Carson, an employee truck driver for the CheapCheap store, was arrested by the Highway Patrol following a hit and run accident where he is the alleged driver of the vehicle that fled the scene. At the time of his arrest, Carson admitted to the Highway Patrol officer that he was delivering goods for his employer, and that he was texting his office at the time of the accident. He stated that he heard the thud but did not stop. At trial, where CheapCheap is charged as the responsible party, the prosecutor wants to introduce the statement Carson made to the Highway Patrol officer to establish CheapCheap's responsibility for the accident. Can the statement be introduced during the trial?
A) No, Carson's statement is inadmissible hearsay because Carson had no authority to speak on behalf of his employer.
B) Yes, because Carson was an employee and acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the incident, and his statement may be admissible as an admission by an agent.
C) Yes, because, as an employee, Carson is considered a co-conspirator, and his statement may be admissible as an admission by a co-conspirator.
D) No, because Carson is a low-level employee and has no authority to bind the company to a statement he makes.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q15: Which of the following statements is true
Q16: Pam, in Perry's presence, declares that Perry
Q17: Before a Mary's response to Ben's statement
Q18: All courts apply the adoptive admission exception
Q19: Chris, CEO of XAM Corporation, denies that
Q21: A statement made by a co-conspirator against
Q22: Prior statements by a witness that are
Q23: Which of the following statements represents the
Q24: Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, prior
Q25: Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents