EVIDENCE Flashcards
Relevance
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable. It must be material and probative.
Rule 403
A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more of the following considerations
- Danger of unfair prejudice
- Confusion of the issues
- Misleading the jury
- Undue delay
- Waste of time
- Needless presentation of cumulative evidence
Plaintiff’s Accident History - Prior False Claims or Same Bodily Injury
Evidence that a person has previously filed similar tort claims or has been involved in prior accidents is generally inadmissible to short the invalidty of the present claim. It may be admissible if it tends to show something other than carelessness
- evidence that P has made previous similar false claims is usually relevant to prove that the present case is likely to be false
- Evidence of prior accidents may be admissible to show where plaintiff’s damages are at issue that the plaintiff’s condition is attributable to the prior accident
Similar accidents or injuries by same event or condition
Generally, other accidents involving the defendant are inadmissible because they merely show the defendant’s general character for carelessness. However, evidence of prior accidents or injuries caused by same condition and occurring under substantially similar circumstances are admissible to prove
1. existence of a dangerous condition
2 that the dangerous condition was the cause of the present injury and
3. that the defendant had notice
Habit and Business Routine Evidence
Evidence of a person’s habit (or routine practice of organization) is admissible as circumstantial evidence that the person acted in accordance with the habit on the occasion at issues. Habit describes a persons regular response to a specific set of circumstances.
Liability Insurance
Evidence of a party’s insurance against liability is not admissible to show whether the party acted negligently or wrongfully. It may be admissible for other purposes such as
- to prove ownership or control, if disputed
- to impeach a witness or
- as part of an admission of liability, where reference to the insurance cannot be severed
Subsequent Remedial Measures
Evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an injury is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction. It may be relevant to
- prove ownership or control, if disputed
- to rebut a claim that a precaution was not feasible, or
- to prove that the opposing party has destroyed evidence
Civil Settlements and Settlement Negotiations
Evidence of a compromise or an offer to compromise a civil claim is not admissible to
1. prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or
2. to impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction
Settlement Negotiations (Disputed Claim Required)
The public policy exclusion for settlements and negotiations only kicks in if there was a claim or some indication that a party was going to make a claim. The claim must have been in dispute as to either (1) liability or (2) amount
Plea Discussions
The following are generally inadmissible in any criminal or civil case against the defendant who made the plea or participated int he discussions.
1. offers to plead guilty
2. withdrawn guilty pleas
3. actual pleas of nolo
4. statements of fact during any of the above discussions
An actual guilty plea (not withdrawn) is generally admissible in related litigation as a statement of an opposing party
Payments of and Offers to Pay Medical Expenses
Evidence that a party has paid or offered to pay an injured person’s medical expenses is inadmissible to prove liability. However, admissions of fact accompanying such payments are admissible.
Defendant’s character in criminal case
The prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the defendant’s bad character to show conformity. The defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of their own good character to show their innocence. If the defendant introduces evidence of their good character, then the prosecution can rebut with evidence of the defendant’s bad character.
How a Defendant Proves Character
A character witness for the defendant may testify as to the defendant’s good reputation for a pertinent trait and may give their personal opinion concerning that trait of the defendant.
Prosecutions Options - Cross Examination of Ds Character Witness and Rebuttal
The prosecution can cross examine Ds character witness and ask about specific act of the defendant to show the defendant’s bad character for the trait in question.
The prosecution also may call a character witness to provide reputation or opinion testimony about the defendants bad character for the trait.
Victims Character in Criminal Case - When D can Initiate - Prosecutions Rebuttal
Except in sexual assault cases, the defendant may introduce reputation or opinion evidence of a bad character trait of the alleged crime victim when it is relevant to show the defendant’s innocence. It becomes relevant when the defendant claim self defense and argues that the victim was the first aggressor. Once the D has introduce evidence of a victims character for a trait, the prosecution may rebut with reputation or opinion evidence of the victims good character for the same trait or the defendant’s bad character for the same trait.
