1. You have three (3) hours to complete this exam.
2. This exam is closed book; no materials are allowed.
3. There are two parts to this exam:
4. Part I is to be answered on the ParScore answer sheet form provided using pen or pencil and following the instructions on that form. If you change your answer, place a clear X through the wrong answer and mark the correct answer. A machine will score the exam and any ambiguities will be counted as a wrong answer.
Special instructions for Part One:
You are to answer all questions according to the Federal Rules of Evidence unless the question indicates otherwise or unless a question of evidentiary privilege is raised in which latter case, you should apply the California Evidence Code, unless the question indicates otherwise.5. Please write your essay response in the blue books provided. Please write clearly. Write on every other line and every other page to permit instructor comments.
Special Instructions for Part Two:
You are to base your answers on the Federal Rules. However, in those areas where there are significant differences in the Federal Rules and the California Code, you should contrast how each would apply. In the area of privilege, you should base your answers on the California Code but again you should note any material differences between California and Federal law.Deal with all issues raised even though you believe disposition of one is controlling.
6. Write your exam number on the exam envelope, at the top of this exam packet, on the ParScore answer sheet and on all used blue books, or on your typed answers. Do not use your name, student ID number, or Social Security Number on any exam materials.
7. At the conclusion of the exam, place all test materials, including this exam packet, scratch paper, blue books, typed essay answers, and your ParScore answer sheet into the exam envelope, and submit it to the proctor. Do not seal the exam envelope. Students who do not return all exam materials at the end of the exam may not be graded.
GOOD LUCK!
PART II – ESSAY
People v. Evildoer
Elliot Evildoer is charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon upon Vernon Victim. The State’s theory is that Evildoer, accompanied by his brother, Bubba, went to Victim’s house to threaten him about money that Victim owed to Evildoer. When Victim failed to produce the money, Evildoer allegedly struck him with a baseball bat, leaving Victim badly injured. Evildoer claims that he acted in self-defense and only struck Victim after Victim pulled a gun on him. Both Victim and Evildoer testified to their version of the facts. The following evidence was also admitted at trial. Assume all appropriate objections were made. Was the evidence properly admitted? Why or why not?
The prosecution called police officer Mary Smith. She testified that she questioned Bubba Evildoer (Elliot’s brother) after the reported assault. Bubba told Smith that “Elliot and I went to see Victim. We just wanted to scare him. I didn’t expect Elliot to hit him. All of a sudden, Elliot pulled out the bat and started hitting Victim.”
The prosecution then called Evelyn Evildoer, Elliot’s former wife. Over objection she testified that before they were divorced Elliot told her, “I’m going to get Victim. If he doesn’t pay up, I’m going to hurt him bad.”
The defense then called Todd Jones, Victim’s parole officer. Jones testified that two years earlier, while Victim was on parole, Jones went to see Victim at his house. Victim became abusive and attacked Jones for no reason.
Lastly, after Elliot Evildoer testified to his versions of the facts he was asked on cross-examination if 1) he had been convicted of felony burglary in 2000; and 2) whether he lied about this when he applied for a job as a security guard. Over objection, Elliot answered “yes” to both questions.
END OF EXAM