Evidence Definitions Flashcards
Logical Relevance (FRE and CA)
FRE: Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable (probative value) than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
CA: Similar enough to use the same definition
Legal Relevance (FRE and CA)
FRE: The trial court may exclude evidence if it probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues or misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. There is a balancing act between its probative value and unfair prejudice.
CA: Substantially similar
Unfair Prejudice
An undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.
Doctrine of Limited Admissibility
Where the evidence is admissible for one purpose but not for another, the trial judge has the discretion, as an alternative, to exclude the evidence entirely or to admit the evidence only for the proper purpose.
Character Evidence
General Rule: Evidence may not be used to prove that a person acted in conformity with his propensity on the occasion in question.
Approach to Character Evidenc
- Analyze the purpose for which the evidence is being offered.
- If the evidence is being offered to prove character in a way that is permissible, then ask whether the proper type of evidence is being offered.
Types of Character Evidence
Both FRE and CA.
- Specific Instances of Conduct
- Opinion (based on personal observation of a witness)
- Reputation (in the community)
Three Purposes for which Character Evidence is Offered
- Character directly in issue (admissible)
- To show probable past conduct (not admissible)
- To impeach (depends on rules of impeachment)
Defendant’s Exception to Character Evidence
In a criminal case only, defendant 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, he opens the door to rebuttal character evidence.
Types of Evidence that Defendant may use under the Defendant’s Exception (Majority/Common Law and Minority)
Majority/Common Law: Reputation only
Minority inc CA: Reputation and Opinion
Victim’s Exception to Character Evidence
In a criminal case only, defendant may introduce evidence of a pertinent character trait of the victim to show that the victim acted in conformity with that character trait.
Types of Evidence that Defendant may offer under the Victim’s Exception (Majority/Common Law and Minority)
Majority/Common Law: Reputation only
Minority inc CA: Reputation, Opinion and Specific Instance
Rape Shield Statute
Excludes evidence offered to prove the victim’s past sexual behavior or sexual disposition subject to exceptions. In civil cases, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or predisposition of the victim is admissible if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party.
Three Exceptions to the Rape Shield Statute (FRE and CA)
- Evidence of victim’s past sexual conduct with others is admissible to show that a person other than the accused was the source of the semen, injury or other physical evidence.
- Evidence of specific instances of victim’s past sexual behavior with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct if offered by defendant to show victim’s consent (excluded in criminal cases).
- Where evidence whose exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights (i.e. rights of confrontation)
CA: Similar to Federal except that, in a civil case, evidence of the victim’s sexual conduct with others is never admissible if it involves sexual harassment, sexual battery or sexual assault to prove consent unless the injury claimed includes loss of consortium.
Other Criminal Acts
Cannot be used to establish criminal propensity but may be admissible for other purposes (i.e. as circumstantial evidence to establish a specific consequential proposition i.e. particular element of a crime).
Habit Evidence
Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.
Subsequent Remedial Measures Exclusion FRE and CA.
FRE: When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove
1) negligence;
2) culpable conduct;
3) a defect in a product or its design; or
4) a need for a warning or instruction.
CA: SRM not applicable to actions based on strict liability. SRM rule is admissible to prove liability in a products liability case.
Six Public Policy Exclusions (incl one unique to CA) to Admissibility of Evidence
- Subsequent Remedial Measures
- Offers to compromise disputed claims
- Payment of medical, hospital or other similar expenses (Good Samaritan Rule)
- Withdrawn guilty pleas/nolo contendere pleas
- Liability insurance
- CA Only: Expressions of sympathy or benevolence is inadmissible to prove liability.
Ten Objections During Examination
- Argumentative
- Compound
- Non-Responsive
- Assuming facts not in evidence
- Vague/Ambiguous
- Asked and answered
- Calls for narrative
- Calls for speculation
- Leading questions (subject to exceptions)
- Harassing a Witness
Objection: Argumentative
Purpose of question is to persuade trier of fact rather than eliciting information. Asks the witness to agree to the conclusions drawn by the questioner.
