Evidence Flashcards
I. Relevancy
Logical Relevancy
Evidence is logically relevant when it tends to make any fact of consequence more or less probable. In CA, the rule is simply, “evidence is relevant if it is material to a disputed fact.”
Legal Relevancy
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one of the following: Unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waster time, or needless cumulative evidence.
California Prop 8
Prop 8 Applies to all criminal trials in CA. It’s the Victim’s Bill of Rights and provides that all relevant evidence is admissible, subject to balancing, with exceptions, including:
- The exclusionary Rule;
- The secondary/best evidence Rule
- Hearsay exclusions;
- Rape shield Rules
- Privilege Exclusions
- Limits on Prosecutor offering Specific Evidence prior to defendant opening the door.
CA 352 Balancing
When there is a substantial likelihood that the evidence is more prejudicial than probative the court must conduct a balancing test when determining admission. (Include for CA).
II. Character Evidence
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 trait.
Purpose Offered - Character Evidence
Purpose offered:
a. to show character where character itself is at issue (admissible)
b. To show probably past conduct in conformity with character (not admissible)
c. to impeach
Character - Types of Evidence
a. spec acts
b. opinion
c. reputation
Defendant’s Exception - defendant in a criminal case may introduce evidence of a pertinent character trait of the defendant to prove that he did not commit the crime he is charged with committing. By doing so, however, the defendant thereby “opens the door” to rebuttal “character” evidence by the prosecution.
III. Impeachment
Refers to the introduction of evidence (intrinsic/extrinsic) to discredit the testimony of a witness.
Honesty/Veracity
Prior Bad Act
Witnesses may be cross-examined about a prior bad act involving dishonesty so long as there is good faith basis for asking the question.
Impeachment
1. Honesty/Veracity
A. Prior Bad Act - not admissible to show propensity, okay for non-propensity - motive, identity, intent, common plan, scheme, or preparation.
B. Conviction of Crime - Felony or Misdemaneour involving dishonesty is always okay; otherwise, crimes have a 10-year limit and are subject to a balancing test.
C. Poor Reputation for Truthfulness -always ok if D opened the door w/ Character evidence.
- Bias
Improper motive to testify e.g., financial gain, relation to a party, hatred of a party.
- Prior Inconsistent Statements
Evidence that contradicts the witness’s trial testimony.
- Contradiction
To prove a portion of witness testimony is false or erroneous by establishing that the facts are different from what the witness testified.
IV. Documentary Evidence
Written matter introduced at trial must be relevant, authentic, and comply with the best evidence rule, if applicable (three-prong analysis)
Three Prong for Documentary Evidence
- Relevancy (logical/legal)
- Authentication - writing must be authenticated. To authenticate writing, the proponent must produce evidence showing that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
- Best Evidence Rule - original writing, recording, or photograph is required to prove its content, unless the original is shown to be unavailable, through no fault of the proponent.
Secondary Best Evidence Rule - In CA, duplicates, hand-written evidence, or oral testimony is allowed if the original is unable - Hearsay - Exemptions, Exclusions (Non-Hearsay), Exceptions
- Privileges - Attorney Client, Marriage
- Parole Evidence Rule - bars extrinsic evidence, including prior or contemporaneous oral agreements and prior or contemporaneous written agreements, that contradict or create a variation of a term in writing that the parties intended to be completely integrated.
V. Hearsay
An out of court statement that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Only admissible if it falls under an exception.
Multiple Levels of Hearsay
Hearsay within hearsay, where each level must all within an exception in order to be admissible.
Out of Court Declarant
A declarant is deemed unavailable if:
- exempt due to privilege
- if they refuse to testify;
- they do not remember the events in question
- death or illness
- they can’t be found by reasonable means.
Out of Court Statement
a. oral
b. written
c. conduct
Offered for the Truth Matter Asserted
If the statement contains an assertion and is logically relevant to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the statement is hearsay.
