Preliminary Questions

Question 1

Zomerfeld v. Noto (2012)

Answer 1

Pursuant to MRE 104(a), when evaluating the admissibility of evidence, a trial court is permitted
to rely on both admissible and inadmissible evidence. The use of underlying inadmissible evidence
does not make that inadmissible evidence admissible. Instead, the Court is merely permitted to
consider the underlying inadmissible evidence in order to assess the admissibility of the offered
evidence. In a jury trial, the jury may not always be privy to the underlying facts used to determine
what evidence is admissible, but the court may hear it. Previous upheld examples of this in
Midlands include using character evidence to make a ruling on hearsay exceptions, using hearsay
to make a ruling on character evidence, and using hearsay to decide whether an expert has adequate
foundation to testify

Question 2

Mehta v. Wesley (2015)

Answer 2

Pursuant to MRE 104(a), courts may consider custodial documents, such as clerks’ certifications
or affidavits of records keepers, when determining the admissibility of other evidence without
regard for the admissibility of the custodial document itself. The custodial document typically only
addresses preliminary matters of admissibility and is not entered into evidence, and thus the Court
is not bound by the rules of evidence when considering it. However, if a party wishes to enter the
custodial document itself into evidence, the proper foundation must be laid to establish its
admissibility.