General Principles & Relevance Flashcards
To which 3 type of proceedings to the federal rules of evidence not apply?
Summary proceedings
Grand jury proceedings
Sentencing hearings.
During a preliminary determination of admissibility can the judge consider inadmissible evidence?
Yes the judge can consider anything they want to during a preliminary determination of admissibility.
What is the doctrine of the limited admissibility?
This allows the court to admit evidence to be used for one purpose in the case but not another.
Evidence is relevant if…?
It has any tendency to prove or disprove a material fact of consequence.
What is the general rule regarding relevance of evidence?
It must relate to some time, offence, person in the case.
How do you determine whether evidence is relevant?
Evidence is relevant if it goes to any of these three things:
– the pleadings
– defences
– credibility
In which six circumstances may the judge still exclude relevant evidence at their discretion?
If the judge feels that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers of introducing the evidence, the judges can exclude it on the basis of:
– unfair prejudice
– confusion of the issues
– misleading the jury
– waste of time
– undue delay
– unduly cumulative
Generally, evidence must relate to a time, event or person in the case. However, in some instances, evidence will still be relevant when it used to show a similar occurrence. Name these 5 exceptions.
Causation
Common Plan or Scheme
Prior Notice (i.e. D had notice/knew that something was inherently dangerous or defective)
Intent/State of Mind
Habit (routine practice of an organisation or habit of a person is admissible)
For evidence to be categorised as habit, rather than character, what must you consider?
(1) Frequency and (2) particularity of the habit
Which public policy exclusions apply to relevant evidence?
- Subsequent remedial measures
– settlements in civil cases
– pleas or plea discussions (criminal cases)
– offers to pay medical expenses
– liability insurance
What is the exception to the rule about subsequent remedial measures?
Subsequent remedial measures can be used to show control/ownership of the instrumentality
To Impeach
Destruction of evidence
Feasibility
What is the rule regarding the public policy exclusion for settlements in civil cases?
If there is a disputed claim
Then evidence of offers to settle, actual settlements, or admissions of faults are inadmissible if offered:
— to prove fault
— to prove damages
— or to impeach, UNLESS there is a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction
But if the claim is UNDISPUTED, then the evidence is admissible as an opposing party statement/admission.
During an accident, one-party admits that they were at fault and offered to pay the victims damages. If the matter still proceeds to trial and the claimant wants to introduce this offer as evidence. Can they?
The claim is not disputed, so it doesn’t fall into the public policy exclusion for relevance. It is therefore admissible as an admission/opposing party statement.
If a party makes admission of fault at the same time as offering to pay medical expenses can part of this statement be introduced as evidence, despite the public policy exception?
Yes, the admission of fault may be admissible as an OPPOSING PARTY STATEMENT, but NOT the offer to pay medical fees.
Generally evidence that the person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove the person was negligent or at fault. What are the exceptions to this rule?
Such evidence may be admissible if:
– you can redact the statement about insurance
– to prove ownership or control
– to impeach (based off of bias of the witness)
