Relevance

Question 1

Logical Relevance

Answer 1

Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence (material and probative)
* Relevant evidence may be (but is not automatically) admissible
* Irrelevant evidence is inadmissable

Limitations on relevance:
* Logical relevance not equal probative value - evidence can have high relvance but low probative value
* Discretionary exclusion - courts can exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its danger of unfair prejudice or confusion
* Public policy exclusions - evidence can be excluded in instances where allowing its inclusion could run counter to public policy considerations
* * E.G., evidence of liability insurance, subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, guilty pleas withdrawn, and offers to pay for medical expenses

Question 2

Discretionary Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Answer 2

A court may exclude logicially relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or waste of time

Exclusions of relevant evidence - often arises with evidence that is:
* emotionally disturbing
* Repetitive or confusing
* Admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another (excluded to avoid risk of jury using evidence for the improper purpose)

Balancing test - to exclude relevant evidence, probative value must be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
* Note - memorize this standard

Exceptions - impeachment evidence based on convictions for crimes involving false statements is not subject to discretionary exclusion (ex. Impeachment)

Question 3

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Public Policy Grounds

Answer 3

Liability insurance - evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to prove fault of a party’s ability to pay damages
* Evidence of insurance is admissible to prove anything else (e.g., ownership, control, etc.)

Subsequent remedial measures - evidence of repairs or other remedial measures taken after an injury is inadmissible to prove fault, defect, or inadequate warning
* Remedial measures evidence is admissible to rebut a defense that there was no feasible precaution

Settlements, offers to settle, & plea bargaining
* Civil cases - compromises, settlement offers, and related statements (including factual admissions) are inadmissible to prove liability or fault
*does not include statements made before the claim or threat of litigation was asserted
* Criminal cases - please, offers to plea, and related statements (including factual admissions) are inadmissible to prove guilt

Payment or offers to pay medical expenses - inadmissible when offered to prove liability for injuries
* Related statements, including factual admissions, are admissible
* Offers to pay medical expenses in exchange for liability release are inadmissible - considered a settlement offer

Question 4

Similar Occurrences & Habit

Answer 4

Similar occurrences - evidence of prior similar occurrences concerning the time, event, or person in the present controversy is often inadmissible as irrelevant or as presenting an unfair risk of prejudice
* However, similar occurrences may be relevant for other purposes
* Admissible uses - similar occurrences may be admissible to prove:
1. Causation
2. Prior accidents demonstrating
- A pattern of fraudulent claims
- Pre-existing conditions
3. Intent or absence of mistake
4. to rebut a defense of impossibility
5. Value (e.g., similar transactions can establish value)
6. Industry custom (e.g., to prove standard of care)

Habit - a person’s habit may be relevant and admissible to show that the person acted in conformity with that habit on a given occasion
* Conduct must be highly specific and frequently repeated (i.e., a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances)
* Look for regular, instinctive, habitual conduct
* E.g., evidence that a person habitually goes down a particular stairwell two steps at a time could be admissible as circumstantial evidence that she did so at the time in question