LEV3701 LAW OF EVIDENCE MCQ 1 OCTOBER/NOVEMBER
2026/2027 | UNISA LLB | Actual Exam Questions &
Verified Answers | Pass Guaranteed - A+ Graded
SECTION 1: ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE & RELEVANCE (Q1-
12)
Q1. In the trial of X for murder, the prosecution seeks to adduce evidence that X was
seen running away from the crime scene immediately after the shooting. The defence
objects on the grounds that this evidence is prejudicial. How should the court rule?
A. Exclude the evidence because all evidence of flight is inherently prejudicial
B. Admit the evidence because flight is relevant to consciousness of guilt, subject to
the court's discretion to exclude if unfairly prejudicial
C. Exclude the evidence because it is circumstantial and therefore inadmissible
D. Admit the evidence only if X testifies to explain why he was running
Correct Answer: B. Admit the evidence because flight is relevant to consciousness
of guilt, subject to the court's discretion to exclude if unfairly prejudicial
[CORRECT]
Rationale: Evidence of flight is relevant as it may indicate consciousness of guilt (R v
Mogale 1927 AD 35). However, per Section 8 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act
45 of 1988 (LEAA) and the common law discretion, the court may exclude evidence if
its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Flight is not automatically excluded (A) nor is circumstantial evidence inadmissible
(C). The accused's explanation (D) is not a prerequisite for admissibility.
,Q2. The prosecution in a fraud trial wishes to call a witness to testify that the accused
has a reputation for dishonesty in the business community. The defence objects.
Which statement accurately reflects the law on character evidence in civil cases?
A. Evidence of reputation for dishonesty is always admissible in civil cases to prove
character
B. Evidence of character is generally irrelevant in civil cases unless character is directly
in issue
C. Evidence of good character is admissible to rebut the presumption of innocence
D. Evidence of character is admissible in all civil cases to assess credibility
Correct Answer: B. Evidence of character is generally irrelevant in civil cases
unless character is directly in issue [CORRECT]
Rationale: In civil cases, character evidence is generally irrelevant unless character
itself is directly in issue (e.g., defamation cases where the plaintiff's character is
attacked, or cases involving moral fitness such as child custody). The rule derives
from the principle that in civil litigation, the parties' general character is not at stake.
Reputation evidence (A) is inadmissible when character is not in issue. The
presumption of innocence (C) is a criminal law concept. Character is not used to
assess credibility in civil cases (D).
Q3. In a trial for theft, the State seeks to lead evidence that the accused was
previously convicted of shoplifting three years earlier. The accused has not put his
character in issue. Which statement correctly describes the admissibility of this
evidence?
A. The previous conviction is admissible to prove the accused's propensity to steal
B. The previous conviction is inadmissible because it is similar fact evidence
C. The previous conviction is inadmissible to prove propensity but may be admissible
for other purposes such as identity or modus operandi if the probative value
outweighs prejudicial effect
D. The previous conviction is admissible under Section 217 of the Criminal Procedure
Act
,Correct Answer: C. The previous conviction is inadmissible to prove propensity
but may be admissible for other purposes such as identity or modus operandi if
the probative value outweighs prejudicial effect [CORRECT]
Rationale: Under the common law and Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Act
(CPA), previous convictions are generally inadmissible to prove propensity (character
evidence rule). However, they may be admitted for other purposes (identity, modus
operandi, rebuttal of alibi) if the probative value substantially outweighs the
prejudicial effect (R v Strickland 1970 (2) SA 609 (A)). Section 217 CPA governs
confessions, not previous convictions. Similar fact evidence (B) is a distinct doctrine
requiring separate analysis.
Q4. The defence in a murder trial seeks to adduce evidence that the deceased was
known to be a violent person. The accused claims self-defence. What is the correct
legal position regarding the deceased's character?
A. The deceased's character is always irrelevant and inadmissible
B. Evidence of the deceased's violent character is admissible to support the accused's
claim of self-defence if it was known to the accused at the time of the incident
C. Evidence of the deceased's character is admissible only if the deceased had been
previously convicted of assault
D. The deceased's character is admissible to prove the deceased provoked the attack
Correct Answer: B. Evidence of the deceased's violent character is admissible to
support the accused's claim of self-defence if it was known to the accused at the
time of the incident [CORRECT]
Rationale: Evidence of the deceased's violent character is admissible in self-defence
cases if it was known to the accused at the time of the incident, as it may render the
accused's apprehension of attack more reasonable (R v De Oliveira 1953 (1) SA 295
(A)). The accused's knowledge is crucial—unknown character is irrelevant to the
accused's state of mind. Previous convictions (C) are not required. Character is not
used to prove provocation (D), which is a separate defence.
, Q5. In a civil claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff
seeks to adduce evidence that the defendant has a reputation for reckless driving.
The defendant has not raised character as an issue. Which rule applies?
A. The evidence is admissible because reckless driving character is always relevant to
negligence
B. The evidence is inadmissible because character evidence is irrelevant in civil cases
unless character is directly in issue
C. The evidence is admissible under the similar fact evidence rule
D. The evidence is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule
Correct Answer: B. The evidence is inadmissible because character evidence is
irrelevant in civil cases unless character is directly in issue [CORRECT]
Rationale: In civil cases, evidence of general character or disposition is inadmissible
unless character is directly in issue (e.g., defamation, child custody). The defendant's
reputation for reckless driving is not directly in issue in a negligence claim—the issue
is whether the defendant drove negligently on this specific occasion. Similar fact
evidence (C) requires proof of specific prior acts, not general reputation. Hearsay (D)
is irrelevant to the character evidence rule.
Q6. The State in a rape trial seeks to lead evidence that the complainant is a
prostitute. The defence argues this evidence is relevant to consent. Which statement
reflects the correct legal position?
A. Evidence of the complainant's sexual history is always admissible in sexual offence
trials
B. Evidence of the complainant's sexual history is inadmissible unless it is directly
relevant to the issue of consent and its probative value outweighs any distress,
humiliation or infringement of privacy
C. Evidence of the complainant's sexual history is admissible to prove promiscuity
and therefore consent
D. The complainant's sexual history is only admissible if the complainant consents to
its admission
2026/2027 | UNISA LLB | Actual Exam Questions &
Verified Answers | Pass Guaranteed - A+ Graded
SECTION 1: ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE & RELEVANCE (Q1-
12)
Q1. In the trial of X for murder, the prosecution seeks to adduce evidence that X was
seen running away from the crime scene immediately after the shooting. The defence
objects on the grounds that this evidence is prejudicial. How should the court rule?
A. Exclude the evidence because all evidence of flight is inherently prejudicial
B. Admit the evidence because flight is relevant to consciousness of guilt, subject to
the court's discretion to exclude if unfairly prejudicial
C. Exclude the evidence because it is circumstantial and therefore inadmissible
D. Admit the evidence only if X testifies to explain why he was running
Correct Answer: B. Admit the evidence because flight is relevant to consciousness
of guilt, subject to the court's discretion to exclude if unfairly prejudicial
[CORRECT]
Rationale: Evidence of flight is relevant as it may indicate consciousness of guilt (R v
Mogale 1927 AD 35). However, per Section 8 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act
45 of 1988 (LEAA) and the common law discretion, the court may exclude evidence if
its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Flight is not automatically excluded (A) nor is circumstantial evidence inadmissible
(C). The accused's explanation (D) is not a prerequisite for admissibility.
,Q2. The prosecution in a fraud trial wishes to call a witness to testify that the accused
has a reputation for dishonesty in the business community. The defence objects.
Which statement accurately reflects the law on character evidence in civil cases?
A. Evidence of reputation for dishonesty is always admissible in civil cases to prove
character
B. Evidence of character is generally irrelevant in civil cases unless character is directly
in issue
C. Evidence of good character is admissible to rebut the presumption of innocence
D. Evidence of character is admissible in all civil cases to assess credibility
Correct Answer: B. Evidence of character is generally irrelevant in civil cases
unless character is directly in issue [CORRECT]
Rationale: In civil cases, character evidence is generally irrelevant unless character
itself is directly in issue (e.g., defamation cases where the plaintiff's character is
attacked, or cases involving moral fitness such as child custody). The rule derives
from the principle that in civil litigation, the parties' general character is not at stake.
Reputation evidence (A) is inadmissible when character is not in issue. The
presumption of innocence (C) is a criminal law concept. Character is not used to
assess credibility in civil cases (D).
Q3. In a trial for theft, the State seeks to lead evidence that the accused was
previously convicted of shoplifting three years earlier. The accused has not put his
character in issue. Which statement correctly describes the admissibility of this
evidence?
A. The previous conviction is admissible to prove the accused's propensity to steal
B. The previous conviction is inadmissible because it is similar fact evidence
C. The previous conviction is inadmissible to prove propensity but may be admissible
for other purposes such as identity or modus operandi if the probative value
outweighs prejudicial effect
D. The previous conviction is admissible under Section 217 of the Criminal Procedure
Act
,Correct Answer: C. The previous conviction is inadmissible to prove propensity
but may be admissible for other purposes such as identity or modus operandi if
the probative value outweighs prejudicial effect [CORRECT]
Rationale: Under the common law and Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Act
(CPA), previous convictions are generally inadmissible to prove propensity (character
evidence rule). However, they may be admitted for other purposes (identity, modus
operandi, rebuttal of alibi) if the probative value substantially outweighs the
prejudicial effect (R v Strickland 1970 (2) SA 609 (A)). Section 217 CPA governs
confessions, not previous convictions. Similar fact evidence (B) is a distinct doctrine
requiring separate analysis.
Q4. The defence in a murder trial seeks to adduce evidence that the deceased was
known to be a violent person. The accused claims self-defence. What is the correct
legal position regarding the deceased's character?
A. The deceased's character is always irrelevant and inadmissible
B. Evidence of the deceased's violent character is admissible to support the accused's
claim of self-defence if it was known to the accused at the time of the incident
C. Evidence of the deceased's character is admissible only if the deceased had been
previously convicted of assault
D. The deceased's character is admissible to prove the deceased provoked the attack
Correct Answer: B. Evidence of the deceased's violent character is admissible to
support the accused's claim of self-defence if it was known to the accused at the
time of the incident [CORRECT]
Rationale: Evidence of the deceased's violent character is admissible in self-defence
cases if it was known to the accused at the time of the incident, as it may render the
accused's apprehension of attack more reasonable (R v De Oliveira 1953 (1) SA 295
(A)). The accused's knowledge is crucial—unknown character is irrelevant to the
accused's state of mind. Previous convictions (C) are not required. Character is not
used to prove provocation (D), which is a separate defence.
, Q5. In a civil claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff
seeks to adduce evidence that the defendant has a reputation for reckless driving.
The defendant has not raised character as an issue. Which rule applies?
A. The evidence is admissible because reckless driving character is always relevant to
negligence
B. The evidence is inadmissible because character evidence is irrelevant in civil cases
unless character is directly in issue
C. The evidence is admissible under the similar fact evidence rule
D. The evidence is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule
Correct Answer: B. The evidence is inadmissible because character evidence is
irrelevant in civil cases unless character is directly in issue [CORRECT]
Rationale: In civil cases, evidence of general character or disposition is inadmissible
unless character is directly in issue (e.g., defamation, child custody). The defendant's
reputation for reckless driving is not directly in issue in a negligence claim—the issue
is whether the defendant drove negligently on this specific occasion. Similar fact
evidence (C) requires proof of specific prior acts, not general reputation. Hearsay (D)
is irrelevant to the character evidence rule.
Q6. The State in a rape trial seeks to lead evidence that the complainant is a
prostitute. The defence argues this evidence is relevant to consent. Which statement
reflects the correct legal position?
A. Evidence of the complainant's sexual history is always admissible in sexual offence
trials
B. Evidence of the complainant's sexual history is inadmissible unless it is directly
relevant to the issue of consent and its probative value outweighs any distress,
humiliation or infringement of privacy
C. Evidence of the complainant's sexual history is admissible to prove promiscuity
and therefore consent
D. The complainant's sexual history is only admissible if the complainant consents to
its admission
