The defendant is on trial for fraudulently signing a check for $10,000. The defendant has denied that she signed the check. The prosecutor calls the landlord of the apartment building in which the defendant has resided for three months before her arrest. The landlord intends to testify that it is the defendant's signature on the check, and he bases his opinion of the authenticity of her signature on the ground that he saw her sign the lease to his apartment. Should the trial court find this testimony admissible

Yes. because the landlord has previously seen the signature.

Explanation:

In this situation, the trial court should find this testimony admissible due to the fact that the landlord has previously seen the signature.

Since the landlord intends to testify based on the fact that he saw her sign thesame signature on the lease to his apartment, then this should be admissible by the court as it's an evidence to show that she was the one involved in the fraudulent signing of the check.

answer:

c

explanation:

yes, obviously. that violates r@pe and p*dophilia laws, which are some pretty serious laws if you ask me.