Select Page

Evidence
University of Baltimore School of Law
Murphy, Joseph F.

Evidence Outline for Prof. Murphy

I. Competency To Testify

Child and/or mentally impaired Person: C.J 9 – 103

Bruce v. State: § 602a YOUNG CHILD
When a 5 yr. old child is questioned carefully about telling the truth he may be found competent to testify, if he shows clearly he understands the difference.

Wernsing v. GM Corp. § 305(G) JUROR
NO juror is competent to “impeach” a verdict by testifying what transpired in the court room. Proof of external influence may come from someone outside of the jury.

Heil v. Zahn 601(C) DEAD MAN’S STATUTE
Parties whether “real” or “named” may not bring testimony of a transaction or statement of the deceased which can only be affirmed or denied by the decedent.
HOWEVER, once the “door is opened” or definitely if you ask questions of the opposite party concerning statements made by the decedent then the STATUTE is deemed to have been waived. NOTE: Third parties (who are really third parties may testify about the decedent’s transactions or statements

Rhea v. Burt § 601 (C) Supp.
The statute does not “seal the lips” of a non party witness. LOOK AT CASE

HIPNOTIZED § 602B (2) (A)
Burral v. State
Simply put; hypnosis is not allowed, the testimony is invalid.

II. RULE AGAINST HEARSAY
OUT of COURT STATEMENTS WHERE THE RULE DOES NOT APPLY

Carlton v. State § 702 Statements Not to Prove Truth of Content
An out of court statement of fact is admissible and is not included as hearsay. Ex. Of hearsay would be an answer to the question: Why did you stab me? Ex. Of an EXCEPTION to the hearsay rule would be an answer to the question: What time does the store close? The latter just answers a factual question, it is not an assertion. The former is an assertion.

Safeway Stores v. Combs § 1001 (D) (2) OPERATIVE FACTS
The hearsay rule is inapplicable to an utterance proved as an operative fact. In action by customer and husband for injuries sustained by customer who stepped into puddle of ketchup on floor from broken bottle and fell in defendant’s store, trial court’s refusal to permit store manager’s wife to testify as to warning she overh

ell. That evidence was admissible to show why the witness failed to point out the killer in the line up.

Green v. State § 503
Paper with tag # would have been admissible to show why the officer had probable cause to arrest the driver, but it is not admissible to show that, that car was the getaway car because it is hearsay evidence. Also, it was not considered an excited utterance, without some sort of proof that he was excited after seeing the robbery minutes before.

Graves v. State § 804 (B)
The officer’s notebook was admissible only to those things it contained which did not make ANY conclusions of its own. The statement in it that Graves was “the alleged accomplice” would not be admissible.
Generally Police Reports or difficult things to get admitted under the business recod exception.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVID. OF DECLARANT’S STATE OF MIND: