Evidence - Relevance Flashcards
General Exclusionary Rule of Relevant Evidence (403)
Probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by:
- Danger of unfair prejudice
- Confusion of the Issues
- Misleading the jury
- Undue delay
- Waste of time
- Unduly cumulative (repetitive testimony)
Similar Occurrences/Events Considered to Be Relevant
- Plaintiff’s accident history if the that caused P’s injury is in issue.
- Similar accidents caused by same instrumentality or condition to show existence of dangerous condition, causation of the accident, prior notice to D.
- Similar prior conduct used to show intent
- Comparable Sales on Issue of Value
- Habit
- Industrial Custom as Appropriate Standard of Care
Defining Characteristics of Habit
- Frequency of the conduct
* Particularity of the Conduct
Massachusetts Distinction on Habit Evidence
Habit evidence allowed in only two situations:
(1) Business Routine; or
(2) Action against a decedent’s estate –> If P introduce evidence of a promise or statement by decedant’s, estate may rebut with evidence of “habits of dealing” if they tend to disprove P’s evidence.
MA rejects use of habit for individuals
Policy Based Exclusion of Relevancy Evidence
- Liability Insurance
- Subsequent Remedial Measures
- Settlements for Disputed Civil Claims
- Offer to Pay Hospital or Medical Expenses
Liability Insurance (Rule/Exception)
Inadmissible for purpose of proving fault or absence of fault.
May be admissible to show proof of ownership/control if disputed by D or for purpose of impeaching a W on grounds of bias.
Subsequent Remedial Measures (Rule/Exception)
Inadmissible to prove negligence, calculable conduct, product defect, need for warning.
May be admissible for other relevant purpose, such as ownership/control or feasibility of safe condition if either is disputed by D.
Settlements of Dispute Civil Claims (Rule/Exceptions)
Following are INADMISSIBLE to show liability or impeach witness for prior inconsistent statement when a civil claim is disputed:
(1) Settlement
(2) Offer to Settle
(3) Statement of Fact made during settlement discussion
EXCEPT:
(1) Impeachment on grounds of bias
(2) Statement of fact made during settlement discussion in civil litigation with a gov’t regulatory agency are admissible in a later Criminal case. [Doesn’t apply in MA]
Plea Bargaining in Criminal Cases
Following are inadmissible:
(1) Offer to plead guilty: in current criminal case or in subsequent civil case on same facts
(2) Withdrawn guilty plea: in current criminal case or in subsequent civil case on same facts.
(3) Plea of no content: in subsequent civil case on same facts
(4) Statements of fact made during plea discussions
A plea of guilty is ADMISSIBLE in subsequent litigation based on the same facts under statement of party opponents
Offer to Pay Hospital or Medical Expenses
*Inadmissible to prove liability, but other statements made during convo are ADMISSIBLE.
MA –> Also excludes expression of sympathy to victim or victim’s family and expression of mistake or error by health care provider in malpractice case (unless its an inconsistent statement)
Use of Character Evidence in Criminal Cases
Generally inadmissible to prove conduct on particular occasion
*D during defense may introduce evidence of a relevant character trait. (i.e. peacefulness in murder case) by REPUTATION or OPINION [MA: Reputation only]
Prosecution on rebuttal –> may asked “have you heard” questions and call its own reputation/opinion witnesses.
Victim’s bad reputation/opinion for violence in self defense cases –> prosecution on rebuttal can offer reputation/opinion evidence of V’s character for peacefulness or D’s character for violence.
Exception for use of Victim’s sexual history in criminal cases:
- Someone else did it
- Consent
- Would violate D”s right to due process
Use of D’s Bad Acts/Other Crimes for Non-Character Purpose
MIMIC Categories:
- Motive for Current Crime
- Intent (including distinctive MO)
- Mistake or accident, absence there of
- Identity
- Common Scheme or Plan
Remember 403 Applies
Method of Proof of MIMIC-purpose Crimes:
By conviction, or
By evidence that proves the crime occurred [Conditional relevance - R - Juror Standard]
MA Distinction on Victim’s character evidence in Self-Defense Cases
Court has discretion to admit the victim’s prior specific act in which the victim appears to have been the first aggressor. But NO REPUTATION or OPINION evidence.
Prosecution may rebut with V’s reputation for peacefulness.
D’s Propensity for Sexual Assaults or Child Molestation
FRE: Admissible to show propensity for sex crimes.
MA: Has not adopted federal rule. Not allowed unless MIMIC Rule is satisfied.
