Intro, Prop 8 and Relevance

Question 1

When do you apply CA evidence law?

Answer 1

Only if the essay directs you to, otherwise apply FRE

Question 2

What is the “Truth in Evidence” amendment to the California Constitution?

Answer 2

Proposition 8.

Question 3

What does the “Truth in Evidence” amendment/Prop 8 stand for?

Answer 3

All relevant evidence is admissible in a CRIMINAL case, even if it is objectionable under the California Evidence Code (CEC).

Question 4

What are exceptions to Prop 8?

Answer 4

(i) Exclusionary rules under US Constitution (e.g. Confrontation Clause)
(ii) hearsay law
(iii) privilege law
(iv) limits on character evidence to prove defendant’s conduct
(v) limits on character evidence to prove the victim’s conduct
(vi) the secondary evidence rule (CA’s best evidence rule)
(viii) CEC 352 (court’s power to exclude if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value)

Question 5

What is the three step approach to applying California law on an essay?

Answer 5

(i) raise all objections under CEC
(ii) for each objection, mention if Prop. 8 overrules the objection (Is the objection relevant? Do one of the exceptions to Prop. 8 apply?)
(iii) if evidence seems admissible under Prop. 8, balance CEC 352.

Question 6

Define relevant evidence under the FRE, what is the additional California requirement?

Answer 6

Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more of less probable that it would be without the evidence.

California also requires: the fact of consequence also must be in dispute.

Question 7

In a murder prosecution. Defendant admits to shooting the victim but pleads insanity. Prosecution witness testifies he saw defendant shoot victim. Relevant?

Answer 7

Under California law no, the fact of consequence is not in dispute because he saw defendant shoot victim.

FRE: relevant

Question 8

May you use subsequent remedial measures or repairs to prove negligence?

Answer 8

Under both CA and FRE no. Under the FRE only, such evidence is also inadmissible to prove defective design in products liability action based on theory of strict liability.

Question 9

In a products liability action against a toy manufacturer. A plaintiff alleges the toy’s sharp corners caused injury. To prove defective design, plaintiff offers evidence that defendant redesigned the toy to remove sharp corners. Admissible?

Answer 9

FRE: No.

CA: Yes

Question 10

Are settlements, offers to settle, related statements, and discussions during mediation proceedings admissible to prove fault or liability?

Answer 10

FRE: Mediation discussions are, the rest are not

CA: None of them are

Question 11

Are offers to pay medical expenses or payments of medical expenses admissible to prove liability or fault? Are their surrounding statements?

Answer 11

FRE: No, but statements of fact that aren’t part of the offer are admissible.

CA: No, nor are statements of fact made during the course of making such a payment or offer.

Question 12

Plaintiff falls down stairs in defendant’s building. Defendant visits plaintiff in the hospital and says “I’ll pay your hospital bill, I shouldn’t have dropped that banana peel on the stairs!”. Admissible?

Answer 12

FRE: The offer to pay is not, the fact regarding the banana peel is admissible.

CA: Nothing is admissible.

Question 13

Plaintiff falls down stairs in defendant’s building. Defendant visits plaintiff in the hospital and says “If you sign a release I will pay your hospital bill, I shouldn’t have dropped that slippery dildo on the stairs!”. Admissible?

Answer 13

FRE and CA: All inadmissible, because this is a settlement offer rather than simply offering to pay for medical expenses.

Question 14

What is the CA rule regarding the admissibility of expression of sympathies?

Answer 14

In a civil trial, expressions of sympathy relating to suffering or death of an accident victim are inadmissible, but statements of fault made in connection with such an expression are not excluded.

No comparable FRE

Question 15

Personal injury action arising out of automobile collision. Defendant claims he was not at fault and that plaintiff was not hurt. Plaintiff offers evidence that at the scene of the accident defendant said to plaintiff, “I am so sorry you are badly hurt. I should not have run the red light.” Admissible?

Answer 15

“I am so sorry you are badly hurt”-Inadmissible under CA

“Run the red light”-admissible b/c not an expression of sympathy

Question 16

What is the rule regarding pleas later withdrawn, offers to plea, and related statements?

Answer 16

Inadmissible under FRE and CEC. But raise issue as to whether Prop. 8 makes this admissible because the law is unclear at the moment. Remember to state that even if Prop 8 were to apply the court still could exclude the evidence on the basis of unfair prejudice.