instruction:
In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
question:
and the weapons charge, for which he was sentenced to a concurrent term of five years' imprisonment. Jackson appealed to this court. LAW/ANALYSIS I. Exclusion of Evidence Jackson argues the trial court erred in excluding his testimony about his personal knowledge of Felder's violent history. We disagree. The admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion, and an appellate court may only disturb a ruling admitting or excluding evidence upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice. State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429, 632 S.E.2d 845, 847-48 (2006). Generally, the failure to make a proffer of excluded evidence will preclude review on appeal. State v. Santiago, 370 S.C. 153, 163, 634 S.E.2d 23, 29 (Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). Where no proffer of excluded testimony is
Holding statements: (A) holding that objection to testimony at trial on grounds that testimony was irrelevant highly prejudicial and below the threshold requirement of admissibility does not preserve appellate challenge that testimony constitutes inadmissi ble victimimpact testimony (B) holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked (C) holding that we could not weigh the prejudice suffered as a result of the exclusion of plaintiffs testimony because we had no way of knowing what the plaintiffs testimony would have been (D) holding a proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been (E) holding that the trial courts statement it would deny the defendants request to make a bill at this time did not discharge the appellants duty to proffer the excluded testimony for preservation of error
answer:
(D)

question:
detention of the van, its driver, and its passenger exceeded the valid reason for the initial stop and violated the Fourth Amendment. The subsequent search of the vehicle was an unconstitutional search, and the drugs and drug paraphernaha discovered were fruit of the poisonous tree. The trial court's denial of appellants' motions to suppress should have been granted. In light of this holding, we need not address the third point, that omissions of facts in Ramsey's affidavit for search warrant undermined the drug dog's reliability and amounted to a Franks violation; or the fourth point, that the search warrant was objectively unreasonable and that there was no basis for a nighttime search. Reversed and remanded. Hart, Robbins, and Neal, JJ. te, 84 Md. App. 243, 578 A.2d 816 (1990) (<HOLDING>). In this case, after Ramsey determined that
Holding statements: (A) holding that coming from the wrong neighborhood does not give rise to reasonable suspicion (B) holding innocent facts when considered together can give rise to reasonable suspicion (C) holding that the fact that defendant granted consent to police to search some items and then refused to give consent to additional searches cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion (D) holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics (E) holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion
answer:
(D)

question:
accordingly consider materials "outside the pleadings" to the extent those materials are necessary to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted against the Community Defendants. B. Sovereign Immunity The doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity is well established. Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1677, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978); Rupp v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 45 F.3d 1241, 1244 (8th Cir.1995); Weeks Constr., Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Housing Auth.., 797 F.2d 668, 670 (8th Cir.1986); see also Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 476 U.S. 877, 890, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 2313, 90 L.Ed.2d 881 (1986) (<HOLDING>). This immunity from suit is based on the view
Holding statements: (A) holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity (B) recognizing that the common law sovereign immunity possessed by the tribe is a necessary corollary to indian sovereignty and selfgovernance (C) holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity (D) holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity (E) recognizing that tribal sovereign immunity extends to agencies and subdivisions of the tribe
answer:
(B)