Problem 1 The defendant was charged with first degree murder and robbery in connection with an incident at the Bishop Motel. The victim was the operator of the motel. George Brunswick, the victim's brother, testified that the day after the stabbing he went to the Bishop Motel and checked the motel records to ascertain what, if anything, was missing. According to the motel's daily records, $ 219.40 in receipts had been received since the last deposit of money received for the rental of rooms. George Brunswick did not find any money in the motel office and no money was found on the body of the victim. Brunswick identified certain documents as the motel's daily records which indicated the number of rooms which had been rented and the amount of money received for each room. He further testified that these records were in the deceased's handwriting. The defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence on the ground that it was hearsay. How should the court rule on this objection?

Problem 2. The defendant was on trial for rape and the victim's testimony was complicated by her difficulty identifying the location in the house where she was attacked and the car in which she was abducted. The victim testified that she suffered from "night blindness." The State offered the testimony of a medical assistant technician from the victim's ophthalmologist's office. The technician testified that she was the keeper and had the custody and control of the doctor's medical records, that they were made in the regular course of business and that they were made close to the time of the transaction indicated. The technician testified that the medical records disclosed that the victim had retinis pigmentosa or "night blindness." The defendant objected to the introduction of this medical opinion or diagnosis on the ground that it was hearsay. How should the court rule on this objection?

Problem 3 The defendant was on trial for first-degree rape and first-degree kidnapping. During the trial, SBI agent Troy Hamlin, a specialist in fiber and hair analysis, testified that he conducted a hair comparison on hairs taken from the victim's head and pubic area and hairs taken from defendant's pubic area. The examination revealed that a pubic hair found in the combings received from the victim after the rape was microscopically different from defendant's pubic hairs, and therefore the pubic hair in question "did not originate from defendant." The State objected to the defendant's request to have the report introduced into evidence. How should the court rule on this objection?

Problem 4 In the same trial as # 3, SBI agent Jeb Taub, a specialist in the analysis of bodily fluids, testified that he performed tests on a rape kit taken from the victim and on a blood sample taken from defendant. The tests disclosed that the semen found in the victim's panties was not attributable to defendant. The State also objected to the defendant's request to have Taub's report introduced into evidence. How should the court rule on this objection?