Relevance

Question 1

What is relevant evidence?

Answer 1

Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a material fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and it is admissible unless excluded by a specific rule or law.

Question 2

Examples of relevant evidence that can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed:

Answer 2

1. unfair prejudice – evidence tends to encourage the jury to decide the case on improper grounds
2. confusing the issues – evidence leads the jury to focus on a nonmaterial matter
3. misleading the jury – evidence creates misconceptions in the jurors’ minds
4. undue delay or wasting time – presenting the evidence will cause unnecessary delay or waste time
5. needless cumulation – similar evidence on the same issue has already been admitted

Question 3

Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures

Answer 3

Such measures cannot be used to:

Inadmissible:

• When measures are taken by a defendant that would have made an earlier injury or harm to a plaintiff less likely to occur, evidence of those subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove any of the following:*
  i) prove negligence or other culpable conduct
  ii) prove defect in product or product design
  iii) prove need for product warning or instruction

Such measures can be used to:

Admissible:

i) prove feasibility of precautionary measures
ii) impeach witness
iii) prove ownership or control

Question 4

Subsequent Remedial Measures

Timing

Answer 4

Evidence of a remedial measure is inadmissible if it was undertaken by the defendant after the plaintiff was injured.

A remedial measure undertaken before the plaintiff was injured is not subject to exclusion. (i.e., the evidence is admissible)

Question 5

Relevance dependent upon existence of fact

Answer 5

When relevance of evidence depends on whether certain fact exists:

1) proponent must introduce evidence sufficient to support finding that fact exists AND
2) court may admit proposed evidence on condition that supporting proof be introduced later

NOTE: *Evidence of a criminal defendant’s prior or bad act is inadmissible character evidence when offered to prove the defendant’s propensity to commit the charged crime.

• But such evidence is admissible for relevant, noncharacter purposes—e.g., to prove a common plan or scheme

Question 6

Relevance Rule Statement

Answer 6

Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible unless excluded by a specific rule, law, or constitutional provision. Evidence is relevant it probative and material.

Probative – the evidence has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Material – the evidence is of consequence in determining the action.

Question 7

Direct and Circumstantial evidence

Answer 7

Direct Evidence:

• identical to the factuaal proposition it is offered to prove.
  
  • ​An eyewitness who testifies that she saw the defendant kill the victim is an example of direct evidence that the defendant committed a homicide.
  • There is no rule that requires the presentation of direct evidence in order to convict a defendant. In other words, a defendant can be convicted solely upon circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial:

• indirect proof of a factual proposition through inference from collateral facts.
  
  • ​An eyewitness who testifies that, moments before entering a room, she heard a shot, and upon entering the room saw the defendant standing over the body of the victim holding a smoking gun is circumstantial evidence that the defendant committed a homicide.

Direct vs. Circumstantial

• While it is sometimes said that direct evidence is better than circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence may have greater probative value.
  
  • For example, testimony as to the identity of a thief based on a fleeting glimpse by an eyewitness with poor vision may not be as persuasive as testimony that the stolen item was found in the defendant’s home.

Question 8

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Answer 8

Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of:

i) unfair prejudice,
ii) confusing the issues,
iii) misleading the jury,
iv) undue delay,
v) wasting time, or
vi) needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

This exclusion is often denominated by the applicable rule; that is, it is referred to as a “Rule 403” exclusion.

Matter of degree: Evidence may be admissible even if the danger of prejudice or other factors outweigh the probative value, so long as the danger does not do so substantially.

Question 9

Curative admission of irrelevant evidence

Answer 9

Admitted when necessary to rebut previously admitted inadmissible evidence to remove unfair prejudice.

Such evidence can be admitted at the court’s discretion when necessary to remove unfair prejudice.

The failure of a party to object to the admission of the initial inadmissible evidence is one factor to be considered in determining whether the party was unfairly prejudiced by it.

Curative admissions are generally used when a motion to strike or curative jury instruction would not suffice.