EVIDENCE RULE STATEMENTS

Question 1

California - Proposition 8

Answer 1

In California, Proposition 8, applicable exclusively to criminal proceedings, states that relevant evidence shall not be excluded unless, pursuant to CEC 352, the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.

Question 2

Logical Relevance

Answer 2

Evidence is relevant if it tends to make any fact of consequence more or less probable that it would be without the evidence.

In California, it must also be relevant as to a disputed fact.

Question 3

Legal Relevance

Answer 3

Courts may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Question 4

Character Evidence

Answer 4

Evidence of a person’s character or trait is generally inadmissible to prove that, on a particular occasion, that person acted in accordance with that character or trait.

Question 5

Civil Cases - Character At Issue

Answer 5

In civil cases, character evidence is admissible when character is an essential element of the claim or defense.

The character or trait may be proved by relevant specific instances of conduct, opinion evidence, and reputation evidence.

Question 6

Criminal Cases - Evidence of Defendant’s Character

Defendant Offers Character Evidence of His Own Good Character

Answer 6

The defense can introduce evidence of his good character to negate a charge of criminal conduct.

The specific character trait must be relevant to the conduct which he is accused.

The evidence must be introduced through opinion or reputation testimony.

Question 7

Evidence of Defendant’s Character

Prosecution’s Response

Answer 7

The prosecution can

(i) introduce evidence and reputation evidence to rebut the defendant’s claim of good character through direct examination of its own character witness or
(ii) cross-examine the defense’s character witness through specific instances of conduct or opinion or reputation evidence

Question 8

Criminal Cases- Defendant Attacks the Victim’s Character

Answer 8

A defendant may offer opinion or reputation evidence of a victim’s pertinent character trait

In California - a defendant may offer opinion, reputation, AND specific instances of conduct of a victim’s pertinent character trait

Question 9

Defendant Attacks the Victim’s Character

Prosecution’s Response

Answer 9

The prosecution may offer opinion and reputation evidence of

(i) victim’s good character or
(ii) the defendant’s same trait

In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

Question 10

Character Evidence - Sex Offense Cases

Answer 10

In a civil or criminal proceeding involving sexual misconduct, evidence offered to prove that the victim engaged in other sexual behavior or to prove a victim’s sexual predisposition is inadmissible.

Question 11

Character Evidence - Sex Offense Cases

Exceptions - Civil Cases

Answer 11

In CIVIL cases, the defendant may introduce evidence of the victim’s past sexual behavior or predisposition if

(1) the probative value substantially outweighs unfair prejudice, and

(2) the victim put her reputation into issue first

The evidence can be I the form of specific instances of conduct, opinion, or reputation.

Question 12

Character Evidence - Sex Offense Cases

Exceptions - Criminal Cases

Answer 12

In CRIMINAL cases, evidence of specific instances of conduct are admissible to demonstrate

(i) that a third party was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence
(ii) evidence of past sexual relations between the defendant and the victim introduced by the defense to prove consent or introduced by the prosecution for any reason, or
(iii) evidence whose exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights

Question 13

Character Evidence - Specific Acts

Answer 13

Evidence of a specific crime, wrong, or act is INADMISSIBLE to prove a person’s character in order to show that, on a particular occasion, the person acted in accordance with that character.

Exceptions -

Evidence of the defendant’s specific bad acts may be admissible for other purposes, such as showing

M- motive

I- Intent

M - absence of mistake

I- Identity

C- common scheme or plan

Question 14

Character Evidence - Evidence of Habit

Answer 14

Evidence of an individual’s habit or an organization’s routine practice MAY BE ADMISSIBLE to prove that the person or organization acted in accordance with that habit or routine

Question 15

Character Evidence - Impeachment

Answer 15

Character evidence may be used for the non-propensity purpose of impeachment. Impeachment is used to discredit the testimony of a witness by attacking his credibility and veracity.

Question 16

Methods of Proving Character

Answer 16

When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by opinion or reputation evidence. On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of conduct.

Question 17

Witness Competency

Answer 17

Witnesses are required to be competent to testify. Every witness is presumed to be competent unless the Federal Rules provide otherwise.

Question 18

Witness Competency - Personal Knowledge

Answer 18

A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of that matter.

Question 19

Lay Witnesses

Answer 19

Opinion testimony of a lay witness is admissible when it is

(1) rationally based on the witness’s perception
(2) helpful to clearly understand the witness’s testimony or determine a fact in issue, and
(3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.

Question 20

Expert Witnesses

Answer 20

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion if

(1) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue
(2) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or date,
(3) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(4) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Question 21

Expert Witnesses -

Daubert Standard - Reliable Principles and Methods

Answer 21

Under the Daubert Standard, reliability is determined using the following factors:

(i) whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review and publication,
(ii) whether the theory or technique has been tested
(iii) the known or potential rate of error, and
(iv) whether the theory or technique has been generally accepted in the pertinent scientific community

Question 22

Expert Witnesses

California - Kelly/Frye Standard

Answer 22

The Kelly/Frye standard is used when an expert opinion is based on a new technique, procedure, or method.

The expert is required to prove that the theory or technique has been generally accepted in the pertinent scientific community.

Question 23

Expert Witnesses - Criminal Cases

Answer 23

In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about the defendant’s mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or a defense.

Question 24

Present Recollection Refreshed

Answer 24

If a witness cannot testify due to lack of memory, he may inspect any object to refresh his recollection with respect to any matter about which he testifies.

The witness is allowed to briefly examine the object then continue his testimony based on his refreshed recollection.

The item is not read or admitted into evidence.

An adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness about it, and to introduce into evidence any position that relates to the witness’s testimony.

Question 25

Objections - Leading

Answer 25

A leading question is on that presents the answer within the question.

Leading questions should not be used on direct examination unless necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Courts allow leading questions

• *(i) on cross examination or**
• *(ii) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party**

Question 26

Objections - Non-responsive

Answer 26

A non-responsive answer is one that goes beyond the scope or evades the question asked.

Question 27

Objections - Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

Answer 27

A question that assumes facts not in evidence is one that assumes as true any facts that have not been introduced into evidence

Question 28

Objections - Narrative

Answer 28

A question that calls for a narrative is one that is open-ended, giving the witness an opportunity to narrate.

Question 29

Objections - Speculative

Answer 29

A question that is speculative is one that requires a witness to speculate. Witness testimony must be based on personal knowledge.

Question 30

Objections - Compound

Answer 30

A question is compound when multiple questions are combined within a single question.

Question 31

Objections - Vagueness

Answer 31

A vague question is one that is non-specific

Question 32

Objections - Legal Conclusion

Answer 32

A question that calls for a legal conclusion is one that asks a lay witness to provide a legal opinon

Question 33

Judicial Notice

Answer 33

Judicial notice is when the court accepts a fact as true without the presentation of evidence because it

(i) is generally known within the jurisdiction or

(ii) can be determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Civil case- court must instruct jury to accept the noticed fact as conclusive.

Criminal Case- court must instruct the jury that it may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive.

In California, in BOTH civil and criminal - must instruct jury to accept the noticed fact as conclusive

Question 34

Authentication

Answer 34

Tangible evidence must be authenticated before being admitted into evidence.

To authenticate an item, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

Question 35

Authentication - Physical Evidence

Answer 35

Physical evidence can be authenticated through

(i) personal knowledge,
(ii) distinctive characteristics, or
(iii) chain of custody

Question 36

Authentication - Handwriting

Answer 36

Handwriting can be authenticated by

(i) an expert witness
(ii) the jury comparing the handwriting to a sample, or
(iii) a lay witness’s opinion that the handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity that was not acquired for the current litigation.

Question 37

Authentication - Voice Recordings

Answer 37

Voice recordings must be authenticated by opinion evidence identifying the speaker’s voice based on hearing it at any time, whether heard firsthand or through electronic transmission or recording.

Question 38

Authentication - Ancient Documents

Answer 38

An ancient document is automatically authenticated if it

(1) is at least 20 years old
(2) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity, and
(3) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be

Question 39

Self Authenticating Evidence

Answer 39

Writing containing identifying information are self identifying

(public docs, certified copies of public records, official publications, newspapers, commercial papers, notarized docs)

Question 40

Completeness Doctrine

Answer 40

Under the Completeness Doctrine, if a party introduces all or part of a writing or record into evidence, the adverse party may require the introduction of any other part or other evidence that should, out of fairness, be considered simultaneously.

Question 41

Best Evidence Rule

CA - Secondary Evidence Rule

Answer 41

Under the best evidence rule, an original writing, recording, photograph or x-ray is required to prove its contents. The BER/SER is applicable only when

(i) contents of a document are at issue in the matter or

(ii) a witness is dependent on the document when providing testimony.

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless the authenticity of the original document is in dispute.

BER- handwritten duplicates are inadmissible

SER- handwritten duplicates are admissible

Question 42

Impeachment

Answer 42

Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility through impeachment.

A witness can be impeached through

(i) his own testimony
(ii) another witness’s testimony or
(iii) other extrinsic evidence

Question 43

Methods of Impeachment - Prior Inconsistent Statements

Answer 43

Prior statements made by a witness that are inconsistent with his current testimony may be used to impeach him, either through cross-examination or extrinsic evidence.

Extrinsic evidence is admissible only if (1) the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement, and (2) the adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it.

Question 44

Methods of Impeachment

Bias or Interest

Answer 44

Evidence of a witness’s bias or interest in the outcome of the case may be used to impeach through cross-examination or extrinsic evidence.

Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s bias or interest is admissible only if foundation is laid, which requires that the witness be cross-examined on facts that demonstrate bias or interest, giving the witness an opportunity to explain or deny.

Question 45

Methods of Impeachment

Prior Conviction of a Crime

Answer 45

Evidence of a prior conviction can be used to impeach a witness through cross examination or by the record of conviction.

Crimes Involving Dishonesty - always admissible unless the condition is more than 10 years old

Crimes Not Involving Dishonesty - Evidence of a felony not involving dishonesty are admissible in both civil and criminal cases unless the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Question 46

Impeachment - Prior Conviction of a Crime

California

Answer 46

In California, evidence of a prior felony is admissible for impeachment only if the crime involved MORAL TURPITUDE.

The court has discretion to exclude the evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Question 47

Impeachment - Convictions More Than Ten Years Old

Answer 47

Evidence of convictions that are more than ten years old may be admissible for impeachment only if

(1) its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect, and
(2) the proponent gives the adverse party reasonable written notice of its intent to use the evidence

Question 48

Impeachment

Specific Instances of Misconduct

Answer 48

Evidence of specific instances of a witness’s conduct is inadmissible to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness.

However, evidence of specific instances may be allowed on cross-examination if probative of witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

California - inadmissible in civil cases, admissible in criminal cases through cross-examination and extrinsic evidence

Question 49

Impeachment - Reputation or Opinion

Answer 49

A witness’s credibility may be attacked through opinion or reputation evidence about his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

However, evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthful has been attacked.

Question 50

Impeachment - Sensory Deficiencies

Answer 50

A witness may be impeached by establishing that his capacity to remember the relevant facts, perceptive abilities, or mental or physical capabilities were impaired.

Evidence of sensory deficiencies is admissible through cross-examination and extrinsic evidence.

Question 51

Rehabilitating an Impeached Witness

Answer 51

An impeached witness may be rehabilitated with rebuttal evidence through (i) redirect examination of the impeached witness, (ii) another witness’s testimony about the impeached witness’s truthfulness through opinion or reputation evidence, or (iii) introducing a prior consistent statement.

Rehabilitation is only permissible after witness’s credibility has been attacked.

Question 52

Hearsay

Answer 52

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the mater asserted.

Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible unless it falls within an exception or exclusion.

Question 53

Hearsay Within Hearsay

Answer 53

Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule.

Question 54

Non-Hearsay

Answer 54

1. Legally Operative Facts
2. Effect on Listener
3. Declarant’s State of Mind
4. Non-Human Declarations

Question 55

Non-Hearsay - Legally Operative Facts

Answer 55

Statements containing legally operative facts are not hearsay if offered to prove that the statement was made, not to prove its truth.

Question 56

Non-Hearsay - Effect on Listener

Answer 56

Statements offered to show the effect on the person who heard the statement are not hearsay.

Question 57

Non-Hearsay - Declarant’s State of Mind

Answer 57

Statements offered as circumstantial evidence of the declarant’s state of mind are not hearsay.

Question 58

Non-Hearsay - Non-Human Declarations

Answer 58

Hearsay statements can only be asserted by humans. Conduct by animals, reports from machines, etc. are not hearsay.

Question 59

Hearsay Exemptions

Answer 59

1. Testifying Witness’s Prior Statements
2. Party Opponent Statements
3. Adoptive Admissions
4. Vicarious Admissions

Question 60

Prior Inconsistent Statements

Answer 60

A witness’s prior inconsistent statement made under oath at a prior trial, deposition, or hearing are admissible as substantive evidence and for impeachment.

Prior statements that were not made under oath may be admissible only for impeachment.

California - admissible as substantive evidence and for impeachment. Statement need not be made under oath.

Question 61

Prior Consistent Statements

Answer 61

The declarant’s prior consistent statements are not hearsay if offered to

(i) rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive or
(ii) rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility.

The statement need not be made under oath but must have been before the declarant’s motive to fabricate materialized.

California - If the statement is offered to rebut a prior inconsistent statement, then the witness must have made the consistent statement before the inconsistent statement.

Question 62

Prior Statements of Identification

Answer 62

A declarant’s prior statement identifying a person the declarant perceived earlier is admissible if that declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination.

Question 63

Party Opponent Statements

Answer 63

A statement made by a party to the litigation, when offered by the opposing party, is not hearsay and is admissible.

Question 64

Adoptive Admissions

Answer 64

An adoptive admission is a statement offered by the opposing party against the party who adopted the statement or believed it to be true

Adoption by Silence - silence can give rise to an adoptive admission if a reasonable person under the same circumstance would have denied the statement if it were not true.

Question 65

Vicarious Admissions

Answer 65

Vicarious admissions are statements offered by an opposing party made by

(i) a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject,
(ii) the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship while it existed or
(iii) the party’s co-conspirator during and in furtherance of a conspiracy.

Question 66

Unavailable Declarant Hearsay Exceptions

Answer 66

1. Former Testimony
2. Statement Against Interest
3. Dying Declaration
4. Statements of Personal or Family History
5. Statements Offered Against Party That Wrongfully Caused Declarant’s Unavailability

Question 67

Unavailable Declarant Requirement

Answer 67

A declarant is deemed unavailable in the following circumstances:

(i) a court privilege applies,
(ii) refusal to testify despite court order
(ii) testimony of not remembering the subject
(iv) death or mental or physical illness,
(v) absence and the statement’s proponent has been unable to obtain his attendance or testimony through a subpoena or other reasonable means.

Question 68

Unavailable Declarant Exception - Former Testimony

Answer 68

Former testimony given by a witness at prior trial, hearing, or deposition is admissible if the party against whom the statement is offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony through direct, cross, or redirect examination.

Question 69

Statement Against Interest

Answer 69

A statement against interest made by a now-unavailable witness is admissible if

(1) the statement was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary, pecuniary, or penal interest at the time it was made that
(2) a reasonable person would not have made the statement unless it was true.

Criminal Cases Only - if the statement against interest is offered in a criminal case, the presenting party is required to offer corroborating circumstances clearly indicating the trustworthiness of the statements

Question 70

Unavailable Declarant Exception - Dying Declaration

Answer 70

A dying declaration is admissible if

(1) the declarant made the statement while believing that his death was imminent, and
(2) the statement was about the cause or circumstances of his impending death.

Question 71

Unavailable Declarant Exception - Statements of Personal or Family History

Answer 71

Statements about the unavailable declarant’s personal or family history are admissible if they are made by the declarant’s relative, or an individual who was so intimately associated with the family that the statements are likely to be accurate.

Question 72

Unavailable Declarant Exception -

Statements Offered Against Party That Wrongfully Caused Declarant’s Unavailability

Answer 72

Statements of an unavailable declarant are admissible if that declarant is unavailable because the opposing party wrongfully caused, or acquiesced in wrongfully causing, the declarant’s unavailability with the intent of rendering him unavailable he could not testify.

Question 73

Hearsay Exceptions: Declarant Availability Immaterial

Answer 73

1. Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, and Physical Condition
2. Present Sense Impression (CA - Contemporaneous Statement)
3. Excited Utterance (CA - Spontaneous Statement Exception)
4. Medical Diagnosis or Treatment
5. Recorded Recollection
6. Business Records
7. Public Records
8. Learned Treatises
9. Residual Catch-All (N/A in CA)

Question 74

Hearsay Exception - Then-Existing Mental, Emotional and Physical Condition

Answer 74

A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (motive, intent or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition is admissible

Question 75

Hearsay Exception - Present Sense Impression

Answer 75

A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it is admissible

Question 76

Hearsay Exception - Excited Utterance

(California - Spontaneous Statement Exception)

Answer 76

A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress or excitement that it caused is admissible

Question 77

Hearsay Exception - Medical Diagnosis or Treatment

Answer 77

A statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment describing medical history, past or present symptoms or sensations, or their general cause is admissible.

Question 78

Hearsay Exception - Recorded Recollection

Answer 78

If a witness has inadequate memory to testify about something for which there is a record, he is permitted to read the record to the jury if the record

(1) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately,
(2) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory, and
(3) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.

If admitted, the record may be read into evidence, but it may be admitted as an exhibit only by an adverse party.

Question 79

Hearsay Exception - Business Records

Answer 79

A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis is admissible if

(1) the record was made at or near the time by someone with knowledge,
(2) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit,
(3) making the record was a regular practice of that activity, and
(4) the source or method of preparation was trustworthy.

Question 80

Hearsay Exception - Public Records

Answer 80

A record or statement of a public office is admissible if

(1) it sets out the office’s activities, a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, or in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings form a legally authorized investigation, and
(2) the source or method of preparation was trustworthy

Question 81

Hearsay Exception - Learned Treaties

Answer 81

A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet is admissible if

(1) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination, and

(20 the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.

If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not admitted as an exhibit.

Question 82

Hearsay Exception - Residual Catch-All

N/A in CA

Answer 82

A hearsay statement that does not meet the requirements for a hearsay exception may still be admitted if the statement is

(1) supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness,
(2) offered as evidence of a material fact, and
(3) more probative on the point for which it is offered the nan y other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.

Reasonable notice must be given to the opposing party.

Question 83

Lawyer-Client Privilege

Answer 83

Under the lawyer-client privilege, communications between a lawyer and his client related to the representation are protected if

(1) the client intended for the communication to be confidential, and
(2) the communication is for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

The privilege may be asserted by the lawyer on the client’s behalf but is waiviasle only by the client, who is the holder of the privilege.

the lawyer client privilege lasts indefinitely, even after the death of the client.

in CA - privilege ends when the client’s estate has been fully distributed and the personal representative has been discharged.

Question 84

Lawyer-Client Privilege

Exceptions

Answer 84

The lawyer-client privilege does not apply

(i) if the client’s objective in securing the lawyer’s services is to engage in future crime or fraud,
(ii) if the communication is relevant to an issue in a malpractice action against the lawyer, or
(iii) in a civil litigation between formerly joint clients of the lawyer

+ CA - if the lawyer reasonably believes that disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm

Question 85

Attorney Work Product Doctrine - Qualified Immunity

Answer 85

Documents prepared by the lawyer in anticipation of litigation are not discoverable, unless the other party can demonstrate they

(1) have a substantial need for the document and
(2) are unable to get the information absent undue hardship

Question 86

Attorney Work Product Doctrine - Absolute Immunity

Answer 86

A lawyer’s mental impressions, research, conclusions, theories, and opinions are not discoverable unless immunity is waived

Question 87

California - Physician-Patient Privilege

Answer 87

In California, communications between a licensed physician and a patient are protected when the communication is for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment. The patient is the holder of the privilege and may waive it

*N/A in criminal cases

Exceptions:

1. if the patient puts his condition in issue
2. if the communication is for an illegal purpose
3. in disputes between the physician and the patient
4. if the privilege is waived

Question 88

Psychotherapist-Patient or Social Worker-Patient Privilege

Answer 88

Communications between a psychotherapist or social worker and his client are protected.

Exceptions:

1. if the patient puts his condition in issue
2. if the communication is for an illegal purpose
3. in disputes between the physician and the patient
4. if the patient is a anger to himself or others

Question 89

Spousal Privileges - Spousal Immunity

Answer 89

The prosecution may not call the spouse of a criminal defendant to testify against the defendant, nor may spouses be compelled to testify against each other in any criminal proceeding (or civil in CA).

Spousal immunity is only applicable while the couple is in a valid marriage; however, it covers testimony about matters prior to and during the marriage.

In federal court and the majority of state courts, the witness spouse holds the privilege and may waive it

Question 90

Confidential Martial Communications

Answer 90

Communications between spouses that occurred during the marriage are protected.

The privilege survives even after the marriage is over.

Both spouses hold the privilege, and either may choose to assert the privilege to prevent the other spouse from disclosing.

Question 91

Subsequent Remedial Measures

Answer 91

Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is INADMISSIBLE to prove

(i) negligence
(ii) culpable conduct,
(iii) need for warning or instruction or
(iv) a defect in a product or its design

It is admissible when offered for other purposes including proving ownership, control, feasibility of precautionary measures or for impeachment

Question 92

Liability Insurance

Answer 92

Evidence regarding a person’s insurance or lack thereof is inadmissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or wrongfully.

However, it is admissible when offered for another purpose including proving

(i) witness’s bias or prejudice,
(ii) agency
(iii) ownership or
(iv) control

Question 93

Compromise Offers and Negotiations

Answer 93

Evidence of compromise offers and negotiations is inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.

However, it is admissible when offered for another purpose including

(i) proving a witness’s bias or prejudice
(ii) negating a contention of undue delay or
(iii) proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution

Question 94

Offers to Pay Medical Expenses

Answer 94

Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is inadmissible to prove lability for the injury

CA - offers to pay medical and similar expenses and related admissions of fact are inadmissible to prove liability for an injury

Question 95

Pleases and Related Statements

Answer 95

In civil and criminal cases, evidence of withdrawn guilty pleas, solo contenders pleas, offers to plead guilty, and all accompanying statements in plea negotiations are inadmissible to prove a defendant’s guilt

Question 96

California - Expressions of Sympathy

Answer 96

In California, expressions of sympathy relating to the pain, suffering, or death of an accident victim made to the victim or to the victim’s family member are inadmissible was evidence of an admission of liability in a civil action.

However, statements of fault accompanying the expression of sympathy are admissible