1) General + Relevance Flashcards
Criminal: CA evidence
Proposition 8, truth in evidence amendment
Prop 8: def
truth in evidence amdendment
all relevant evidence is admissible in a CRIM case, evne if otherwise objectionable under the CEC (exceptions–meaning some things still not admissible despite TIEA)
preliminary facts: CA rule
judge limited to only ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE to decide foundational matters (admissibility, privileges, is it hearsay, etc).
preliminary facts: CA vs FRC
CA: judge can consider admissible evidenc eonly
FRE: judge can consider inadmissible evidence too
judicial notice–when judge takes: CA rule
court must take judicial notice, regardless of whether or not requested
judicial notice–when judge takes: CA vs. FRC
FRE: judge must take JN when requested
CEC: judge must take JN, even if not requested
judicial notice: jury instructions: CA rule
jury MUST accept judicially noticed fact, whether crim or civil case
judicial notice: jury instructions: CA vs FRE
FRE: civil case jury must accept judicially noticed fact but in crim case MAY accept
CA: jury MUST accept in crim (and civil)
def of relevance: CA rule
if it has any tendency to make the existence of any DISPUTED fact of consequence more or less probable
def of relevance: CA vs FRE
FRE: can make any fact more or less probable, dnn to be disputed
CEC: must be disputed fact to be relevant (so if stipulated, not disputed/relevant)
prop 8: exceptions
(ie, this stuff is NOT admissible despite crim cases)
1) confrontation clause
2) hearsay
3) privilege
4) secondary/BER
5) ch evidence ( to prove D or V’s conduct)
6) 352 balancing
but yes affects: impeachment–wits of crimes + prior bad acts
fre 403 ca version
CEC 352 – very similar – court in its discretion may exclude if prob value substantially outweighed by
probability that
1) necessitate undue consumption of time, or
2) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing hte issues, or misleading th ejury
evidence of subsequent remedial measures: CA rule
inadmissible to prove negligence, in negligence cases only
evidence of subsequent remedial measures: CA vs FRE
CA: inadmissible in neg cases only
FRE: inadmissible in neg + SPL
evidence of settlement offers: CA rule
excluded, as full blanket, and includes sts made during mediation
evidence of settlement offers: CA vs FRE
CA: includes mediation sts
FRE: dn
offers to pay med expense: CA rule
also “blankets” and includes accompanying sts (inc any admissions of liability)
offers to pay med expenses: CA vs FRE
CA: includes accompanying sts like admissions of liability
FRE: does not include any accompanying sts
plea negotiations: CA rule
also excludes convos w the police
but, must be bona fide plea negotiation
NOT: unsolicited offers to plead guilty, sts made to transporting officers, spontaneous sts in court
AND narrower as below
plea negotiations: CA vs FRE
CA: can include convos w police under some circs (so then those convos are inadmissible)
FRE: only convos w prosecutors are inadmissible
expressions of sympathy: CA rule
CIVIL CASES ONLY
sts, writings + benevolent gestures expressing sympathy re pain/suffering/death of person in an accident
made to the person or their family
are inadmissible
BUT sts of fault made in connection w such sts are not excluded
expressions of sympathy: CA vs FRE
CA: the sympathy expression is inadmissible but any accompanying sts of fault are admitted
FRE: no equivalent (so the sympathy st is admissible also)
plea negotiations: NARROWER CA
CA: only excludes evidence of:
1) guilty pleas later withdrawn
2) offers to plead guilty to crime charged or any other crime
plea negotiations: NARROWER CA
vs FRE
CA excludes only evidence of guilty pleas later withdrawn, or offers to plead guilty
vs FRE is broader, excludes all sts made in plea negotiations
