Evidence Flashcards
Relevance:
evidence must be both legally and logically relevant.
Logical: probative and material.
Legal: not excluded on policy grounds, or substantially outweighs probative value with unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
CA Prop 8:
all relevant evidence is admissible in a criminal trial. However, such evidence is still subject to CEC 352 balancing, as well as a variety of EXCEPTIONS, including: 1) exclusionary rules, 2) secondary evidence, 3) hearsay exclusions, 4) privilege exclusions, 5) rape-shield statutes, and 6) limits on character evidence.
Offers to Pay Medical Bills:
Evidence of paying or promising/offering to pay medical expenses or bills is NOT admissible to prove liability (even if there is no disputed claim).
FRE: any related statements or factual admissions (other than the offer to pay) ARE ADMISSIBLE.
CA: related factual statements are NOT admissible.
Authentication of Evidence: General Rule:
All evidence MUST be authenticated before being admitted into evidence. A party must prove that the item it seeks to admit is actually what the party purports it to be, UNLESS the parties stipulate otherwise.
Authentication: Physical Evidence:
Physical evidence may be authenticated through: (a) witness testimony; OR (b) by evidence that shows it has been held in a substantially unbroken chain of custody.
Best Evidence Rule:
a party must provide the original document (or a reliable duplicate) when a witness testifies to (a) contents of a writing; OR (b) knowledge gained solely from a writing.
Under the FRE, handwritten duplicates are NOT admissible (OK in CA).
Character Evidence (generally):
Generally, evidence of a person’s character is NOT admissible to show propensity (that on a particular occasion the person acted in conformity with the character trait). HOWEVER, character evidence is generally admissible for any non-propensity purpose.
Methods of Proving Character:
When character evidence is admissible, it may be proven in the following ways: (1) on direct examination by opinion testimony or testimony of reputation in the community; OR (2) on cross examination of the character witness by opinion, reputation, or specific acts.
CA: the defendant’s character may only be proven by opinion or reputation; and a victim’s character may be proven by opinion, reputation, or specific acts.
Prior Bad Acts:
Evidence of prior bad acts (crimes, wrongs, or acts) is NOT admissible to show propensity (that on a particular occasion the person acted in conformity with a character trait).
However, evidence of prior bad acts may be admissible for other relevant non-propensity purposes, such as proving: Knowledge, Identity (+ M.O.), Motive, Absence of Mistake or Accident, Intent, Opportunity, or Preparation.
Lay Witness Testimony & Opinions:
A lay witness is any person who gives testimony in a case that is NOT called as an expert. A lay witness’s testimony is admissible if he is competent to testify. To be competent, the witness must: (1) take an oath to tell the truth; (2) have the capacity to perceive, recall, and communicate; AND (3) testify to matters of which he has personal knowledge. Competency is presumed.
A lay witness may only offer an opinion if it is: (1) rationally based on the witness’s perception; AND (2) helpful to clearly understand the witness’s testimony or to determine a fact in issue (legal, technical, or scientific conclusions are not helpful).
Expert Witness Testimony:
permitted when: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the opinion is helpful to the jury (if an average jury could not figure the issue out for themselves); (3) the witness believes in the opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty; (4) the opinion is supported by sufficient facts or data (i.e. documentary evidence, personal knowledge, examination); AND (5) the opinion is based on reliable principles and methods that were reliably applied.
Under the FRE Daubert standard, reliability is based on a methodology’s: (1) publication/peer review; (2) error rate; (3) testability; AND (4) whether it is generally accepted in the field.
Under CA’s Kelley/Frye standard, reliability is based on whether a methodology is generally accepted in the field.
Hearsay:
(1) out-of-court statement, (2) that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is ONLY admissible if it falls under an exception. A “statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.
Hearsay: Declarant Unavailable:
A declarant is deemed unavailable as a witness if he: (a) is exempted from testifying due to privilege; (b) refuses to testify despite a court order to do so [does not apply in CA]; (c) testifies that he does not remember the subject matter; (d) cannot be present to testify because of death or illness; OR (e) is beyond the reach of a court’s subpoena, and his attendance cannot be procured by reasonable means. The unavailability of the declarant must not have been caused by either party.
Dying Declaration:
exception to the hearsay rule, and MAY ONLY be used in either: (a) a civil case; OR (b) a criminal homicide case.
In order to be admissible: (1) the declarant must be unavailable; (2) the statement was made under a sense of impending death; AND (3) the statement was about the circumstances or cause that put the declarant in the position of impending death
In CA, declarant must be dead.
Statement Against Interest:
made a_gainst one’s own penal, proprietary, or_ pecuniary interest is an exception to the hearsay rule, and is admissible when the declarant is unavailable.
If a statement against interest is offered in a criminal case, it MUST be supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness.
