FINAL
EXAMINATION
1. You have four (4)
hours to complete this examination.
2. This is a closed book exam. Students may not use any outside materials or confer with each other during the exam.
Part
I is Multiple Choice and is
of one and one-half hours duration. PART I contains 60 questions.
Part
II is Essay and is of two
and one-half hours duration. PART II consists of essay questions
3. Please be sure to write your examination number in the upper
right hand corner in the place indicated on
the examination itself, on each blue book, and on the answer sheet.
4 Please
write on only one side of each page
of the blue book and only on every other
line. Please use ink, do not use pencil. You may ExamSoft to take the essay portion of
this examination.
5 PART
I, which is attached, contains 60 questions and will count as 50 % of the raw
score for the examination. The
examination grade will be based on the combined raw score of PARTS I and II. PART I must be answered on the separate
answer sheet provided. Darken the box of
your selected answer in No. 2 pencil or blue/black ink pen. Each question is followed by two to five
choices. You are to choose the best of the stated
alternatives. Answer all questions
according to the prevailing view
under the Federal Rules of Evidence and
related decisional law. YOU MUST
COMPLETE PART I OF THE EXAMINATION WITHIN THE FIRST ONE AND ONE-HALF
HOURS. ONCE TIME IS CALLED, YOU MUST RETURN THE
QUESTIONS AND YOUR ANSWERS TO PART I INTO THE ENVELOPE. DO NOT TAKE OUT PART II UNTIL TIME IS CALLED
TO END PART I.
If you conclude PART I before the expiration
of the first one and one-half hours, you MAY
begin PART II, but once you have started PART II, you may not return to PART I. PART II will be distributed along with PART I
at the beginning of the examination period.
The instructions for PART II of the examination are attached to the
front of PART II.
GOOD LUCK!
PART II -ESSAY
If you conclude PART I before the expiration of the first one and
one-half hours, you may begin PART II.
The following essay questions are to be answered in your blue books and constitute the remaining
two and one-half hours of the examination for the course. Be sure to read the entire examination before
beginning to write. Time allocations for
each subdivision are recommended before each sub-question, and are repeated
here for your convenience:
“IA” 35....
minutes “IB”
30.... minutes
“II” 25.... minutes “IIIA”
20…. Minutes
“IIIB”
40…. minutes
It is not necessary for you to refer to any Rule by number or any case
by name; however, you may do so if you wish to communicate a particular complex
of legal ideas by shorthand reference and if you are certain you are doing so
with clarity. Be sure you have given
reasons to support your conclusions.
You must complete this examination for full credit. If you are writing by hand, please write
legibly on one side of the page only, every other line and check to see that you
have put your anonymous examination number on each bluebook cover. Please number your blue books consecutively
(i.e., 1 of 5, 2 of 5, etc.). If you are
using a computer, be sure to enter your anonymous examination number on the top
of the first page.
On April 4, 2006, Delbert Dingle and his wife
stopped at a boat ramp at the
Delbert Dingle was
arrested and charged with the homicide of Vilmir Valmer. Dingle is now on trial in the
The prosecution
presents its case-in-chief with witnesses present at the scene describing the
facts stated in the first paragraph above.
IA.
(35 Minutes)
Next, the
prosecution calls Valmer’s mother, who testifies, in part, as follows:
Q: Do
you remember Saturday, April 1, 2006?
A: Yes.
Q: Why
do you remember that date?
A: Well,
it was April fool’s day, and that was the day Vilmer told me that Delbert
Dingle threatened to kill him.
Q: You
had a conversation with Vilmer?
A: Yes.
Q: When
was this?
A: In
the morning of April 1–about 10 a.m.
Q: Where
was this?
A: Vilmer
came running into my house–we live next door to each other.
Q: Was
anyone else present and participating in this conversation?
A: No,
just him and me.
Q: What
were the circumstances?
A: Vilmer
came in my house. Delbert Dingle had
just driven off in his pickup. Vilmer was upset and extremely agitated when he
came in.
Q: What
did Vilmer say?
A: He
said Delbert Dingle had just accused him of stealing his boat motor and had
threatened to kill him.
Q: Did
Vilmer say anything else?
A; Yes,
Vilmer also told me that he walked to the side of the pickup and Delbert Dingle
said to him "if I get out of this truck right now and I’ll show you how
bad the Ku Klux Klan is." But, then
Vilmer said that Dingle just drove off in a huff.
What are the
objections to this testimony? What are
the arguments on the objections? How
should the court rule on them? Why?
IB.
(30 Minutes)
The prosecution next
calls Robert Moore, a friend of Vilmer, who testifies as follows:
Q: Do
you recall when Vilmer was shot?
A: Yes.
Q: Did
you have a conversation with him some time before that date?
A: Yes.
Q: Was
that the last time you saw and talked to him before he died?
A: Yes.
Q: Where
did this conversation take place?
A: At
his house.
Q: When
was that?
A: It
was Saturday, April 1–I remember it well, April fool’s day and all.
Q: Why
were you at Valmer’s house?
A: Just
a visit–we were going to watch a ball game on TV
Q: What
time was it?
A: Around
1 p.m.
Q: Was
anyone else present and participating in this conversation?
A: Nope–just
Vilmer and me.
Q: Did
Vilmer say anything about Delbert Dingle?
A: Yes,
yes he did.
Q: What
did he say?
A: He
mentioned that he had an argument with Delbert.
Q: Did
he say what the argument was about?
A: He
said that Delbert had accused him of stealing a motor boat.
Q: Did
he say anything else?
A: Yes,
he said that Delbert Dingle told him that he knew Vilmer had stolen his boat
motor and that Delbert said he was "going to take care of Vilmer."
What are the
objections to this testimony? What are
the arguments on the objections? How
should the court rule on them? Why?
II.
(25 Minutes)
Delbert Dingle took
the stand to testify on his own behalf during the defense’s case-in-chief. Here is part of his testimony:
Q: Did
you shoot Vilmir Valmer?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: Because
I feared for my life?
Q: Why?
A: I
feared for my life because Vilmer was coming at me with a knife. We had had some words. He stood up–he was trying to get up. Vilmer
always carried a knife. I knew Vilmer
was very proficient in rapidly drawing and throwing a knife. When I saw Valmer
getting to his feet with the knife in his hand, I told him to stop. Vilmer was only five or six feet away when I
fired. I shot Vilmer three times. I did whatever it took to stop him. I had to get him before he got me.
What are the
objections to this testimony? What are
the arguments on the objections? How
should the court rule on them? Why?
IIIA.
(20 Minutes)
The defense closed its case and the
prosecution calls, in rebuttal, Donna Rawlinson, Vilmer Valmer’s girl
friend. She testifies, in part, as
follows:
Q: How
well did you know Vilmer Valmer at the time of his death?
A: Well,
we’d been together for about 5 years, as boyfriend and girlfriend, if you know
what I mean.
Q: Did
you live together?
A: Yep,
for the last 2 years.
Q: Could
you describe his physical condition at the time of his death?
A: Vilmer
was in bad health and took at least six different medications for multiple
health problems. He was barely able to
get around. He'd get out of breath when he tried to walk.
Q: How
was he that day?
A: He
had difficulty in getting up from sitting or lying on the ground at the
riverbank campsite.
Q: Based
on your knowledge of Vilmer’s health, do you have an opinion as to whether he
could’ve gotten up quickly or suddenly, as Delbert says?
A: Hell,
no–because of these problems, it would have been impossible for Vilmer to get
up from the ground quickly or suddenly.
And I didn’t see no knife in Vilmer’s hand either, and neither did
anyone else!
What are the
objections to this testimony? What are
the arguments on the objections? How
should the court rule on them? Why?
IIIB.
(40 Minutes)
In surrebuttal,
counsel for the defendant calls the custodian of records of the Golden Gate
County Sheriff’s department, Deputy Roberts, who testifies in part, as follows:
Q: I
show you what has been marked as Defense Exhibit E, for identification, do you
recognize it?
A: Yes.
Q: What
do you recognize it to be?
A: A
report of Deputy Peter Partin, the chief investigating law enforcement officer
prepared a report for the district attorney's office containing a summary of
interviews conducted and other evidence collected in the case.
Q: Was
this report prepared in the regular course of sheriff’s business by a person
with a duty to report on such business?
A: Yes.
Q: Was
it kept in the regular course of the business of the sheriff’s department?
A: Yes.
Q: Do
you know Deputy Partin’s writing and signature?
A: Yes.
Q: Is
that his writing and signature on Defense Exhibit E, for identification?
A: Yes.
Q: Is
the report a true and accurate copy of the report prepared by Deputy Partin?
A: Yes.
Q: How
do you know that?
A: I
ran a copy from the original myself.
Q: Your
honor, I offer this exhibit in evidence as People’s Exhibit E.
By the People: Your honor I object, irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial!
By the Court: Defense
counsel, may I have an offer of proof?
By Defense Counsel:
The report, in pertinent part shows that one witness, Evelyn Powers,
told Officer Richardson that she saw Valmer with a knife in his hand just
before Delbert Dingle shot him. Evelyn Powers died before trial. Evelyn Powers
was the only person present other than Delbert Dingle who saw Valmer getting up
with his knife out of its scabbard.
How should the court rule on the Defense motion to admit Exhibit
E? Why?
END OF THE EXAM