Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Statements That Are Not Hearsay
12 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Statements That Are Not HearsayQuestion 1 of 12

In a whistleblower retaliation suit, the plaintiff testifies that she complained to her supervisor about safety violations. The employer claims the plaintiff invented the complaint only after she learned she might be fired. To rebut that charge, the plaintiff's supervisor testifies that the plaintiff sent him an email complaining about the same safety violations two months before she learned of any possible termination. The employer objects that the supervisor's testimony about the email is hearsay.

Should the supervisor's testimony about the email be admitted?

Yes, because all prior consistent statements made by a testifying witness are nonhearsay and may be considered for their truth.
Yes, because the email is a prior consistent statement made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose and is offered to rebut the charge of recent fabrication.
No, because the email was not made under oath and cannot be used as substantive evidence at trial.
No, because a prior consistent statement is admissible only to rehabilitate a witness, not as evidence of the facts stated.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Statements That Are Not Hearsay

Practice Statements That Are Not Hearsay in Bar Exam (Next Generation) 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 Statements That Are Not Hearsay, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

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

In a whistleblower retaliation suit, the plaintiff testifies that she complained to her supervisor about safety violations. The employer claims the plaintiff invented the complaint only after she learned she might be fired. To rebut that charge, the plaintiff's supervisor testifies that the plaintiff sent him an email complaining about the same safety violations two months before she learned of any possible termination. The employer objects that the supervisor's testimony about the email is hearsay.

Should the supervisor's testimony about the email be admitted?

  1. Yes, because all prior consistent statements made by a testifying witness are nonhearsay and may be considered for their truth.
  2. Yes, because the email is a prior consistent statement made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose and is offered to rebut the charge of recent fabrication. (correct answer)
  3. No, because the email was not made under oath and cannot be used as substantive evidence at trial.
  4. No, because a prior consistent statement is admissible only to rehabilitate a witness, not as evidence of the facts stated.
Explanation: Whenever you see a prior statement by a testifying witness, think of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B). A prior consistent statement is nonhearsay—and thus admissible for its truth—only if it is offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence and was made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose. Here, the employer accuses the plaintiff of inventing the complaint only after learning she might be fired. The supervisor's testimony about the email is a prior consistent statement—the plaintiff said the same thing earlier. The critical fact is that the email was sent two months before she learned of any possible termination, so it predates the alleged motive. Offered to rebut that specific charge, it qualifies as nonhearsay under 801(d)(1)(B), making the testimony admissible. Now, the wrong answers. The first choice says all prior consistent statements made by a testifying witness are nonhearsay—that is overbroad. Only those made before the motive arose and offered to rebut a fabrication charge qualify. The third choice claims the email must be made under oath to be used substantively; that requirement applies to prior inconsistent statements under 801(d)(1)(A), not consistent ones. Finally, the last choice says such statements are admissible only to rehabilitate a witness, not as evidence of the facts stated—that is false. Under 801(d)(1)(B), they are substantive evidence. Your study tip: when you see a prior consistent statement, immediately check the timing. Was it made before the alleged motive to fabricate? If yes, it's admissible for its truth. If no, it may only rehabilitate credibility, but not serve as proof of the facts.

Question 2

A customer slips on a wet floor in a grocery store. The next day, when the customer returns to complain, the employee who had mopped the floor says, 'I forgot to put out the wet-floor sign.' The customer sues the store and offers the employee's statement. The store objects that the employee had no authority to speak for the store and that the statement is hearsay.

Should the employee's statement be admitted against the store?

  1. Yes, because the employee's statement is an excited utterance made under the stress of the customer's slip and fall.
  2. No, because an employee may make an admission binding the employer only if the employer authorized the employee to speak.
  3. No, because the employee was not named as a defendant and is not a party to the customer's lawsuit.
  4. Yes, because it was made by the store's employee on a matter within the scope of the employment relationship and while that relationship existed. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you see a statement by a non-party employee offered against a business, your immediate focus should be on hearsay exceptions—specifically the admission by a party-opponent. Here, the employee's statement fits squarely within the vicarious admission rule. Under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), a statement is admissible if made by an agent/employee on a matter within the scope of their employment, while the relationship exists. The employee was mopping (within scope) and spoke the next day (while still employed). Thus, it is properly admitted. The "excited utterance" choice is a classic trap. That exception requires the statement to be made while still under the stress of the startling event. Since the employee spoke the next day, that stress is long gone, disqualifying it. The claim that the employee lacked authority to speak is also wrong. While an authorized statement is an admission, the rule does not require such authorization. It only requires the statement to concern a matter within the scope of employment, which it clearly does. Finally, the argument that the employee is not a named defendant fails. A party admission is admissible against the principal (the store) because the agent's statement is legally attributed to the principal, regardless of whether the agent is a party. For the bar exam, remember the 801(d)(2) checklist: Adopt, Authorize, Agent, Allege. For the Agent prong, confirm the statement concerns job duties and was made during employment—do not demand authorization to speak, and watch for excited-utterance timing traps.

Question 3

In a federal drug-trafficking prosecution, the government charges the defendant and a co-conspirator with conspiracy to distribute heroin. After the co-conspirator's arrest, he tells a jail cellmate, 'The defendant and I have been moving heroin together for years.' The co-conspirator is available to testify but the government does not call him. The government offers the cellmate's testimony against the defendant. Defense counsel objects that the cellmate's testimony is hearsay.

Is the cellmate's testimony about the co-conspirator's statement admissible against the defendant?

  1. No, because a coconspirator's statement is admissible only if the coconspirator is unavailable to testify at trial.
  2. No, because the statement was made after the conspiracy ended and was not in furtherance of the conspiracy. (correct answer)
  3. Yes, because coconspirator statements are not hearsay as long as they concern the conspiracy.
  4. Yes, because the statement is against the co-conspirator's penal interest and may be used against the defendant.
Explanation: When you see a statement by a co-conspirator, your first move is to test it against Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E): it is not hearsay only if it was made "during and in furtherance of" the conspiracy. Here, the co-conspirator made the statement to his jail cellmate after his arrest. An arrest ends the conspiracy, and bragging about past heroin dealing is not an act in furtherance of any ongoing conspiracy. So the cellmate's testimony fails the rule and is inadmissible hearsay against the defendant. The wrong answers each hide a trap. The choice saying the statement is admissible only if the coconspirator is unavailable confuses a nonhearsay exclusion with an exception—801(d)(2)(E) requires no unavailability. The choice saying coconspirator statements are nonhearsay as long as they concern the conspiracy drops two essential elements: the statement must be during the conspiracy and in furtherance of it, not merely about it. The choice invoking the statement against penal interest misapplies Rule 804(b)(3): that exception requires the declarant to be unavailable, and even then it allows the statement against the declarant, not against a co-defendant. Here the co-conspirator is available, and the government simply chose not to call him. Your takeaway: for any coconspirator statement, ask "during?" and "in furtherance?" If either answer is no—especially after arrest—the statement stays hearsay.

Question 4

In a worker-injury suit against a contractor, the injured worker testifies that his foreman told him, 'Use the safety harness on this job.' The worker offers the statement to prove that the contractor instructed him to use the harness, not to prove that the harness was safe or required by law. The contractor objects hearsay.

Is the worker's testimony about the foreman's statement admissible?

  1. Yes, because the foreman's statement is a present sense impression of a condition at the worksite.
  2. Yes, because the statement is a direction—a verbal act—and is not offered for the truth of any matter asserted. (correct answer)
  3. No, because the statement is offered to prove that the worker was instructed, which is the truth of the matter asserted.
  4. No, because the foreman is not a party and his statement cannot be used against the contractor.
Explanation: Whenever you see a hearsay objection, start by asking: what is the statement being offered to prove? If the statement is itself the legally operative act—like an instruction, a promise, or a contract term—it is not hearsay because no one is relying on the truth of an asserted fact. Here, the foreman's words "Use the safety harness" did not describe or assert anything; they performed a directive. The worker offers them only to show that the instruction was given, which is the verbal act itself. So the testimony is admissible, not as an exception, but because it falls outside the definition of hearsay. The present sense impression choice is tempting but wrong: that exception applies to statements describing an event while it is happening, not to commands. The third choice, arguing the statement is offered to prove the worker was instructed and therefore is hearsay, misunderstands the rule—directives have no "truth" to assert. The fourth choice, that the foreman is not a party, fails because party admissions can come from employees, and more importantly, this statement is not hearsay in the first place. Study tip: on evidence questions, classify the utterance—is it an assertion, a question, a command, or an operative fact? Commands and verbal acts are classic non-hearsay. Remember: "If the words themselves do the work, hearsay doesn't apply."

Question 5

At a criminal trial for reckless driving, an eyewitness testifies for the prosecution that the defendant's traffic light was green. The prosecutor offers the eyewitness's prior grand jury testimony, given under oath, in which the witness said the defendant's light was red. The witness is in court and available for cross-examination. Defense counsel objects that the grand jury statement is hearsay.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, is the grand jury statement admissible as substantive evidence?

  1. Yes, because it is inconsistent with the witness's trial testimony, was made under oath at a grand jury proceeding, and the witness is subject to cross-examination. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, but only to impeach the witness's credibility, because grand jury testimony is not a deposition or trial and cannot be used substantively.
  3. No, because a prior inconsistent statement may be used for impeachment only if it was made under oath and the witness is available.
  4. No, because the statement is offered to prove the light was red, making it hearsay that does not fall within any hearsay exception.
Explanation: When a witness changes stories, think first of FRE 801(d)(1)(A). It excludes a witness's own prior inconsistent statement from hearsay if the declarant now testifies and is subject to cross-examination, and the prior statement was made under oath subject to penalty of perjuryat a trial, hearing, "or other proceeding," or deposition. A grand jury proceeding qualifies as an "other proceeding." Here the witness testified that the light was green, but the earlier sworn grand jury testimony said red;because he is in court and can be cross-examined, the grand jury statement may be offered substantively—to prove the light was red—not just to attack credibility. The tempting answer that says "yes, but only to impeach because grand jury testimony is not a deposition or trial" misreads the rule: "other proceeding" was included to cover exactly this situation. The answer that says "no, because a prior inconsistent statement may be used for impeachment only if made under oath" fails twice: unsworn prior inconsistent statements can still be used to impeach, and sworn grand jury statements clear the higher substantive standard. The answer that calls it inadmissible hearsay with no exception ignores that this is not a hearsay exception—801(d)(1)(A) makes the statement nonhearsay by definition. Remember the pattern: in-court declarant + prior inconsistent statement under oath in a formal proceeding + opportunity to cross-examine = substantive admissibility.

Question 6

After an explosion at a manufacturing plant, the company's board designates its CEO to speak publicly about the incident. The CEO tells reporters, 'Our plant manager ignored the safety alarm, and the company accepts responsibility.' In a subsequent products-liability suit against the company, the plaintiff offers the CEO's statement. The company objects that the CEO had no personal knowledge of the plant manager's conduct and that the statement is hearsay.

Is the CEO's statement admissible against the company?

  1. Yes, because any statement by a corporate officer about company business is automatically attributable to the corporation.
  2. No, because the CEO lacked personal knowledge of the plant manager's conduct and cannot admit facts on behalf of the company.
  3. Yes, because the CEO was authorized by the company to make a statement on this subject, making it the company's own opposing-party statement. (correct answer)
  4. No, because a corporation can speak only through formal documents, not through oral statements by its officers.
Explanation: When you see a hearsay objection to a corporate executive's statement, your first question should be: who was the company speaking through? A statement offered against a party is not hearsay if it was made by a person authorized by the party to speak on that subject. Here, the board designated the CEO to speak publicly about the incident, so the CEO was the company's authorized voice. The statement is therefore admissible as an opposing-party statement, even though the CEO lacked personal knowledge of the plant manager's conduct. Personal knowledge is a rule for witnesses testifying from firsthand observation; it is not a requirement for an authorized admission. The lack of firsthand knowledge may affect the weight the jury gives the statement, but it does not make it hearsay or inadmissible. The wrong choices each distort the rule. "Any statement by a corporate officer about company business" goes too far—an officer's random remark is not automatically the company's admission unless it is authorized or within the scope of agency. The "CEO lacked personal knowledge" objection fails because a company can speak through a designated spokesperson about matters the company itself should know. Finally, the claim that "a corporation can speak only through formal documents" is simply false; oral statements by authorized officers are routinely admitted against the company. Study tip: in hearsay questions, distinguish "admission by party-opponent" from ordinary hearsay—authorized corporate statements are nonhearsay, and the personal-knowledge objection is usually a red herring.

Question 7

In a wrongful-discharge suit, the plaintiff claims her supervisor orally fired her in violation of company policy. The supervisor denies that he used the words 'you're fired.' At trial, the plaintiff testifies, 'My supervisor said, "You're fired."' The supervisor's attorney objects that the plaintiff's testimony about the statement is hearsay.

Should the plaintiff be permitted to testify about the supervisor's statement?

  1. Yes, because the statement is a verbal act—the words themselves are the termination—and is not offered for the truth of a matter asserted. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because the supervisor's statement was against his interest when made and is therefore not hearsay.
  3. No, because the statement is offered to prove that the plaintiff was fired, which is the truth of the matter asserted.
  4. No, because an oral statement concerning an employment decision is hearsay unless it is reduced to writing.
Explanation: Whenever you see a hearsay objection, start with the definition: an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it says. But some statements are not hearsay at all because their legal significance comes from the words being spoken, not from whether the content is true. That is the verbal act doctrine. Here, the supervisor's words "You're fired" are not just evidence that the plaintiff was fired; in a wrongful-discharge case, the speaking of those words is the termination itself. The statement has independent legal effect, like an offer to form a contract or a defamatory accusation. Because it is not offered for the truth of a matter asserted—there is no underlying fact to be true or false—it is nonhearsay, so the plaintiff may testify to it. The "against his interest" choice is a trap: that exception requires the declarant to be unavailable, and it does not apply to an opposing party's own statement. The "offered to prove that the plaintiff was fired" choice misunderstands the key distinction—yes, the statement proves the firing, but it does so through its operative legal effect, not by asserting a fact. Finally, the "oral statement concerning employment decision is hearsay unless reduced to writing" choice is simply wrong; no writing requirement exists for a verbal act. For the bar, remember: if the words themselves change legal rights, they are nonhearsay verbal acts. Ask, "Why are the words being offered?" If the answer is "because saying them mattered," it is not hearsay.

Question 8

At a robbery trial, the victim testifies that she got a good look at the robber's face during the robbery but is no longer certain whether the defendant is that person. The prosecutor offers the testimony of a detective that, three days after the robbery, the victim identified the defendant in a photo array. Defense counsel objects that the detective's testimony is hearsay.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, is the detective's testimony about the victim's identification admissible?

  1. Yes, because the identification was made under the stress of excitement caused by the robbery and qualifies as an excited utterance.
  2. No, because the victim's current uncertainty makes the prior identification hearsay and inadmissible.
  3. Yes, because a prior identification is not hearsay when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about the statement. (correct answer)
  4. No, because a prior identification is admissible only if the witness makes an in-court identification consistent with it.
Explanation: When you see a hearsay objection to a prior statement made by a witness who is now testifying, think about Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1): certain prior statements are defined as "not hearsay." The detective's testimony about the victim's photo-array identification is admissible because a prior identification is not hearsay when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about the statement. The victim is on the stand, and the defense can cross-examine her about both the prior identification and her current uncertainty. Her uncertainty does not make the prior statement inadmissible hearsay; in fact, the rule permits a prior identification regardless of whether it is consistent or inconsistent with her in-court testimony. The "excited utterance" choice misses the timing element — three days after the robbery, the identification was not made under the stress of excitement caused by the event. The "current uncertainty makes it inadmissible" choice confuses impeachment value with admissibility: uncertainty may affect weight, not hearsay admissibility. The "only if consistent with an in-court identification" choice is simply wrong; the rule contains no such consistency requirement and even allows a prior identification when the witness is uncertain or recants. On exam day, whenever a prior identification is offered, check two things: is the declarant testifying, and can the opposing party cross-examine her about the statement? If yes, the evidence is admissible as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C).

Question 9

At a company holiday party, a senior manager says to the defendant, the company's CFO, 'I heard you told the auditor that we hid losses to inflate our stock price.' The CFO, who was clearly able to hear and understand the remark, does not respond. In a later shareholder suit, the plaintiff offers evidence of the CFO's silence as an admission that he made the statement to the auditor. The CFO objects that his silence is hearsay.

Is the CFO's silence admissible?

  1. Yes, because silence in response to an accusation is an adoptive admission if a reasonable person in the CFO's position would have denied it. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because the senior manager's statement was made at a company event and is therefore an admission by the company.
  3. No, because adoption of another person's statement requires express words or conduct, and silence is insufficient.
  4. No, because the senior manager who made the accusation is not available to testify at trial.
Explanation: When you see silence offered against a party, your first thought should be adoptive admissions: a party's silence in response to a statement can be treated as an admission if the party heard and understood it, and a reasonable person would have denied the accusation. Here, the CFO clearly heard the senior manager accuse him of telling the auditor about hidden losses. In a shareholder suit, a reasonable CFO would deny that accusation if it were false, so his silence is admissible as an adoptive admission—it is not hearsay because it is the CFO's own opposing statement. The "company event" choice confuses a party admission with the CFO's own adoption; not every statement made at a corporate party is automatically an admission by the company, and that theory is not needed. The "express words or conduct" choice is wrong because silence can be conduct sufficient to adopt a statement when denial would naturally be expected. The "senior manager unavailable" choice misunderstands the rule: adoptive admissions do not require the declarant to testify or be unavailable. So the correct answer is the one focusing on whether a reasonable person in the CFO's position would have denied the accusation. On exam day, remember: silence is admissible as an admission only when the context calls for a denial—ask yourself, "Would an innocent person have spoken up?"

Question 10

In a hostile-work-environment suit, the plaintiff claims she reasonably feared for her safety after she complained about harassment. To prove her fear, she testifies that a coworker told her, 'The supervisor threatened to hit the last person who complained.' The defendant objects that the coworker's statement is hearsay.

Should the plaintiff's testimony about the coworker's statement be admitted?

  1. Yes, because the coworker's statement is a present sense impression of the supervisor's threat, and that exception applies when a statement describes an event while the declarant is perceiving it.
  2. No, because the statement is offered to prove that the supervisor threatened someone, and an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of an asserted fact is hearsay.
  3. No, because the plaintiff lacks personal knowledge of the supervisor's alleged threat, and she cannot testify about an event she did not personally observe.
  4. Yes, because the statement is offered to show its effect on the plaintiff's state of mind, not to prove that the supervisor actually made the threat. (correct answer)
Explanation: The decisive question is the purpose for which the coworker's statement is offered. If it were offered to prove that the supervisor actually threatened the previous complainant, it would be hearsay. But here the plaintiff's fear is the fact at issue, and what she heard can explain that fear whether or not the underlying threat was real. The statement is therefore admissible as a nonhearsay effect-on-the-listener use. The first option is wrong because the coworker is not describing an event while perceiving it; she is relaying a past threat, so the present sense impression exception does not apply. The second option is wrong because it misstates the purpose—the plaintiff is not trying to prove that the threat occurred. The third option is wrong because the plaintiff has personal knowledge of what the coworker said; she is not testifying to the supervisor's threat itself. The correct answer is the one that identifies the statement's actual nonhearsay purpose: its effect on the plaintiff's state of mind.

Question 11

At an intersection, two cars collide and injure a pedestrian. The pedestrian sues both Driver A and Driver B. After the collision, the drivers got out and waited calmly for the police. Thirty minutes later, Driver A told an officer, 'Driver B ran the red light.' The pedestrian offers Driver A's statement against Driver B. Driver B objects hearsay.

Should Driver A's statement be admitted against Driver B?

  1. No, because Driver A's statement is hearsay and cannot be admitted against any party to the lawsuit.
  2. Yes, because Driver A is a party to the lawsuit and a party's statement may be used against any other party.
  3. Yes, because the statement was an excited utterance made under the stress of the collision.
  4. No, because Driver A's statement is not a statement made by Driver B and no agency or conspiracy relationship between the drivers is shown. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you see an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, your first question should be: who made the statement, and who is it being offered against? That's the hearsay analysis. Driver A's statement, "Driver B ran the red light," is hearsay if offered to prove Driver B ran the light. The party-admission exception lets a party's own statement be used against that party, but not against a different party. Because the statement was made by Driver A, it could be admitted against Driver A, not Driver B. To use it against Driver B, the pedestrian would need to show Driver B made the statement, authorized A to speak, or was in a conspiracy with A—and none is shown. The "cannot be admitted against any party" choice is wrong because the statement could come in against Driver A. The "party's statement may be used against any other party" choice is wrong because party admissions apply only against the declarant-party. The "excited utterance" choice is wrong: thirty minutes later, waiting calmly for police, the stress of the collision had dissipated, so it was not made under the stress of the event. Thus the statement is hearsay as to Driver B and inadmissible. On the exam, always match the declarant to the party the statement is offered against—that is the key to hearsay admission questions.

Question 12

A worker is injured by a machine. Before any lawsuit, the machine's owner, Ortiz, told an investigator, 'I never maintained that machine.' The worker later sues Ortiz. At trial, the worker offers Ortiz's prior statement. Ortiz objects that the statement was made before he was a party and is hearsay.

Is Ortiz's prior statement admissible?

  1. Yes, because the statement is against Ortiz's interest and he is a party, so the declaration-against-interest exception permits the statement to be admitted without proving that Ortiz is unavailable.
  2. No, because the opposing-party rule attaches to party status at the time of the statement, and Ortiz lacked that status when he spoke to the investigator.
  3. Yes, because it is Ortiz's own statement offered against him, and the opposing-party rule applies even when the statement is made before the lawsuit began. (correct answer)
  4. No, because Ortiz made the statement to an investigator in anticipation of litigation, and the Confrontation Clause treats testimonial statements as inadmissible when the declarant has not been cross-examined.
Explanation: Ortiz's own statement, 'I never maintained that machine,' is offered by the worker against Ortiz. Under FRE 801(d)(2)(A), a party's own statement offered against that party is not hearsay; it need not be made after the party was sued, and it does not require unavailability or a showing that the statement was against interest. The no answer saying the opposing-party rule depends on party status at the time of the statement is wrong because timing is irrelevant. The yes answer relying on the declaration-against-interest exception is wrong because that exception requires the declarant to be unavailable; party admissions do not. The no answer invoking the Confrontation Clause is wrong because that clause governs criminal prosecutions, not civil suits, and a party-opponent admission is excluded from the hearsay definition. The statement is admissible.