Evidence Flashcards
CA Prop. 8
Under Prop. 8 of the CA Constitution, any evidence that is relevant may be admitted in a criminal case. However, Prop. 8 makes an exception for balancing under the CA Evidence Code (CEC) 352, which gives a court discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a risk of unfair prejudice.
Logical relevance
Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable.
In CA, it must be relevant to a disputed fact.
Legal relevance
Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Opinion testimony
Opinion testimony is permitted if a witness has personal knowledge and are willing to take an oath.
When are lay opinions permitted
Permitted if based on W’s perception and helpful to understand W’s testimony
When are expert opinions permitted
Permitted if the subject matter is technical or specialized and the expert’s opinion will help the trier of fact understand the evidence/facts.
Daubert test
Under the Daubert test, experts must be 1) qualified, 2) testimony based on facts/data, 3) based on reliable principle/methods, and 4) reliably applied to case facts.
CA Frye test
requires a showing that the expert’s scientific theory is generally accepted as valid and reliable in the relevant field.
Authentication
Tangible evidence must be authenticated, meaning there must be evidence to support a finding that the thing is what the party claims it is.
Best evidence rule
When attempting to prove the contents of a document, the original or a reliable duplicate must be produced if 1) W is relying on the doc to testify, or 2) the contents of the doc are at issue.
In CA, this rule is called the secondary evidence rule.
Character evidence to prove conduct in conformity with character rule
Evidence of a person’s general behavior or past acts is inadmissible to prove conforming conduct.
Exception to character evidence to prove conduct in conformity with character rule
An exception exists in both civil and criminal cases when character is an essential element of a claim or defense.
In criminal cases, an exception also exists when the D opens the door.
Criminal D opens the door to character evidence by proffering their own good character
D may introduce evidence of their own good character by calling a W to testify as to reputation/opinion. This opens the door for the prosecution to rebut D’s evidence by calling a W to give reputation/opinion evidence about the same trait. The prosecution can also cross examine D’s W about a specific act committed by the D that relates to the trait, but it must be based on good faith and not a hunch.
Criminal D opens the door to character evidence by attacking V’s character
D may introduce reputation/opinion evidence of V’s trait relevant to D’s defense (e.g., self defense). This opens the door for the prosecution to rebut by introducing reputation/opinion evidence that V is not violent. The prosecution can also introduce evidence that D has the same trait that D accused the V of having.
Rape shield exception
V’s sexual behavior is generally inadmissible unless introduced to prove consent, another party is the source of the evidence, or V/D’s previous consensual encounters.
Other purposes of character evidence
Impeachment
Specific prior acts for MIMIC
Impeachment
A party can use a prior conviction or character evidence to impeach the credibility of a W or D.
Prior convictions for impeachment
Prior convictions may be used to impeach depending on the timing and type of conviction. Crimes involving dishonesty or false statements are always relevant regardless of how long ago the conviction was. Other felonies are generally permitted unless 10+ years have passed since the conviction or if prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.
Specific prior acts of character evidence (MIMIC)
Character evidence may be admissible if it is relevant for a non-character purpose (MIMIC). This includes demonstrating motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity/modus operandi, and common scheme/plan.
Habit evidence
Evidence of a person’s habit is admissible to prove that the person acted in accordance w/ that habit on a particular occasion. A habit must be a consistent repeated response to a specific situation.
Public policy exclusions
Evidence that fall under policy exclusions are inadmissible to prove fault, but generally can be used for other purposes.
Includes: liability insurance, settlement negotiations, offers to pay medical expenses, plea negotiations, and subsequent remedial measures
Admissibility of settlement negotiations under the public policy exclusion
Exclusion includes conduct or statements made in conjunction w/ the settlement offer
Admissibility of offers to pay medical expenses under the public policy exclusion
does not include conduct or statements made in conjunction w/ the offer
Privileges
Attorney-client
Physician-patient (FRE common law, CEC)
Psychotherapist-patient
Spousal
Spousal privileges
Confidential communications
Spousal immunity
Confidential spousal communications
Communications made between spouses in confidence during marriage are privileged in civil and criminal cases.
Spousal immunity
A spouse has the right to refuse to testify in a criminal case against their spouse.
Hearsay
Hearsay is an OOC statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Non-hearsay uses
Verbal acts/Legally operative acts
Effect on listener
State of mind
Verbal act/Legally operative act
Statement offered to prove that it was made.