Relevance Flashcards
What makes evidence “relevant”?
If it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence
What are the factors for relevance?
(1) Materiality
(2) Probativeness
When is irrelevant evidence admissible?
Irrelevant evidence is NEVER admissible
When is relevant evidence inadmissible?
(1) If it is kept out by some evidence rule
(2) If the court uses its Rule 403 discretion to exclude it
Name and explain the considerations under Rule 403 to determine whether a judge may exclude relevant evidence.
(1) Unfair prejudice - danger the jury will decide the case on an emotional basis
(2) Confusion of issues - evidence creates a side issue
(3) Misleading the jury - might cause jury to give the evidence undue weight (e.g., expert testimony)
(4) Undue delay
(5) Waste of time
(6) Cumulative
For (4)-(6), this is “beating a dead horse.”
Is unfair surprise a consideration in whether or not to exclude relevant evidence?
No, but it may be a discovery issue.
Is evidence involving some other time, event, or person (i.e., a “similar occurrence”) admissible?
Generally, no, but there are exceptions.
Explain the admissibility of a plaintiff’s accident history (i.e., prior false claims or same bodily injury) and any exceptions to the general rule.
Prior false claims or the same bodily injury evidence is generally inadmissible, but it may be admissible to show something other than carelessness.
(1) Prior false claims may be used to prove the present claim is false.
(2) Prior accidents involving the same body part may be admissible when causation of present injury is at issue.
Explain the admissibility of similar accidents or injuries caused by the same event or condition and any exceptions to the general rule.
Generally inadmissible because they merely show the defendant’s general character for carelessness.
May be admissible if the prior accidents or injuries were caused by the same event or condition and occurred under substantially similar circumstances to prove:
(1) the existence of a dangerous condition,
(2) that the dangerous condition was the cause of the present injury, and (3) that the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition (if the other accident occurred before the plaintiff’s accident)
HYPO: Phil drove into a lamp post and sues the municipality in negligence, alleging that the placement of the post created a hazardous condition. Should the municipality be allowed to introduce evidence that Phil has frequently driven into other stationary objects (tree, bridge, brick wall)?
No. All this shows is that Phil is accident-prone. Even though Phil being accident-prone is relevant, we don’t want the jury to decide the case based on Phil’s character traits.
HYPO: Phil drove into a lamp post and sues the municipality in negligence, alleging that the placement of the post created a hazardous condition, and claiming damages for a neck injury. Six moths before the lamp post accident at issue in this lawsuit, Phil injured his neck when he drove his car into a brick wall. Is that prior accident admissible, and for what purpose?
Yes. The brick wall accident is admissible to show that Phil’s neck injury was caused by that accident, not the lamp post accident currently in issue.
HYPO: Phil drove into a lamp post and sues the municipality in negligence, alleging that the placement of the post created a hazardous condition. Several other vehicles had collided with the same lamp post that Phil ran into. Could Phil introduce those other accidents against the municipality?
Yes, if the other accidents occurred under substantially similar circumstances (e.g., same weather, lighting, traffic conditions). If that standard is satisfied, then the evidence is admissible to show that the lamp post is a dangerous condition, that its placement was the cause of the accident, and that the municipality had notice.
Explain the admissibility of evidence of the absence of similar accidents and any exceptions to the general rule.
Generally inadmissible to show absence of negligence or lack of a defect. However, evidence of the absence of complains is admissible to show the defendant’s lack of knowledge of the danger.
True or false: A party’s previous similar acts or conduct is admissible to prove intent.
True. Similar conduct previously committed by a party may be admissible to prove the party’s present motive or intent in the present case.
HYPO: Marta sues Brewski Co. for sex discrimination, alleging that she was qualified for the job but was not hired because she is a woman. She seeks to show that Brewski hired no women, despite their qualifications during the past 6 years. Admissible?
Yes. This is a case where the defendant’s intent is at issue, so we can use the defendant’s treatment of other women to prove its intent with respect to this particular plaintiff.
