Evidence Flashcards
Relevance
Relevance
To be admissible, evidence must be both logically and legally relevant. Relevant evidence is admissible unless another rule provides otherwise.
Logical Relevance
Evidence is logically relevant if it has any tendency to prove or disprove a material fact. (In CA, the material fact must be in dispute).
Legal Relevance
Evidence is legally relevant if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issue, misleading the jury, or wasting time.
Relevance
CA Proposition 8
Under Proposition 8 of the California Constitution, all relevant evidence is admissible in a criminal trial, with several special exemptions.
Policy Exclusion
Subsequent Remedial Measures
Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to show culpability or negligence [for public policy reasons].
Policy Exclusion
Evidence of Liability Insurance
Evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to prove culpability [for public policy reasons].
Policy Exclusion
Offers to Pay Medical Bills
Evidence of paying or offering to pay medical expenses is not admissible to prove liability for injury [for public policy reasons].
Policy Exclusion
Offers to Settle
Offers to compromise and statements made during settlement negotiations are not admissible to prove the claim’s validity or amount [for public policy reasons].
Physical & Documentary Evidence
Authentication of Evidence (General Rule)
All evidence must be authenticated before being admitted, i.e., a party must prove that the item is what the party purports it to be.
Physical & Documentary Evidence
Authentication of Evidence (Physical Evidence)
Physical evidence may be authenticated through:
(a) W testimony, or
(b) a substantially unbroken chain of custody.
Physical & Documentary Evidence
Authentication of Evidence (Voice Recordings)
Voice recordings may be authenticated by anyone who has:
1. heard the person speak, and
2. identified the recorded person as the speaker.
Physical & Documentary Evidence
Best Evidence Rule
- To prove the contents of the writing, a party must provide the original document (or reliable duplicate/photocopy).
- In CA, this rule is called the Secondary Evidence Rule.
- Under the FRE, handwritten duplicates are not admissible. In CA, handwritten duplicates are admissible.
Character Evidence
Character Evidence (General Rule)
- Generally, character evidence is not admissible to show propensity (that a person acted in conformity with a character trait on a particular occasion).
- However, character evidence is admissible:
(a) for non-propensity purpose, or
(b) when the character is “at issue” (e.g. defamation, child custody cases)
Character rules can overlap with impeachment rules when a witness is on the stand. If the purpose for the character evidence is to prove that a W is untruthful -> impeachment rules, if it is for any other purpose -> character evidence rule.
Character Evidence
Character Evidence (Criminal Case)
- D’s Character: The prosecution cannot present evidence of the D’s character, unless the D first “opens the door” and provides evidence of the D’s good character or the V’s bad character for that character trait
- V’s Character: The prosecution cannot present evidence of the V’s character, unless the D first “opens the door” and presents evidence of the V’s bad character for that character trait.
- V’s Character (Homicide): Under the FRE, in a homicide case, the prosecution may offer evidence of the V’s character for peacefulness only if the D claims the V was the aggressor (self-defense).
Character Evidence
Methods of Proving Character
- Opinion and reputation evidence are admissible on both direct and cross. Specific acts are admissible only on cross.
- In CA, in a criminal case, all types of evidence are admissible on both direct and cross to prove the V’s conduct.
Character Evidence
Prior Bad Acts
- Evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible to show propensity.
- However, it is admissible if it is relevanto to provie motive, identity, mistake, intent, common scheme, or knowledge.
MIMICK
Impeachment
Prior Inconsistent Statements
- Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach a W’s trial testimony.
- Extrinsic evidence is admissible only if the W is first given an opportunity to explain the statement.*
*Not applicable to statements by a party opponent.
Impeachment
Prior Convictions (FRE)
- Under the FRE, prior felony or misdemeanor convictions involving dishonesty are always admissible to impeach a W.
- All other misdemeanors are NOT admissible to impeach.
- Felonies that **DO NOT **involve dishonesty are admissible to impeach, subject to the court’s balancing.
Impeachment
Prior Convictions (CA)
- In CA, prior felony convictions involving moral turpitude are admissible to impeach.
- Felonies that DO NOT not involve moral turpitude are NOT admissible.
- In CA, generally, _misdemeanors_ are not admissible, unless for crimes involving moral turpitude (Prop 8).
- Moral turpitude includes crimes involving lying, violence, sex crime, and extreme reckless.
Impeachment
Specific Acts (“Bad Acts”)
- Under the FRE, W’s specific acts (prior bad acts) that are probative of truthfulness are admissible by questioning him on cross-examination.
- In CA, generally, prior bad acts are NOT admissible, unless the acts involve moral turpitude (Prop 8).
Witness Examination
Lay Witness
- A lay W may only testify to matters of which he has personal knowledge.
- A lay W may only offer an opinion if it is:
1. rationally based on the W’s perception, and
2. helpful to the factfinder.
Witness Examination
Expert Witness
Expert testimoby is permitted when:
1. the W is qualified as an expert,
2. the testimony is helpful to the factfinder,
3. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data,
4. the testimony is based on reliable principles and methods, and
5. the expert has reasonably applied the principles and methods to the facts to the case.
Witness Examination/Presentation of Evidence
Refreshing Recollection
Refreshing a W’s recollection using a document is permitted when:
1. the W once had personal knowledge of the matter,
2. but is unable to recall the matter while testifying.