Article IV. Relevance and Its Limits

Question 1

When is evidence relevant?

Answer 1

Evidence is relevant if:
(1) It has any tendancy to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(2) The fact is of consequence in determining the action.
FRE 401 (2012).

Question 2

Is relevancy an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence?

Answer 2

No. Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case.
FRE 401, Advisory Committee’s Note (2012).

Question 3

What is the standard of probablity?

Answer 3

The standard of probablity under this rule is “more . . . probable than it woudl be without the evidence.” Any more stingent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic.
FRE 401, Advisory Committee’s Note (2012).

Question 4

What is the consequences of the phrase, “[F]act that is of consequence to the determination of the action”?

Answer 4

It describes the kind of fact that poof may properly be directed. Its advantage is avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word “material.” The fact to be prove may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidenctiary so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action.
FRE 401, Advisory Committee’s Note (2012).

Question 5

What should be the basis for urling to exclude evidence due to relevancy?

Answer 5

The ruling should be made on the basis of such consideration as waste of time and undue prejudice (see Rule 403), rather than under any general requiremnt that evidence is admissible only if directed to matters in deispute. Evidence that is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding.
FRE 401, Advisory Committee’s Note (2012).

Question 6

When must otherwise relevant evidence inadmissible?

Answer 6

If the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the United States Supreme Court precludes admission.
FRE 402 (2012).

Question 7

When may the court exclude relevent evidence?

Answer 7

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probabitve vlaue is substantially outweighted by a danger of:
(1) Unfair prejudice;
(2) Confusing the issues;
(3) Misleading the jury;
(4) Undue delay;
(5) Wasting time; or
(6) Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
FRE 403 (2012).

Question 8

What policy justifies FRE 403?

Answer 8

These circumstance entail risks which range all the way from inducing decision on a purely emotional basis, at one extreme, to nothing more than meerely wasting time, at the other extreme. Situations in this area call for balancing the probabitve value of and need for the evidence against the harm likely to result from its admission.
FRE 403, Advisory Committee’s Note (2012).

Question 9

What is “unfair prejudice” in the context of FRE 403?

Answer 9

Unfair prejudice within its context means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.
FRE 403, Advisory Committee’s Note (2012).

Question 10

When is character evidence inadmissible?

Answer 10

Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
FRE 404(a)(1) (2012).

Question 11

What are the three exceptions to the general character evidence rule, FRE 404(a)(1), for a defendant or victim in a criminal case?

Answer 11

(1) A defendant may offer evidence of the defenant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the proecutor may offer evidence to rebut it.
(2) Subject ot the limitations of FRE 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may: (a) offer evidence to rebut it, and (b) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait.
(3) In a homocide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
FRE 404(a)(2) (2012).

Question 12

When is evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts inadmissible to prove character?

Answer 12

Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a persons's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
FRE 404(b)(1) (2012).

Question 13

When is evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts admissible?

Answer 13

Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act may be admissible for another purpose.
FRE 404(b)(2) (2012).

Question 14

What must a prosecutor on request of the defendant in a criminal case regarding evidence of past crimes, wrongs, or other acts?

Answer 14

On request by a defendant in a crminal case, the prosecutor must:
(1) provide reasoanble notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and
(2) do so before trial—or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.
FRE 404(b)(2) (2012).

Question 15

For what two reasons do character questions arise?

Answer 15

(1) Character in issue—character may itself be an element of a crime, claim, or defense.
(2) Circumstantial—character evidence is susceptivle of being used for the purpsoe of suggesting an inference that the person acted on the occassion in qeustion consistently with her or his character.
FRE 404, Advisory Committee’s Note (2012).

Question 16

In most jurisdition, what are the three exception to prohibitions on circumstantial use of character evidence?

Answer 16

(1) An accused may introduce pertient evidence of good character, in which event the prosecution may rebut with evidence of bad character.
(2) An accused may introduce pertinetn evidence of the character of the victim and the prosecution may introduce similar evidne in rebuttal of the character evidence.
(3) The character of a witness may be gone into as bearing on his credibility.
FRE 404, Adviosry Committee’s Note (2012).

Question 17

What are the three methods of proving character?

Answer 17

(1) By Reputation
(2) By Opinion
(3) By Specific Instances of Conduct
FRE 405 (2012).

Question 18

When can examination of the character of a witness examine specific instances of conduct?

Answer 18

(1) On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s character.
(2) When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.
FRE 405 (2012).

Question 19

When may a person’s habit or an organization’s routine be admitted?

Answer 19

Evidence of a person's habit or organization's routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organiztion acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.
FRE 406 (2012).

Question 20

What are impermissible usages of subsequent remedial measures?

Answer 20

When measures are taken that would ahve made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
(1) negligence;
(2) culpable conduct;
(3) a defect in a product or its design; or
(4) a need for a warning or instruction.
FRE 407 (2012).

Question 21

On what grounds does the subsequent remedial measure rule rest?

Answer 21

The rule rests on two grounds.
(1) The conduct is not in fact an admission, since the conduct is equally consistent with injury by mere accident or through contributory negligence.
2) A social policy of encouraging people to take, or at least not discouraging them from taking, steps in furtherance of added safety.
FRE 407, Advisory Committee’s Note (2012).

Question 22

What is the sole ground to limit subsequent remedial measures under FRE 407?

Answer 22

Exclusion is called for only when the evidence of subsequent remedial measures is offered as proof of negligence or culpable conduct. In effect it rejects the suggested inference that fault is admitted. Other purposes are allowable, including ownership or control, existence of duty, and feasibility of precautionary measures, and impeachment.
FRE 407, Advisory Committee’s Note (2012).