Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)EvidenceMedium
A plaintiff in a civil negligence action calls a witness to testify about the defendant's reckless driving just prior to the accident. On cross-examination, the defense attorney asks the witness, 'Isn't it true that you have poor eyesight and often mistake colors, especially at dusk?' The witness denies it. The defense attorney then seeks to introduce testimony from an optometrist who examined the witness a month before the accident and diagnosed her with severe color blindness and night blindness. Is the optometrist's testimony admissible?
- AYes, because it relates to the witness's sensory capacity and ability to perceive the events.
- BNo, because it is extrinsic evidence offered to contradict on a collateral matter.
- CYes, because it directly contradicts the witness's denial on cross-examination.
- DNo, because specific instances of conduct are not admissible to attack a witness's character for truthfulness.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. Yes, because it relates to the witness's sensory capacity and ability to perceive the events.
Testimony regarding a witness's sensory capacity (e.g., eyesight, hearing) is always relevant to their ability to perceive the events about which they are testifying. The optometrist's testimony directly relates to the witness's ability to observe the defendant's driving and is therefore admissible to impeach her credibility by showing a defect in her perception.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. This is incorrect. While it is extrinsic evidence, the witness's ability to perceive the events of the accident is not a collateral matter; it is central to her testimony.
- C. This is incorrect. While it does contradict, the admissibility hinges on the nature of the contradiction (sensory capacity), not merely that it contradicts her denial.
- D. This is incorrect. The optometrist's testimony is not offered to attack the witness's character for truthfulness (e.g., by alleging she is a liar) but to question her ability to accurately perceive the event.
Impeachment by Defect in Sensory Capacity
Evidence is admissible to show that a witness's sensory or mental capacity was impaired at the time of the events or at the time of testifying, affecting their ability to perceive, recall, or narrate.
- Always relevant to credibility.
- Can be shown through cross-examination or extrinsic evidence.
- Not considered a 'collateral matter' as it goes to the core of testimonial reliability.
- Examples include poor eyesight, hearing, mental illness, intoxication.
Memory trick: Perception Problems Prove Perilous.