CA Bar 過去問分析: Feb 2021 Q1 (Evidence)
CA Barの過去問を解いて答案を公開しています！
概ね1000 words 前後の「1時間以内に書ける」答案で、合格点に繋がるように、 IRAC (CRAC)の形式を忠実に守っています。
問題文
February 2021 Q1 (Evidence)
On January 15, Paul fell down the stairwell of Dell’s Department Store (“Dell”). Paul sued Dell for personal injuries, alleging he fell because one of the steps was broken. The following occurred at a jury trial in the California Superior Court while Dell’s manager, Mark, was being examined by Dell’s attorney:
QUESTION: Where were you when Paul fell down the stairs?
ANSWER: I was standing nearby with my back to the stairs talking to Carol, a store customer, when I heard the noise of the fall.
(1) QUESTION: Has Paul sued Dell before?
ANSWER: Yes, five times that I personally know about.
(2) QUESTION: No one saw the accident. Right?
ANSWER: That’s right. A thorough investigation was unable to find
anyone who saw Paul fall on the stairs.
Mark was then cross-examined by Paul’s attorney as follows:
(3) QUESTION: Isn’t it true that you used to be employed by Paul as
a cashier in his grocery store and that he fired you for stealing money
from the cash register?
ANSWER: That is what he claimed.
(4) QUESTION: The stairs were repaired the day after Paul fell. Weren’t
they?
ANSWER: Yes.
(5) QUESTION: Didn’t Carol, the store customer, exclaim at the time of the
accident: “Oh no! A man just fell on that broken step”?
ANSWER: So, what?
QUESTION: Is this the report that Dell’s insurance company prepared following an investigation of the accident?
ANSWER: Yes. That is the report the insurance company gave me. They always prepare a report in case we get sued.
Paul’s attorney then moved to enter into evidence the insurance company’s report. The report states: “Steps on the stairs at the store are in very poor condition.”
A. What objections could Paul’s attorney and Dell’s attorney reasonably make to the questions or answers to Mark’s testimony numbered (1) to (5) above, and how should the court rule on each objection? Discuss.
B. What objections could Dell’s attorney reasonably make to the motion to enter the insurance company’s report into evidence and how should the court rule? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.
答案
雑感
Essayの一番最初がEvidenceからの出題ということで、受験生的には結構ヘビーな問題だったと思います。すごく捻った論点があるという訳ではないけれども、Evidenceらしく多論点型の問題です。1時間の枠を上手に使って、最後の論点まで書き切ることが大事です（最後の小問のhearsayあたりは頻出論点なので、時間切れになってしまうと勿体無い！）。
問題文を読んだときのissue spottingのメモはこんな感じです。
上記答案は全部で1200 wordsをちょっと切るくらいの分量です（本番でこの分量を書ききるのは結構きつい）。何度も出てくる論点（relevanceとか）を飛ばしたりしながら、最後まで辿り着くことを優先しましょう。
Testimony (1)は、legal relevanceは比較的気付きやすいと思うのですが、character evidenceは気付くのが難しいかもしれません。「繰り返し訴訟を起こしている（そういう傾向, character がある）→今回も（訴訟好きな傾向のとおりに）訴訟を起こした」という流れに気づけると良いですね。
Testimony (2)の personal knowledgeもすぐに気付くのはなかなか難しいかもしれません。
Testimony (3)の character evidenceの論点は比較的わかりやすいと思います。ただし、impeachment目的でのcharacter evidenceの使用は、FederalとCaliforniaでルールが違うことに注意が必要です。
Testimony (4)の subsequent remedial measures はわかりやすいですね。
Testimony (5)は、頻出のhearsayの論点です。上記答案ではexcited utterance (spontaneous statement)のみ検討していますが、present sense impression (contemporaneous statement) も書けるとさらに良いですね。なお、Californiaルールのcontemporaneous statementは、Federalのpresent sense impressionよりも範囲が狭いので注意が必要です (この部分はSelected Answer Aで正確に議論されています）。
Question B の insurance reportについては、public policy exclusionとauthenticationの論点がありますが、時間の関係で上記答案では省略しました。特に、public policy exclusion (liability insurance)に関しては、本問では、保険の存在からnegligenceを立証しようとしている訳ではない（証拠として使おうとしているのはあくまでreportの中身）なので、書くとしてもさらっと流す程度でOKだと思います。
hearsayのbusiness record exceptionについては、上記答案では、問題文に書かれていない内容を想定しつつ、伝聞例外を肯定する形で書きました。この部分、Selected Answer AとBとでも論じ方が違うので、比べてみると勉強になると思います。
最後に、Selected Answersで書かれていた論点をざっと拾って比較してみました。個人的にはAnswer Bの方が整理された書き方で読みやすかったです！ご参考にどうぞ。
Selected Answer A
QA(1): relevance, character evidence
QA(2): relevance, leading question, lack of personal knowledge
QA(3): relevance, character evidence, hearsay, hearsay exception (admission by party-opponent)
QA(4): relevance, public policy exclusion (subsequent remedial measures)
QA(5): hearsay, hearsay exception (excited utterance, present sense impression), lay opinion
QB(insurance report): work produce privilege, hearsay, hearsay exception (business record), public policy exclusion (insurance)
Selected Answer B
QA(1): relevance, assuming facts not in evidence, personal knowledge, character evidence, habit evidence, impeachment
QA(2): relevance, leading question, lack of peronal knowledge
QA(3): relevance, leading question, compound question, nonresponsive answer, character evidence, impeachment
QA(4): relevance, public policy exclusion (subsequent remedial measures)
QA(5): relevance, hearsay, hearsay exception (contemporaneous statement, excited utterance)
QB: relevance, authentication, hearsay, vicarious statement, hearsay exception (business record)
California Bar Exam 受験生を全力で応援しています！