During a personal injury trial, a witness testifies they believe the defendant was texting while driving because they observed the defendant texting on different occasions in the past. The defense raises an objection to the testimony. How should the court rule?
The objection should be sustained because testimony about behavior requires evidence of reputation rather than specific past observations.
The objection should be sustained because the witness’s observations of prior behavior do not establish firsthand knowledge of the incident in question.
The objection should be overruled because the witness’s testimony about prior behavior demonstrates a pattern relevant to the defendant's conduct during the incident.
The objection should be overruled because the witness is allowed to testify about their conclusion based on prior unrelated behavior of the defendant.
The correct answer emphasizes that testimony must be rooted in personal knowledge of the specific incident being litigated. The witness's observations of the defendant texting in unrelated prior situations do not establish personal knowledge about the defendant's conduct during the event at issue. While unrelated prior behavior might suggest a pattern, personal knowledge requires a direct observation of the specific occurrence in dispute. Incorrect options misinterpret the personal knowledge standard by conflating prior behavior with character evidence or failing to distinguish between pattern and specific occurrence testimony.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is 'personal knowledge' in a legal context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the difference between 'character evidence' and 'specific conduct' in court?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of the court's ruling on witness credibility?