13. Relevancy (Rule 604)

Question 1

What is relevance?

Answer 1

Tendency of evidence to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable than it would be without evidence

Question 2

What type of evidence is relevant?

Answer 2

Related to time/event/person in controversy in;

• Current litigation
• NOT current litigation (but close proximity in time to current events)

Question 3

How may previous similar occurrences be relevant in terms of causation?

Answer 3

Other time/event/person in relation to current litigation

Question 4

How may previous similar occurrences be relevant in terms of prior claims/accidents?

Answer 4

Prior ‘false’ claims

• Present claim is false
• NOT similar tort claims

Injury to same portion of P’s body
- Present claim is false/exaggerated

Question 5

How may previous similar occurrences be relevant in terms of previous accidents/injuries caused by the same event/condition?

Answer 5

1) Dangerous defect/condition existed
2) D had knowledge of defect/condition
3) Defect/condition caused present injury

Question 6

How may absence of similar complaints be relevant?

Answer 6

Structures (unchanged condition)
- Absence of similar complaints => Show lack of defect

Prior safety history
- Absence of similar complaints => Show D’s lack of knowledge of danger

Question 7

How may previous similar occurrences be relevant in terms of previous similar acts by the party?

Answer 7

1) Prove intent/motive

2) Must be relevant element in case

Question 8

How may previous similar occurrences be relevant in terms of sales of similar property?

Answer 8

1) Actual sale of similar real/personal property
- NOT quoted price in mere offer
- NOT unique real property

2) NOT too remote in time
3) To prove value

Question 9

How may previous similar occurrences be relevant in terms of habit?

Answer 9

1) ‘Regular’ response
- NOT character (disposition in respect to general traits)

2) To ‘specific’ set of circumstances
- To prove person acted in conformity with habit

Question 10

How may previous similar occurrences be relevant in terms of industrial or business routine?

Answer 10

To show that particular event occurred

Question 11

How may previous similar occurrences be relevant in terms of industrial custom?

Answer 11

To prove party adhered to/deviated from industry-wide standard of care

Question 12

When may trial judge use discretion to exclude relevant evidence?

Answer 12

Probative value is substantially outweighed by (‘shocking’ evidence);

• Danger of unfair prejudice
• Confusion of issues
• Misleading the jury
• Waste of time
• Needless presentation of cumulative evidence

Question 13

When may trial judge not use discretion to exclude relevant evidence?

Answer 13

Probative value is substantially outweighed by;

- Unfair surprise (can be prevented by discovery/pre-trial conference)

Question 14

What are the types of relevancy? Who determines them?

Answer 14

Factual relevancy
- Jury

Legal relevancy (Balancing test)
- Judge

Conditional relevancy
- Relevancy depends on relevancy of another evidence

Question 15

When does common law (not federal rules) apply towards evidence presentation?

Answer 15

Preliminary questions of fact on evidence admissibility

Grand jury proceedings

Criminal preliminary examinations

Sentencing/Probation/Bail hearings

Summary contempt trials

Warrants

Extraditions/Renditions

Question 16

When may challenges may be made on evidentiary rulings?

Answer 16

Substantial effect on party’s rights

Question 17

How may challenges be made to exclude certain evidence before trial?

Answer 17

Pre-trial motion in limine

Question 18

How may appeals on issues regarding evidence be resevered?

Answer 18

If party believes evidence was erroneously admitted => Party may;

• Timely object/move to strike on record
• State specific ground on record (unless apparent from context)

If party believes evidence was erroneously excluded => Party may;
- Make offer of proof to explain on record why evidence is relevant + should be admitted (unless apparent from context)