, because it is inadmissible character evidence offered to show action in conformity therewith.
No, because the secretary cannot recall the specific event, her testimony lacks a proper foundation.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of habit and routine practice evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. When someone claims an event occurred in a particular way, you can often prove it by showing the person's consistent pattern of behavior. The secretary's testimony is admissible under Rule 406, which allows evidence of habit or routine practice to prove conduct on a specific occasion. Here, the secretary describes her "invariable practice" of stamping every document with the date received - this establishes a systematic, consistent routine. The date-stamped document then serves as circumstantial evidence that this routine was followed on the day in question, making the stamped date reliable proof of when the document arrived. Looking at the wrong answers: (A) incorrectly identifies this as recorded recollection under Rule 803(5), but that rule requires the witness to have once known the information and recorded it while fresh in memory - here, the secretary is testifying about her general practice, not trying to refresh her memory about a specific event. (C) misapplies character evidence rules - this isn't about the secretary's character traits but about her specific work routine, which is exactly what habit evidence covers. (D) creates a foundation problem that doesn't exist - you don't need to remember the specific instance to testify about your routine practice; the consistency of the habit itself provides the foundation. Remember: Habit evidence (Rule 406) doesn't require personal memory of the specific event - the regularity and consistency of the practice is what makes it probative. Look for words like "invariable," "routine," or "always" as signals for habit evidence.

Question 10

In a products liability case, the plaintiff claims a car's brakes were defectively designed. The plaintiff's attorney calls an expert automotive engineer. After the expert testifies, the plaintiff's attorney offers into evidence a government report published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The report, based on a two-year investigation, concludes that the brake system in that model of car is prone to premature failure. The car manufacturer objects.

Is the NHTSA report likely admissible? Select one.

Yes, as a public record containing factual findings from a legally authorized investigation. (correct answer)
Yes, as a learned treatise, because it is a reliable authority relied upon by the plaintiff's expert.
No, because the report's conclusions are opinions that invade the province of the jury.
No, because the authors of the report are not available for cross-examination by the manufacturer.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The report is admissible under the public records exception, FRE 803(8). In a civil case, this exception allows for the admission of records that set out factual findings from a legally authorized investigation. The Supreme Court, in Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, held that 'factual findings' can include conclusions and opinions that are based on a factual investigation. The NHTSA report fits this description perfectly. (B) is incorrect because while an expert might rely on it, the report's primary basis for admission is as a public record, not a learned treatise. (C) is incorrect because under FRE 704, testimony in the form of an opinion is not automatically objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue. The same logic applies to admissible public records. (D) is incorrect because the very purpose of the public records exception is to allow the admission of such documents without requiring the testimony of the public officials who created them.

Question 11

A patient sued her dentist for malpractice, claiming he used a contaminated instrument. The dentist's office manager is on the stand, testifying for the defense. The office manager identifies a 'sterilization log' and testifies that it is the dental office's regular practice to record every time an instrument set is sterilized. However, on cross-examination, the manager admits that the entry for the instruments used on the plaintiff was made two days after the procedure, when the dentist realized the patient was complaining of an infection. The dentist told the manager to "make sure the log is updated for her visit." The plaintiff objects to the log's admission.

How should the court rule on the plaintiff's objection to the sterilization log? Select one.

Overrule the objection, because the log is a business record kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity.
Overrule the objection, because the log is a statement against the dentist's interest.
Sustain the objection, because the circumstances of the entry indicate a lack of trustworthiness. (correct answer)
Sustain the objection, because the log is not a public record and therefore carries no presumption of reliability.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The business records exception under FRE 803(6) requires that the record be made at or near the time of the event by someone with knowledge. More importantly, the exception does not apply if the circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Here, the entry was not made at or near the time of the sterilization. It was made two days later, specifically in response to a patient complaint, at the direction of the dentist who is a party to the potential litigation. This situation strongly suggests a self-serving motive to create a favorable record after the fact, which demonstrates a lack of trustworthiness. (A) is incorrect because although it may appear to be a business record, it fails the trustworthiness test. (B) is incorrect; the statement is not against the dentist's interest, it is self-serving. (D) is incorrect because while it's true the log is not a public record, that is not the reason for its exclusion. The reason is its failure to meet the requirements of the business records exception.

Question 12

You are representing a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case. During your cross-examination of the defendant's expert witness, a renowned surgeon, you question his opinion on the appropriate standard of care. You ask the expert if he recognizes The Modern Surgeon's Comprehensive Guide, a leading medical textbook, as a reliable authority in the field. The expert agrees that it is. You then seek to read a passage from the textbook that directly contradicts the expert's testimony.

What is the proper procedure for using this passage from the learned treatise? Select one.

The passage can only be used to impeach the expert's credibility and cannot be considered as substantive evidence.
The passage can be read into evidence as substantive proof, but the textbook itself cannot be received as an exhibit. (correct answer)
The textbook can be entered as a full exhibit for the jury to review during deliberations.
The passage cannot be used unless your own expert witness first testified about it on direct examination.

Explanation: This question tests your knowledge of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(18), which governs the use of learned treatises as evidence. When you see questions about using authoritative texts during expert testimony, focus on the specific procedural requirements and limitations this hearsay exception imposes. The correct approach here is that once an expert acknowledges a treatise as reliable authority, you can read relevant passages into evidence as substantive proof of the facts stated, but the physical book cannot be admitted as an exhibit for jury deliberation. This strikes a balance between allowing valuable authoritative information while preventing misuse of complex texts outside court supervision. Answer A is incorrect because learned treatises can serve as substantive evidence, not just impeachment. Once the foundation is established (expert recognition of reliability), the passages become admissible for their truth under the hearsay exception. Answer C is wrong because the rule specifically prohibits admitting the treatise itself as an exhibit. The jury cannot take the physical book into deliberations, as this could lead to confusion or misapplication of complex medical concepts without proper guidance. Answer D is incorrect because you don't need your own expert to first discuss the treatise. The foundation can be established through cross-examination of the opposing expert, as shown here when the surgeon acknowledged the textbook's reliability. Remember this key distinction: with learned treatises, you can read passages aloud as evidence, but the book stays out of the jury room. This protects against jury misinterpretation while preserving access to authoritative sources during expert testimony.

Question 13

What is the proper procedure for using this passage from the learned treatise? Select one.

The passage can only be used to impeach the expert's credibility and cannot be considered as substantive evidence.
The passage can be read into evidence as substantive proof, but the textbook itself cannot be received as an exhibit. (correct answer)
The textbook can be entered as a full exhibit for the jury to review during deliberations.
The passage cannot be used unless your own expert witness first testified about it on direct examination.

Question 14

At trial, a witness to a car accident is called to testify about the license plate number of the vehicle that fled the scene. The witness states, "I can't recall the full number now, but I wrote it down on a napkin right after it happened. I remember being very careful to get it right. This is the napkin, and that's my handwriting, but looking at it doesn't jog my memory." The witness testifies that she knew the number correctly when she wrote it down. The prosecutor then seeks to have the napkin read into the record.

How should the court rule on the prosecutor's request? Select one.

Allow the napkin to be read into the record as a recorded recollection. (correct answer)
Allow the witness to use the napkin to refresh her recollection, but not read it into the record.
Exclude the napkin because the witness's memory cannot be refreshed, rendering it unreliable.
Exclude the napkin because it constitutes an inadmissible prior consistent statement by the witness.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The elements of the recorded recollection exception under FRE 803(5) are met: (1) the witness once had knowledge but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately; (2) the record was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in her memory; and (3) the record accurately reflects her knowledge. The witness's testimony establishes these elements. Under this rule, the record may be read into evidence, but it may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party. (B) is incorrect because refreshing recollection (FRE 612) is the wrong procedure. That applies when viewing a document does jog the witness's memory, allowing them to then testify from their now-refreshed memory. Here, the witness's memory is not refreshed. (C) is incorrect because the inability to recall is a prerequisite for using the recorded recollection exception, not a basis for exclusion. (D) is incorrect because the statement is not being offered as a prior consistent statement to rebut a charge of fabrication; it is being offered as substantive evidence under a specific hearsay exception.

Question 15

Is the weather report admissible over the defendant's objection? Select one.

Yes, because it is a public record setting out factual findings from a legally authorized investigation. (correct answer)
Yes, because it is a business record of a government agency, and the data is recorded in the regular course of business.
No, because in a civil case, factual findings from a government investigation are only admissible against the government.
No, because the report contains scientific conclusions that must be presented through live expert testimony.

Question 16

During a murder trial, the prosecution seeks to admit evidence that the defendant was convicted of felony assault one year prior. The prior assault was against a different victim but was committed with the same distinctive type of weapon used in the murder. The evidence is offered to prove the identity of the murderer. The evidence consists of a certified copy of the judgment of conviction. The defendant objects.

What is the most likely basis for the admissibility of the judgment of conviction? Select one.

It is admissible under FRE 404(b) as evidence of a prior bad act to prove identity.
It is admissible under FRE 803(22) to prove any fact essential to the judgment. (correct answer)
It is inadmissible because evidence of a prior conviction is only permitted for impeachment.
It is inadmissible because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving prior convictions, you need to distinguish between using the conviction itself as proof versus using it to prove the underlying facts. This question tests your understanding of hearsay exceptions for judgments of conviction. The prosecution wants to prove identity through a distinctive weapon used in both crimes. Under FRE 803(22), a criminal conviction creates a hearsay exception that allows the judgment to prove "any fact essential to the judgment" - meaning any fact that was necessarily determined to reach that conviction. Since the prior assault conviction would have required proof that the defendant committed the assault with that specific weapon, this fact was essential to the judgment and can now be used to prove identity in the murder case. Option A is incorrect because while FRE 404(b) allows prior bad acts to prove identity, the question specifically asks about the basis for admitting the "judgment of conviction" - the document itself, not just the underlying conduct. The certified judgment is hearsay that needs an exception. Option C misunderstands the scope of prior conviction evidence. While FRE 609 governs impeachment use of convictions, that's not the only permissible use - convictions can be admitted substantively under appropriate hearsay exceptions. Option D applies the wrong analysis. The question asks for the "basis for admissibility," meaning the rule that allows admission, not whether the evidence should be excluded under FRE 403's balancing test. Study tip: Remember that FRE 803(22) is specifically designed for this situation - when you need to prove facts that were necessarily established in a prior criminal conviction, the judgment itself becomes admissible hearsay.

Question 17

A man is on trial for the murder of his wife. The couple's neighbor is testifying for the prosecution. The prosecutor asks the neighbor about a conversation she had with the wife one day before the wife was killed. The wife had told the neighbor, "I am so scared of my husband. I'm leaving him tomorrow and going to stay at my mother's house." The prosecutor is offering the statement to prove that the wife intended to leave her husband, providing a motive for the murder. The defense objects.

Is the wife's statement to the neighbor admissible? Select one.

Yes, the entire statement is admissible to show the wife's then-existing state of mind.
No, because the statement is being used to prove the conduct of the husband, which is not permitted.
Only the portion "I'm leaving him tomorrow and going to stay at my mother's house" is admissible. (correct answer)
No, because the wife is unavailable to be cross-examined about the statement.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This question tests the limits of the FRE 803(3) state of mind exception. The portion of the statement indicating the wife's plan or intent for future conduct ("I'm leaving him tomorrow and going to stay at my mother's house") is admissible to prove she acted in accordance with that plan. However, the portion "I am so scared of my husband" is a statement of belief about the husband's dangerousness, and it is being offered to prove the fact believed, which could imply the husband's past conduct. This use is generally not permitted under FRE 803(3), especially when it implicates another person's conduct (as held in United States v. Hillmon and its progeny). Therefore, only the forward-looking statement of intent is admissible. (A) is incorrect because the backward-looking statement of fear implying past conduct is inadmissible. (B) is incorrect because part of the statement (the plan to leave) is admissible to prove the declarant's (the wife's) own conduct. (D) is incorrect because the declarant's unavailability is not a requirement for the FRE 803 exceptions.

Question 18

Is the wife's statement to the neighbor admissible? Select one.

Yes, the entire statement is admissible to show the wife's then-existing state of mind.
No, because the statement is being used to prove the conduct of the husband, which is not permitted.
Only the portion "I'm leaving him tomorrow and going to stay at my mother's house" is admissible. (correct answer)
No, because the wife is unavailable to be cross-examined about the statement.

Question 19

Is the roommate's testimony regarding the pedestrian's statement admissible? Select one.

Yes, because the statement qualifies as an excited utterance. (correct answer)
Yes, because the statement describes the pedestrian's then-existing emotional condition.
No, because ten minutes is too long a period for the statement to be considered a present sense impression.
No, because the statement is testimonial in nature and violates the defendant's confrontation rights.

Question 20

Is the NHTSA report likely admissible? Select one.

Yes, as a public record containing factual findings from a legally authorized investigation. (correct answer)
Yes, as a learned treatise, because it is a reliable authority relied upon by the plaintiff's expert.
No, because the report's conclusions are opinions that invade the province of the jury.
No, because the authors of the report are not available for cross-examination by the manufacturer.