TENTATIVE FORMAT EVIDENCE EXAM SPRING 2012

As you know, I have no previous exams to share with the class. However, I have reviewed previous exams of other professors and selected some questions that I like. This proposed format is not definite, but it will be close. I hope this selection will provide you with an idea of what I will be looking for.

A.

VERY SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS

10 QUESTIONS @ 2 MARKS EACH, 20 MARKS TOTAL)

You exam will likely include some short answer questions that are not fact pattern based. Below are examples of the types of questions this section would include. Note that I have only selected 5 sample questions totally 10 marks; the exam would contain 5 more questions to total 20. 1. Why is opinion evidence generally inadmissible? 2. Where a party seeks to admit the prior testimony of an unavailable witness into evidence in a civil case in BC, where would counsel look to find the relevant legal rule? What about in a criminal case? 3. Is it always necessary to question an expert witness by means of hypothetical questions? 4. An accused may usually lead evidence that her co-accused, because of her character, is more likely to have been responsible for the crime with which they are both charged. What, however, is the consequence of doing so for the accused? 5. Of what legal and practical significance is a judges conclusion that a witness is unsavoury? 5 more questions of a similar nature ...

B.

FACT PATTERN QUESTIONS (65 MARKS TOTAL)

Below is a sample of the types of questions which will be included in this section. exceeding this value. Obviously the marks for this section will total the allotted amount. As with the examples below, the marks for these questions may vary. I may create two groups short fact pattern questions & long fact pattern questions. 1. [10 marks] You represent a client, Anita Van Buren, who was arrested and charged with committing a bank robbery. Anita informs you that, although she confessed to

the crime, she was treated horribly once arrested. She claims that the police officer, Joe Fontana, pressured her into confessing by preventing her from sleeping, depriving her of water, and saying that if she didnt confess, he would arrest Anitas husband, Jack. As you continue to ask questions of your client, it becomes apparent that Fontana didnt inform Anita of her right to counsel. You decide that you will try to have the confession excluded. (a) What are your options in trying to get the confession excluded? As defence counsel, what option is most favourable? Explain. (b) Would it make a difference if Anita told you that, in her statement, she told the police where she hid the money and the police recovered this evidence? Explain.

2. [16 marks] You are Crown counsel prosecuting a famous gangster, Miranda Knuckles McGoo, for murder. You have a witness, Dave The Stoolie Capri, who was at the scene of the crime and, you expect, will take the stand and identify Miranda as the murderer. Prior to trial, the police interviewed Dave about the event. He told them that he saw the whole thing take place and that Miranda murdered the victim. Prior to the interview Dave affirmed that he would tell the truth and the police videotaped the whole interview, which lasted 30 minutes. At one point in the videotape, however, the video seems to have cut out, although the audio continued uninterrupted. This audio-only portion of the videotape lasted for 2 minutes, at which point the video image reappeared. When Dave takes the stand, he testifies that someone else not Miranda killed the victim. You are Crown counsel. What do you do? Discuss and explain fully.

3. [16 marks] Over the past three months, drugs have been disappearing from the pharmacy in Sacred Heart Hospital. After an intensive investigation, the police found multiple vials of a missing narcotic hidden in back of the locker shared by two young doctors, Dr. John (J.D.) Dorian and Dr. Chris (Turk) Turk. After further investigation, J.D. is charged with theft. At trial, one of the witnesses for the Crown is the hospital Janitor who testifies that he saw J.D. sneaking out of the pharmacy on a number of occasions, looking highly suspicious. In crossexamination, counsel for J.D. asks the Janitor the following question: You seem from your testimony to know a lot about what goes on around the hospital; did you know that Turk has a history of stealing pudding from the cafeteria? The Janitor answers that he did not know this. The Crown decides to call Dr. Perry Cox, a famous and respected psychiatrist, as its next witness. Dr. Cox testifies that the drug that was stolen is a highly addictive substance and that it is his view that it is likely

that the person who stole this drug was an addict. He also testifies that he has examined J.D.s personnel file and notes that he has a history of drug abuse. Is Dr. Coxs testimony admissible?

4. [24 marks] Doug, a young male doctor, was winding down after a long day of work. It was late at night and he was at home alone, drinking beer with the lights dimmed and watching a movie. At some point he became aware of an intruder in his house, grabbed the telephone, and called 9-1-1. The 9-1-1 operator, Wen, sent the police to the scene but when they arrived they discovered Doug lying dead in the dim room, movie still playing and beer bottles strewn on the floor. Todd, a loan shark with a reputation for violence, is on trial for the murder. The key issue in the case is identity. As part of its case in chief, the Crown calls Wen, who testifies that Doug seemed petrified and cried out, Todds about to kill me, at which point the line went dead. Todd does not take the stand but the defence calls Todds mother, Laverne, who, to the surprise of the Crown, testifies that she was with Todd having dinner at the time the offfence was alleged to have occurred. In cross-examination, the Crown poses the following question: Isnt it true that you did not inform the police of this information prior to the trial? Laverne concedes that this is true and states but everyone knows Todd is a good boy who wouldnt hurt a fly. The defences next witness is Todds sister, Jordan, whose sole testimony is that, the morning after Doug was killed, Laverne told her that she had a lovely dinner with Todd the evening before. a. Is Wens evidence admissible? Explain fully. b. Given Lavernes testimony, what issues arise regarding the judges charge to the jury? Discuss fully. c. Is Jordans testimony admissible? Explain fully. d. Suppose that Counsel for Todd admitted identity and, instead, advanced the defence that he was at the house on the night in question, he and Doug got in a dispute that turned violent and he killed Doug in justified self-defence. Explain fully what the burden(s) would be in order for this defence to be successful.

C.

ESSAY QUESTION (15 MARKS TOTAL)

You will be required to answer one essay question. There may not be a choice, but if there is there will be at most two questions.