CA Bar Exam 練習答案: Evidence (Feb 2009)

Bar Review CourseのEssay答案は完璧すぎ＆長すぎて参考にならないという方向けに、過去に書きためた答案を公開していきます。公開するのは、私が実際に1時間計って解いた答案を、ギリギリ合格ラインまたは合格ライン少し上になるように手直ししたものです。手直しにあたっては、某Bar Review Courseの採点表を参照して、自己採点しています。

問題文

February 2009 Question 3
https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/February%202009%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf

Dustin has been charged with participating in a robbery in California on the
morning of March 1.
(1) At Dustin’s trial in a California state court, the prosecution called Wendy, who was married to Dustin when the robbery took place. Dustin and Wendy divorced before the trial and Wendy was eager to testify.

During the direct examination of Wendy, the following questions were asked and answers given:
(2) Prosecutor: You did not see Dustin on the afternoon of March 1, is that
correct?
Wendy: That is correct.
(3) Prosecutor: Did you speak with Dustin on that day?
Wendy: Yes, I spoke to him in the afternoon, by phone.
(4) Prosecutor: What did you discuss?
Wendy: He said he’d be late coming home that night because he had
to meet some people to divide up some money.
(5) Prosecutor: Later that evening, did you speak with anyone else on the
phone?
Wendy: Yes. I spoke with my friend Nancy just before she died.
(6) Prosecutor: What did Nancy say to you?
Wendy: Nancy said that she and Dustin had "pulled off a big job" that
afternoon.
(7) Prosecutor: Did Nancy explain what she meant by "pulled off a big job"?
Wendy: No, but I assume that she meant that she and Dustin committed
some sort of crime.

Assuming all proper objections, claims of privilege, and motions to strike were timely made, did the court properly allow the prosecution to call the witness in item (1) and properly admit the evidence in items (2) - (7)? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.

答案

毎回のことながら、書くべき量がとにかく多い（多すぎる！）Evidencen問題です。