2) Relevancy Flashcards
401 relevance: def
evidence which tends to make the existence of any fact more or less probative than it would be w/o the evidence (ok just a piece of the wall)
relevance: kinds
1) logical
2) legal
logical relevance: def
re facts – probative value – some logical tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence
legal relevance–def
inludes balancing policy factors – fairness + value of evidence (substantial remedial measures, offers to settle, offers to pay med expenses)
relevance: gen rule 402
all relevant evidence is admissible (unless excluded by a rule)
evidence that is NOT relevant is NOT admissible
403 balancing
relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
(things)
generally, favors admission
thru eyes of factfinder, not D
403 balancing: things that can outweigh probative value
1) prejudicial effect
2) confusion of issues
3) misleading jury
4) undue delay
5) waste of time
6) needless presentation of cumulative evidence
prejudicial effect: def
evidence invites the jury to make a dec on an improper ground
403: consciousness of guilt
relevant to show guilty mind, generally admissible (fleeing, threats, hiding, alias, refusing BAC)
direct evidence: def
no inferences required
circumstantial evidence: def
inferences required
demonstrative evidence: def
prepared before case to assist the trier of fact
character evidence: def
person’s general propensity or disposition for honesty, peacefulness, violence
ch admissible as
1) civil case–essential element
2) crim case–circumstantial evidence of conduct on a particular occasion
3) impeach credibility
ch evidence: civil cases: rule 404(a)
ch evidence is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity. Exception: character is “at issue,” aka an element of the COA, claim, or defense
where ch is “at issue,” can use ROSA (reputation, opinion + Specific Acts)
ch: opinion: req
witness esatblish sufficient knowledge to form opinion
ch: reputation: req
wit establish he is aware of reptuationof party int eh relevant community
ch evidence: civil: scenarios where ch is “at issue”
1) defamation (P’s ch)
2) child custody (both parents’ fitness for raising kids
3) negligent entrustment (entrustee)
4) neg hiring (employee)
NOT: assault, battery
ch evidence: crim cases: rule re D’s ch evidence 404(a)(1)
1) prosecution may NOT initially introduce evidence of D’s ch
2) testimony re pertinent good ch trait of D must be raised by D [reputation + opinion only]
3) THEN prosecution may rebut w reputation or opinion
ch evidence: “pertinent” def
determined by what D is on trial for (violence/peacefulness, fraud/honesty)
ch evidence: analysis
- -check trait
- -check form
- -who’s offering + can they?
ch evidence: crim: ways prosecution can rebut
1) cross-examine D’s ch wit. HERE SPECIFIC ACTS OK (this is just for impeachment–limiting instruction)
2) P can call its own wits to testify re D’s bad ch. (reputation + opinion only)
ch evidence: “opening the door”
check what D exactly testified about
“I didn’t do it” = not opening the door (just fact based)
“I’m not a violent guy” yes ch and door is open now
–> D also puts his CREDIBILITY at issue by testifying, but this is a differnet rule
ch evidence: re ch of victim 404(a)(2)
1) D may offer evidence of V’s pertinent trait as circumstantial evidence that V was first aggressor (so D self defense)
2) once door open, prosecution can rebut w good ch of V (reputation, opinion only) OR/AND ch evidence re D! (reputation/opinon only)
(all: only pertinent trait)
ch evidence: re ch of victim SPECIL RULE for homicide cases #1
1) if D offers FACT (not ch) evidence that D was first agressor, then
2) P can offer evidence of V’s good ch for peacefulness (but not of D’s ch)
ch evidence: special rule #2
D can offer evidence of his AWARENESS of V’s ch for violence (reputation or SPECIFIC ACTS) for the limited purpose of showing D’s som (fear).
This is NOT ch evidence and doens’t open the door
ch: 404(b): rule
ch evidence may be admissible if offered for a purpose OTHER THAN to show conduct in conformity w ch (propensity) – includes specific acts
generally offered by P, on rebuttal
404(b) ok uses of ch evidence – mnemonic:
MIMIC KOP
404(b) ok uses of ch evidence: list
Motive Intent Mistake (absence of) Identity (sig crime) Common plan or scheme (usu 2+x) Knowledge Opportunity Preparation
404(b) MIMIC-KOP evidence: timing
can have occurred before, during, or even after date of offense
406: habit: rule
Evidence of the habit of person or routine practice of org,
2) whether corroborated or not
3) and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses
4) is relevant to prove conduct in conformity w the habit
5) opinion or specific acts
ok testify to your own
406: habit: trigger words
usually, often, frequently
prob not enough
406: habit: negative habit evidence
yes admissible
legal relevancy: basic def
otherwise relevant evience that is barred due to public policy
legal relevancy: kinds
1) subsequent remedial measures
2) offers to settle
3) payment of med expenses
4) pleas + discussions
5) liability insurance
subsequent remedial measures: 407: INadmissible to prove
negligence
culpable conduct
design defect
need for warning
subsequent remedial measures: 407: yes admissible to prove
ownership or control
impeachment
feasibility of precaution (IF controverted) (in neg case ok)
subsequent remedial measures: 407: def
must be SUBSEQUENT
settlement offers 408: rule
evidence of an offer to settle a claim,
which is DISPUTED either as to validity or amount
is INADMISSIBLE to prove liability
*also can’t use as prior inconsistent st for impeachment
settlement offers 408: exceptions
ok use to:
- -show bias or prejudice
- -negate contention of undue delay
settlement offers 408: result
not severable so the whole convo, including admissions, is out!
payment of meds 409: rule
evidnece of offering to pay medical bills is INADMISSIBLE to prove liability for an injury
severable, so admissions of fault can come in
even true if you’re in a dispute (tho dispute not needed)
plea discussions 410: rule
plea + statements by D to prosecutor in plea negotiations are inadmissible vs D in a later proceeding
plea discussion 410: applies to
1) pleas of guilty later withdrawn
2) pleas of nolo contendere
3) offers to plead guilty (sts during negotiations)
plea discussion 410: does NOT apply to
sts to police (only prosecutors)
plea discussion 410: exception
actual plea CAN be admitted:
1) as st by party opponent in subsequent civil or crim case or
2) to impeach, if D testifies
liability insurance 411: rule
evidence that person was or was not insured is inadmissible to prove negligence or fault
severable from admissions of fault
liability insurance 411: exceptions
ok evidence of insurance for other pruposes:
1) proof of agency/ownership/control
2) proof of bias or prejudice of wit
liability insurance 411: sope
- -limits of insurance coverage: NEVER admissible
- -pretrial dy insurance coverage: usu allowed
sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: rule
in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct
evidence offered to show alleged V’s
sexual beh, sexual predisposition or other sexual hx
IS EXLCUDED
sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim
1) consent
2) source of semen/injury/evidence
3) const required
sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim: consent
evidence re past acts with THIS D, which tend to show consent, is admissible (in crim case)
sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim: source of physical evidence/injury
(in a crim case)
evidence of assaults by other ppl admissible to prove that those assaults, not D’s alleged crime, could have caused injuries
sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim: const required
(crim case)
usu for impeachment
confrontation clause
sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: civil: reverse balancing
admissible if probative value substantially outweighs danger of:
- -harm to any V
- -unfair prejudice to any party
sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: civil: reputation
evidence re V’s reputation is admissible IF V has placed it in controversy
sex offense cases: D’s ch: 413-414: rule: crim
in a crim case
where D is accused of child molestation or sexual assault:
SPECIFIC ACTS by D are admissible and may be considered as they bear on any relevant matter, inc D’s propensity to commit sex crimes
notice requirement
sex offense cases: D’s ch: 415: civil
civil case re sexual assault or child molestation same rule – specific acts may be admitted
must give notice
sex offense cases: D’s ch: 413-415: standard of proof
dnn prior conviction or arrest
–need preponderance of evidence
no req that the specific acts be prior to other acts
sex offense cases: D’s ch: 413-415: vs 403
still subject to 403 so maybe inadmissible if ex. too gruesome or may confuse jury
but per 413-415, highly probative. so likely in.
