I85PREP
⌘ K
FL Criminal Trial Specialist study materials
FL Criminal Trial Specialist study resources

FL Criminal Trial Specialist practice questions

One question at a time. Build your FL Criminal Trial Specialist understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless arrest of a person in a public place is constitutionally permissible when the officer has which of the following?

  1. Probable cause to believe the person committed a felony Correct answer.
  2. Consent from the person to be taken into custody
  3. A reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed
  4. A hunch confirmed by the person's nervous demeanor

Explanation

A warrantless arrest in a public place comports with the Fourth Amendment when the officer possesses probable cause to believe the arrestee has committed an offense. Reasonable suspicion supports only a brief investigative detention, not a full custodial arrest.

Question 2Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

During a custodial interrogation at the station, a suspect invokes his right to counsel. Under Davis v. United States and Edwards v. Arizona, which statement best describes the consequence?

  1. The invocation is effective only if the suspect uses the exact words 'I want a lawyer'
  2. Police may resume questioning after a two-hour cooling-off period
  3. Police may continue questioning on unrelated offenses without restriction
  4. Questioning must cease until counsel is present or the suspect initiates further communication Correct answer.

Explanation

Once a suspect unambiguously invokes the right to counsel during custodial interrogation, Edwards bars further questioning until counsel is provided or the suspect himself initiates communication. The invocation must be unambiguous, but no magic words are required.

Question 3Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant moves to suppress cocaine found in a closed shoebox in the trunk of his car during a lawful traffic stop. The officer had probable cause to believe the car contained contraband. Under current doctrine, the search is best analyzed as:

  1. Valid only if the defendant consented to the trunk search
  2. Invalid, because probable cause must be particularized to the specific container
  3. Valid under the automobile exception, which permits search of containers that may hold the object of the search Correct answer.
  4. Invalid, because closed containers in a trunk always require a warrant

Explanation

The automobile exception allows a warrantless search of a vehicle when probable cause exists, and it extends to containers within the vehicle that could contain the object of the search. No separate warrant is needed for each container.

Question 4Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

The State seeks to introduce the victim's out-of-court statement identifying the defendant as her attacker. The victim is unavailable at trial because she died of unrelated causes. Which constitutional issue governs admissibility?

  1. Whether the statement qualifies as a business record
  2. Whether the statement was recorded on body camera
  3. Whether the statement was made within 24 hours of the offense
  4. Whether the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim regarding the statement Correct answer.

Explanation

Under Crawford v. Washington, testimonial statements of an unavailable declarant are admissible only if the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. The Confrontation Clause, not merely the hearsay rules, controls this analysis.

Question 5Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

In a criminal case, the prosecutor learns that the State's key eyewitness recanted part of her account but does not disclose this to the defense. Under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, this conduct is problematic because:

  1. It constitutes a Batson violation regarding peremptory strikes
  2. It involves suppression of material evidence favorable to the accused, including impeachment evidence Correct answer.
  3. It violates the rule against prosecutorial comment on the defendant's silence
  4. It violates the speedy trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment

Explanation

Brady requires disclosure of evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment, and Giglio extends this to impeachment evidence. Suppression of a witness's recantation undermines the reliability of the trial and may violate due process.

Question 6Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

Defense counsel objects to a prosecutor's closing argument asking the jury to 'send a message to the community' and to 'do justice for the victim's family.' The proper procedural step to preserve the issue for appellate review is to:

  1. Move for a mistrial or request a curative instruction at the time of the argument Correct answer.
  2. File a bar complaint against the prosecutor before the verdict
  3. Ask the court reporter to strike the statement from the transcript
  4. Wait until after verdict and raise the issue in a motion for new trial only

Explanation

To preserve an objection to improper closing argument, counsel must contemporaneously object and, where the prejudice is significant, move for a mistrial or request a curative instruction. Waiting until after verdict generally waives the issue absent fundamental error.

Question 7Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with burglary of a dwelling. The State's evidence shows entry into a detached garage attached to the house by a covered walkway. The best argument for the State that the structure is a 'dwelling' is:

  1. The classification depends on whether the garage has a lock
  2. Garages are dwellings only if someone sleeps there nightly
  3. Any structure on residential property is a dwelling
  4. A structure within the curtilage used in connection with the home may qualify as a dwelling Correct answer.

Explanation

Many jurisdictions treat structures within the curtilage and used in connection with the residence as part of the dwelling for burglary purposes. The key inquiry is the structure's relationship to the home and its use, not simply its address.

Question 8Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with robbery wants to testify that he acted under duress because a co-defendant threatened to harm his family. The jurisdiction requires the threat to be of imminent death or serious bodily harm. The court should:

  1. Admit the testimony only if the co-defendant is also charged
  2. Exclude the testimony because duress is an affirmative defense only to homicide
  3. Exclude the testimony because duress is never a defense to robbery
  4. Admit the testimony if the threat was present, imminent, and of such a nature as to induce well-grounded apprehension Correct answer.

Explanation

Duress generally requires a threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm that induces a well-grounded fear, and it can excuse conduct that would otherwise be criminal. The defendant must be allowed to present evidence supporting the defense if it is supported by the record.

Question 9Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

During voir dire, the prosecutor uses a peremptory strike against the only Black venire member. Defense counsel objects under Batson. The court's proper next step is to:

  1. Declare a mistrial without further inquiry
  2. Require the prosecutor to provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike Correct answer.
  3. Deny the objection because peremptory strikes are unreviewable
  4. Seat the venire member automatically

Explanation

Under Batson, once the opponent makes a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination, the proponent must articulate a race-neutral explanation, and the court then evaluates whether the explanation is credible. The three-step framework governs.

Question 10Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

The defense seeks to introduce evidence that a third party, not the defendant, committed the crime. The trial court excludes the evidence as speculative. The appellate court should reverse if:

  1. The evidence is merely cumulative of the defendant's alibi
  2. The defendant failed to subpoena the third party
  3. The evidence would confuse the jury even slightly
  4. The evidence is relevant and its exclusion deprived the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense Correct answer.

Explanation

A defendant has a constitutional right to present relevant evidence supporting a defense, and exclusion that undermines a complete defense may require reversal. The evidence must be relevant and not excluded by an appropriate rule, but marginal confusion alone does not justify exclusion.

Question 11Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A witness testifies that the defendant 'always carries a knife' based on the witness's observations over several years. The defense objects as improper character evidence. The court should:

  1. Exclude the testimony because lay witnesses cannot testify about observations
  2. Admit the testimony as evidence of a prior bad act
  3. Admit the testimony as habit evidence
  4. Exclude the testimony because it is offered to prove conduct in conformity with a character trait Correct answer.

Explanation

Evidence of a person's character is generally not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. A general propensity to carry a knife is character evidence, not a specific habit.

Question 12Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is convicted after a trial in which the State's expert testified about DNA statistics without disclosing the underlying laboratory report. The defense had requested the report in discovery. The most likely appellate issue is:

  1. A Confrontation Clause violation only if the expert was unavailable
  2. A violation of the rule against hearsay only
  3. A violation of the discovery rules that may support a continuance or mistrial, and potentially a due process claim if the evidence was material Correct answer.
  4. A speedy trial violation

Explanation

Nondisclosure of requested discovery may violate discovery rules and, if the withheld material is favorable and material, may also raise due process concerns. The remedy depends on prejudice and whether the defendant had an adequate opportunity to respond.

Question 13Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

The defendant is charged with DUI. At trial, the State offers the results of a breath test administered with a device that had not been calibrated within the manufacturer's recommended interval. The defense objection should focus on:

  1. The foundational reliability of the instrument, including maintenance and calibration records Correct answer.
  2. The officer's subjective belief about the defendant's sobriety
  3. The chain of custody of the defendant's driver's license
  4. Whether the defendant was read the warning of implied consent

Explanation

To admit breath-test results, the State must lay a foundation showing the instrument was properly maintained and calibrated and that the test was administered according to approved procedures. Calibration records are central to that foundation.

Question 14Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon argues that his prior conviction was obtained without counsel and is therefore invalid for enhancement purposes. Under Custis v. United States, the defendant may:

  1. Never challenge a prior conviction used for enhancement
  2. Challenge the prior conviction only on the ground that it was obtained in violation of the right to counsel Correct answer.
  3. Challenge the prior conviction only if the State consents
  4. Collaterally attack the prior conviction at sentencing without limitation

Explanation

Custis permits a defendant to collaterally attack a prior conviction used for sentence enhancement only on the ground that the conviction was obtained in violation of the right to counsel. Other constitutional challenges must be raised in the original proceeding.

Question 15Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

In a bench trial, the judge asks the defendant questions about his prior record before the defendant has testified. Defense counsel objects. The judge's questioning is best analyzed as:

  1. Problematic only if the defendant is unrepresented
  2. Permissible only if the prosecutor joins in the questioning
  3. Permissible because the judge is the trier of fact and may ask any question
  4. Problematic if it compromises the judge's impartiality or effectively comments on the defendant's failure to testify Correct answer.

Explanation

A judge may question witnesses to clarify the record, but the questioning must not compromise impartiality or penalize the defendant's exercise of the right to remain silent. Inquiry into prior record before testimony may raise both concerns.

Question 16Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with first-degree murder. The State seeks to introduce a statement the defendant made to a cellmate. The defendant argues the statement was induced by the cellmate's promise of leniency. The court should:

  1. Determine whether the cellmate was acting as an agent of the State and whether the statement was involuntary Correct answer.
  2. Admit the statement only if it was recorded
  3. Exclude the statement because all jailhouse statements are unreliable
  4. Admit the statement because cellmates are always private actors

Explanation

When a cellmate acts as a government agent, the same voluntariness and Miranda concerns may apply, and coercive promises of leniency can render a statement involuntary. The court must examine the totality of the circumstances.

Question 17Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with aggravated battery claims self-defense. The State's evidence shows the defendant was the initial aggressor. Under the common-law rule, the defendant's self-defense claim is:

  1. Available automatically because the victim was larger
  2. Unavailable unless the defendant withdrew from the encounter and communicated the withdrawal Correct answer.
  3. Unavailable because self-defense never applies to battery
  4. Available if the defendant used only non-deadly force

Explanation

An initial aggressor generally loses the right to claim self-defense unless he withdraws from the encounter and communicates that withdrawal to the other person. Withdrawal restores the right to use force if the other person continues the attack.

Question 18Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A prosecutor in closing argument states, 'The defendant's failure to explain the text messages shows he has something to hide.' The defendant did not testify. The defense objection should be:

  1. Overruled, because the defendant could have testified
  2. Overruled, because closing argument may comment on the evidence
  3. Sustained, because text messages are hearsay
  4. Sustained, because the comment improperly penalizes the defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent Correct answer.

Explanation

Comment that invites the jury to infer guilt from the defendant's failure to testify violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The prosecution may comment on the evidence but may not highlight the absence of testimony.

Question 19Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with trafficking in stolen property. The State offers evidence that the defendant sold similar goods to the same buyer on three prior occasions. The defense objects. The evidence is most likely admissible to show:

  1. Intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake under the applicable evidence rule Correct answer.
  2. The defendant's general propensity to commit crimes
  3. The defendant's bad character
  4. That the buyer is a reliable witness

Explanation

Evidence of prior acts may be admitted for purposes such as intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake, provided the probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. General propensity is not a permissible purpose.

Question 20Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant moves to dismiss the information because the State failed to file it within the statutory period after arrest. The court should apply which standard?

  1. The doctrine of laches, which requires the defendant to show prejudice
  2. The statute of limitations, which bars prosecution only if the offense was charged too late
  3. The rule of lenity, which resolves ambiguity in favor of the defendant
  4. The speedy trial rule, which may require dismissal with prejudice if the delay was not justified Correct answer.

Explanation

Failure to bring a defendant to trial within the applicable speedy trial period may require dismissal, and whether it is with or without prejudice depends on the circumstances. The statute of limitations governs the time for commencing prosecution, not the time for trial.

Question 21Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defense expert testifies that the defendant's confession was false based on the expert's review of interrogation techniques. The State objects. The court should:

  1. Always admit the testimony because the defendant has a right to present a defense
  2. Admit the testimony only if the expert is a licensed attorney
  3. Exclude the testimony if it invades the province of the jury by opining on the ultimate issue of truthfulness Correct answer.
  4. Exclude the testimony because experts may never testify about confessions

Explanation

Expert testimony may assist the jury on specialized matters, but it may not simply tell the jury whether a confession is true or whether the defendant is guilty. Courts often exclude testimony that opines on the ultimate issue of credibility.

Question 22Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with possession of a controlled substance. The State offers a laboratory report identifying the substance. The defense objects on Confrontation Clause grounds because the analyst who prepared the report is unavailable and the State offers the report through a supervisor who did not perform the test. Under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and Bullcoming v. New Mexico, the report is:

  1. Admissible because it is a business record
  2. Inadmissible only if the defendant requests the analyst's presence
  3. Admissible because the supervisor reviewed the report
  4. Inadmissible unless the analyst who performed the test is available for cross-examination or the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine Correct answer.

Explanation

Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming treat a laboratory report prepared for use at trial as testimonial, requiring the analyst who performed the test to be available for cross-examination absent a prior opportunity. A supervisor's testimony does not substitute for the actual analyst.

Question 23Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is convicted of petit theft. On appeal, he argues the evidence was legally insufficient. The appellate court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the State and asks whether:

  1. The trial judge personally believed the defendant was guilty
  2. The evidence is clear and convincing
  3. The verdict was against the preponderance of the evidence
  4. A rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt Correct answer.

Explanation

The sufficiency standard asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the Jackson v. Virginia standard.

Question 24Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with first-degree murder wants to present evidence that the victim had a violent character and had threatened him. The defendant claims self-defense. The evidence is:

  1. Inadmissible because the defendant must prove the victim acted violently on this occasion
  2. Inadmissible because character evidence is never allowed in criminal cases
  3. Admissible to show the defendant's state of mind and the reasonableness of his belief in the need for self-defense Correct answer.
  4. Admissible only if the victim had a prior conviction

Explanation

Where self-defense is at issue, evidence of the victim's violent character and prior threats may be admissible to show the defendant's state of mind and the reasonableness of his apprehension. The evidence is not offered merely to prove propensity.

Question 25Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A prosecutor receives a court order compelling production of a witness's medical records relevant to the defense. The prosecutor inadvertently fails to disclose them before trial. At trial, the defense learns of the records. The court's most appropriate response is to:

  1. Declare a mistrial automatically
  2. Dismiss the case with prejudice
  3. Consider a continuance or other remedy tailored to the prejudice, including possible exclusion or a curative instruction Correct answer.
  4. Sanction the prosecutor with a fine only

Explanation

Remedies for discovery violations are generally tailored to the prejudice caused, and courts may grant a continuance, exclude evidence, or give a curative instruction. Automatic mistrial or dismissal is not required absent a showing that lesser remedies cannot cure the prejudice.

Question 26Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

During a jury trial in Florida, the State seeks to admit a certified copy of a judgment showing the defendant was previously convicted of a felony. Defense counsel objects that the document is hearsay. How should the court rule?

  1. Exclude it, because a judgment of conviction is testimonial hearsay barred by the Confrontation Clause unless the convicting witness appears.
  2. Admit it, because a certified copy of a judgment of conviction is a self-authenticating public record and is admissible to prove the prior conviction. Correct answer.
  3. Exclude it, because the State must call the clerk who prepared the record to testify as a sponsoring witness.
  4. Admit it only if the defense stipulates to the prior conviction before the document is offered.

Explanation

Under Florida law a certified copy of a judgment of conviction is a public record admissible both to prove the conviction and as self-authenticating evidence. The State need not produce the custodian as a live witness, and the Confrontation Clause does not bar a record of the defendant's own prior conviction. A stipulation is helpful but is not a precondition to admissibility.

Question 27Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with aggravated assault. At the close of the State's case, defense counsel moves for judgment of acquittal, arguing the State failed to prove the victim had a well-founded fear. The State's evidence shows the defendant pointed a firearm at the victim from fifteen feet away while shouting a threat. What is the trial court's proper ruling?

  1. Grant the motion, because no physical contact occurred.
  2. Grant the motion, because the victim did not testify that she was afraid.
  3. Defer ruling until the defense has presented its case.
  4. Deny the motion, because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient for a jury to find the required well-founded fear. Correct answer.

Explanation

A motion for judgment of acquittal tests legal sufficiency, and the court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State. Pointing a firearm while making a threat permits a jury to infer a well-founded fear of imminent violence. The court may not weigh credibility or resolve conflicts at this stage.

Question 28Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

Defense counsel learns that a State witness has a pending charge on which the prosecutor has offered leniency in exchange for testimony. The State has not disclosed this agreement. What is the prosecutor's obligation under Brady and Giglio?

  1. Disclose the agreement only if the defense specifically requests it in discovery.
  2. No obligation, because impeachment material is not exculpatory evidence.
  3. Disclose the agreement only if the witness testifies falsely on direct examination.
  4. Disclose the agreement to the defense, because evidence of a deal for leniency is favorable, material impeachment information. Correct answer.

Explanation

Giglio extends Brady to require disclosure of evidence affecting a witness's credibility, including promises of leniency in exchange for testimony. The duty is affirmative and does not depend on a defense request. Failure to disclose material impeachment evidence can require a new trial.

Question 29Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with battery wishes to testify. The State intends to impeach him with a prior felony conviction for grand theft that is eight years old and a misdemeanor conviction for petit theft that is two years old and involves dishonesty. Which prior conviction may the court admit for impeachment under the Florida Evidence Code?

  1. Neither conviction, because both are too old.
  2. Only the felony grand theft, because felonies are always admissible.
  3. Both convictions, because any prior theft shows a propensity for dishonesty.
  4. Only the misdemeanor petit theft, because it involves dishonesty and is within the statutory time limit. Correct answer.

Explanation

Under section 90.610, Florida allows impeachment by a conviction for a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement, whether felony or misdemeanor, if within the statutory time period. A felony not involving dishonesty is admissible only if the court finds it probative of truthfulness after balancing, and grand theft is not automatically admissible merely because it is a felony. The recent petit theft involving dishonesty fits the rule.

Question 30Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

During jury selection, defense counsel asks a venire member whether she could follow an instruction that the defendant's failure to testify cannot be considered. The prosecutor objects, arguing the question is improper. How should the court rule?

  1. Overrule the objection only if the defendant has already decided not to testify.
  2. Overrule the objection, because counsel may inquire whether jurors can follow the no-adverse-inference instruction. Correct answer.
  3. Sustain the objection, because the defendant's decision to testify is not a proper subject of voir dire.
  4. Sustain the objection, because questioning about the defendant's testimony invades the jury's deliberations.

Explanation

Voir dire may explore whether prospective jurors can follow the court's instructions, including the instruction that no inference may be drawn from a defendant's silence. Such questioning does not invade deliberations and does not require the defendant to have made a final decision. The trial court retains discretion to limit repetitive or argumentative questioning.

Question 31Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with sale of cocaine. The defense theory is mistaken identity. The State offers body camera footage of the undercover buy. Defense counsel objects that the footage lacks a proper foundation. What must the State establish to authenticate the recording?

  1. Testimony from the person who can identify the recording and show it accurately depicts the event, plus evidence the process was reliable and the recording was not altered. Correct answer.
  2. A notarized affidavit from the camera manufacturer certifying the device's specifications.
  3. Testimony from every officer who viewed the footage after the buy.
  4. A chain-of-custody log signed by the property room clerk only.

Explanation

Under the Florida Evidence Code, a photograph or recording may be authenticated by a witness with knowledge that it fairly and accurately depicts what it purports to show. Where a digital recording is challenged, the proponent should also show the reliability of the process and the absence of alteration. Chain-of-custody evidence supports but does not replace the identifying witness.

Question 32Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with armed robbery gives notice of an alibi defense. The State later discovers a rebuttal witness who places the defendant near the scene. The State did not list the witness in discovery. What is the proper procedure?

  1. The State may call the witness without notice, because rebuttal witnesses are exempt from discovery.
  2. The State must disclose the witness and, on request, the court may grant the defense a continuance or other appropriate relief rather than exclude the testimony. Correct answer.
  3. The court must exclude the witness's testimony as a sanction for the discovery violation.
  4. The State must dismiss the charge unless the witness is disclosed thirty days before trial.

Explanation

Florida discovery rules require reciprocal disclosure of witnesses, and the court has discretion to remedy a violation short of exclusion. The preferred remedy is to permit the testimony with a continuance or other relief that cures prejudice. Exclusion is a last resort when no lesser sanction suffices.

Question 33Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reviews whether the evidence supports the aggravating circumstance that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. What standard applies to that review?

  1. The Court must independently determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support the aggravator, considering the totality of the circumstances. Correct answer.
  2. The Court must defer to the jury's finding unless it is supported by any evidence at all.
  3. The Court reviews the finding only for an abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
  4. The Court presumes the aggravator is valid unless the defendant objected at trial.

Explanation

Florida requires meaningful appellate review of death sentences, including independent sufficiency review of each aggravating circumstance. For the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator, the court examines the totality of the circumstances to ensure the evidence meets the constitutional narrowing standard. This review is not merely deferential.

Question 34Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with possession of a controlled substance. He moves to suppress evidence found in his vehicle after a traffic stop. The officer testifies he stopped the vehicle because the driver failed to use a turn signal when changing lanes. The defense shows the vehicle was in a dedicated turn lane with a signal-activated arrow. How should the court rule?

  1. Grant the motion, because the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion when the turn-signal statute did not require a signal in that circumstance. Correct answer.
  2. Deny the motion, because the officer's subjective motive is irrelevant.
  3. Grant the motion, because traffic stops always require a warrant.
  4. Deny the motion, because any traffic infraction, even a mistaken one, justifies a stop.

Explanation

A traffic stop is valid only if the officer has reasonable suspicion of a violation, and an officer's mistake of law cannot supply that suspicion. If the statute did not require a signal in the dedicated turn lane, the stop lacked a lawful basis and the evidence obtained must be suppressed. The officer's good faith does not cure a mistake of law.

Question 35Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with burglary of a conveyance. At trial, the State offers the defendant's out-of-court statement to a detective: 'I was there, but I didn't take anything.' Defense counsel objects on hearsay grounds. How should the court rule?

  1. Exclude it, because the defendant was not under oath when he made the statement.
  2. Exclude it, because it is hearsay offered by the State.
  3. Admit it, because a party's own statement offered against him is not hearsay under the admission rule. Correct answer.
  4. Admit it only if the detective recorded the statement verbatim.

Explanation

Under section 90.803(18), Florida's evidence code, a statement of a party offered against that party is admissible as an admission and is not excluded by the hearsay rule. The statement need not be against interest when made and need not be under oath. A recording is helpful but not required.

Question 36Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

Defense counsel in closing argument tells the jury that the prosecutor 'manufactured evidence' and 'is trying to convict an innocent man to advance her career.' The prosecutor objects. What is the court's proper response?

  1. Allow the argument, because defense counsel may respond to any argument the prosecutor made.
  2. Declare a mistrial without any curative instruction.
  3. Sustain the objection and give a curative instruction, because the argument improperly attacks the prosecutor's personal integrity rather than the evidence. Correct answer.
  4. Allow the argument, because closing argument is not evidence and juries are instructed to disregard improper remarks.

Explanation

Closing argument must be confined to the evidence and reasonable inferences, and personal attacks on the integrity of opposing counsel are improper. The trial court should sustain the objection and may give a curative instruction. A mistrial is a remedy reserved for errors that cannot be cured.

Question 37Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with DUI refuses a breath test after being properly advised of the implied consent consequences. At trial, the State wishes to introduce evidence of the refusal. What is the correct analysis?

  1. The refusal is inadmissible unless the defendant takes the stand.
  2. The refusal is admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt if the officer complied with the implied consent warning requirements. Correct answer.
  3. The refusal is inadmissible because it is compelled testimonial communication.
  4. The refusal is admissible only if the defendant was convicted of a prior DUI.

Explanation

Florida's implied consent law permits evidence of a refusal to submit to a breath test as relevant to consciousness of guilt, provided the officer gave the required warnings. A refusal is treated as non-testimonial conduct rather than compelled testimony. The admissibility does not depend on the defendant testifying.

Question 38Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with grand theft. The State offers evidence that the defendant was found in possession of recently stolen property and gave a false explanation for how he obtained it. What inference may the jury draw?

  1. The jury may infer guilt only if the defendant confessed.
  2. None, because possession of stolen property is circumstantial evidence that cannot support a conviction.
  3. The jury may infer the defendant knew the property was stolen, which together with other evidence may support a theft conviction. Correct answer.
  4. The jury may infer guilt only if the property was recovered within one hour of the theft.

Explanation

Florida recognizes that unexplained possession of recently stolen property permits an inference that the possessor knew the property was stolen. That inference, combined with other circumstances such as a false explanation, can support a theft conviction. Circumstantial evidence is fully competent to prove guilt.

Question 39Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with sexual battery moves to introduce evidence that the victim made a prior false allegation of sexual abuse against another person. The trial court excludes the evidence under the rape shield statute. What is the correct appellate analysis?

  1. The exclusion is always proper because the rape shield statute bars all evidence of the victim's sexual history.
  2. The exclusion is proper only if the victim testifies at trial.
  3. The exclusion is proper because prior false allegations are never relevant.
  4. The exclusion may violate the defendant's right to present a defense if the evidence is relevant to show a pattern of false accusations and is not barred by the statute's legitimate purposes. Correct answer.

Explanation

Florida's rape shield statute limits evidence of a victim's sexual conduct, but it cannot be applied to exclude evidence that is relevant to the defense, such as a pattern of false accusations. Courts must balance the statute's purposes against the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. A prior false allegation may be admissible if the defense establishes its relevance and reliability.

Question 40Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with trafficking in cocaine. The State's chemist testifies that the substance weighed 30 grams and contained cocaine. The defense wants to call its own expert to challenge the testing methodology. What must the defense show for its expert to testify?

  1. That the expert's opinion is shared by a majority of chemists.
  2. That the expert is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and the testimony will assist the trier of fact. Correct answer.
  3. That the expert observed the State's testing in person.
  4. That the expert has published peer-reviewed articles on the specific testing method.

Explanation

Under the Florida Evidence Code, expert testimony is admissible if the witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and the specialized knowledge will assist the jury. There is no requirement of publication or majority acceptance. A defense expert may rely on review of the State's data and methodology.

Question 41Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with attempted first-degree murder claims the evidence showed only preparation, not an overt act. The State's evidence shows the defendant purchased a firearm, drove to the victim's home, and was arrested while walking toward the front door with the weapon concealed. How should the court rule on the motion for judgment of acquittal?

  1. Deny it, because attempt requires only the intent to commit the crime.
  2. Grant it, because mere preparation can never constitute an attempt.
  3. Grant it, because the defendant did not fire the weapon.
  4. Deny it, because the evidence permits a jury to find an overt act beyond mere preparation. Correct answer.

Explanation

Attempt requires an intent to commit the crime plus an overt act going beyond mere preparation. Whether conduct crosses that line is ordinarily a jury question, and approaching the victim's door armed after purchasing a weapon can support a finding of an overt act. The absence of firing the weapon is not dispositive.

Question 42Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with resisting arrest without violence. At trial, the defense requests a jury instruction on the lesser offense of disorderly conduct. The evidence does not support disorderly conduct. What should the court do?

  1. Refuse the instruction, because a lesser offense instruction must be supported by the evidence. Correct answer.
  2. Give the instruction only if the State consents.
  3. Refuse the instruction only if the offense is a felony.
  4. Give the instruction, because the defendant is entitled to any instruction he requests.

Explanation

A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser offense only when the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense and acquit of the greater. The court need not give an instruction unsupported by the evidence. The State's consent is not the governing criterion.

Question 43Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The State offers a stipulation that the defendant has a qualifying prior felony. The defense objects to the State introducing the name and nature of the prior conviction. How should the court rule?

  1. Admit the name and nature of the prior conviction, because the jury is entitled to know the full record.
  2. Admit the prior conviction only if the defendant testifies.
  3. Exclude the stipulation entirely and require the State to prove the conviction through live testimony.
  4. Accept the stipulation and exclude the name and nature of the prior conviction, to avoid unfair prejudice. Correct answer.

Explanation

When the defendant offers to stipulate to the element of a prior qualifying conviction, the trial court should generally accept the stipulation and exclude the name and nature of the prior conviction. The prior conviction's details are relevant only to the status element and carry a risk of unfair prejudice. The defendant's decision to testify is not a condition of the rule.

Question 44Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A criminal defendant in Florida is charged with a misdemeanor and requests a jury trial. What is the correct statement of the right to jury trial?

  1. The defendant has no right to a jury trial for any misdemeanor.
  2. The defendant has a right to a six-person jury for a misdemeanor not punishable by more than six months. Correct answer.
  3. The defendant has a right to a twelve-person jury in all criminal cases.
  4. The defendant has a right to a jury trial only if the State agrees.

Explanation

In Florida, a defendant charged with a misdemeanor punishable by more than six months' imprisonment has a right to a jury trial, and misdemeanor juries are composed of six jurors. The right does not depend on the State's consent. Twelve-person juries are required for capital cases.

Question 45Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is convicted after a trial. Six months later, defense counsel discovers that the State failed to disclose a recorded interview with an eyewitness that contradicts the State's key witness. What motion should the defense file, and what must be shown?

  1. A motion to disqualify the prosecutor.
  2. A motion to suppress the eyewitness's testimony.
  3. A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which requires that the evidence was unknown at trial and could not have been discovered with due diligence. Correct answer.
  4. A motion for judgment of acquittal based on the weight of the evidence.

Explanation

A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is the proper vehicle and requires the defendant to show the evidence was not known and could not have been discovered with due diligence, is material, and would probably produce a different result. A Brady violation may also support relief. A motion to suppress or for judgment of acquittal is not the appropriate post-trial remedy for undisclosed evidence.

Question 46Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with robbery wants to introduce evidence of the victim's prior violent acts to show the victim was the aggressor. The defense did not give notice before trial. What is the court's proper approach?

  1. Require the State to prove the victim was not the aggressor before the evidence may be offered.
  2. Admit the evidence without any notice because it is constitutionally required.
  3. Apply the notice requirement of the self-defense statute, but consider whether the defendant has shown good cause for the late notice. Correct answer.
  4. Exclude the evidence automatically for lack of notice.

Explanation

Florida's self-defense statute requires pretrial notice of the intent to offer evidence of the victim's violent acts, but the trial court has discretion to consider good cause for late notice. The notice requirement does not automatically bar the evidence. The State does not bear the burden of disproving the victim's aggressiveness before the defense may offer evidence.

Question 47Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with second-degree murder wants to testify that he acted in self-defense. The State seeks to impeach him with a prior conviction for aggravated battery involving violence. What must the court consider?

  1. The conviction is automatically inadmissible because it is too similar to the charged offense.
  2. The conviction is automatically admissible because it is a felony.
  3. The court must determine whether the conviction is relevant to truthfulness and, if not, whether its probative value on another proper issue outweighs unfair prejudice. Correct answer.
  4. The conviction is admissible only if the defendant opens the door by denying the prior act.

Explanation

Under section 90.610, a felony conviction not involving dishonesty is admissible to impeach only if the court determines it is probative of truthfulness. Even then, the court must conduct a section 90.403 balancing, which is especially important when the prior conviction resembles the charged offense. Similarity alone does not make the conviction inadmissible.

Question 48Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with sale of a controlled substance is offered a plea agreement by the State. During plea negotiations, the defendant makes statements to the prosecutor about the offense. The negotiations fail, and the State seeks to use the statements at trial. What is the correct analysis?

  1. The statements are inadmissible under the plea negotiation privilege unless a recognized exception applies. Correct answer.
  2. The statements are admissible because the negotiations failed.
  3. The statements are admissible because the defendant was not under oath.
  4. The statements are inadmissible only if the defendant had counsel present.

Explanation

Florida recognizes a privilege for statements made during plea negotiations, which are inadmissible against the defendant if the negotiations do not result in a plea, subject to limited exceptions such as statements made in open court or with counsel present under certain conditions. The failure of negotiations does not open the door to the statements. The absence of an oath is not the controlling factor.

Question 49Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant is charged with first-degree murder. The State seeks to introduce a statement the defendant made to a jailhouse informant. The defendant argues the informant was acting as an agent of the State. What must the court determine?

  1. Whether the defendant and informant were in the same cell.
  2. Whether the informant was paid by the State, because only paid informants can be agents.
  3. Whether the informant testified at the grand jury.
  4. Whether the informant was acting under the direction of law enforcement or pursuant to an agreement, which would trigger the right to counsel and the Miranda safeguards. Correct answer.

Explanation

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment privilege attach when a jailhouse informant acts as an agent of the State, for example by following police instructions or acting under an agreement. Payment is one factor but is not required. Cell proximity and grand jury testimony are not the governing tests.

Question 50Criminal Trial Law (substantive and procedural law, pretrial practice, trial practice, evidence, ethics and professionalism)

A defendant charged with burglary of a dwelling is convicted. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior burglary conviction to prove intent. The prior conviction was ten years old. What is the correct analysis?

  1. The evidence may be admissible under the similar-fact rule if the court finds it relevant to a material issue and its probative value outweighs unfair prejudice, with the age of the conviction considered. Correct answer.
  2. The evidence is admissible only if the defendant testifies and denies intent.
  3. The evidence is automatically inadmissible because it is a prior conviction.
  4. The evidence is automatically admissible because intent is always at issue in burglary.

Explanation

Under section 90.404(2), similar-fact evidence may be admitted to prove a material issue such as intent, but only if the court finds it relevant and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The age of the prior conviction is a factor in that balancing. The evidence is neither automatically admissible nor automatically excluded.