Relevance

Question 1

Definition of Relevance
High

Answer 1

• Evidence is relevant if it:
  (1) Has any tendency to make existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the case
  (2) More probable or less probable than it would be w/o the evidence.

Question 2

General Rule of Admissibility

Answer 2

• Irrelevant evidence is always inadmissible.
• All relevant evidence is admissible, unless:
  (1) It is kept out by some specific exclusionary rule of evidence (hearsay, privilege, public policy exclusions, etc.); or
  (2)Court uses its Rule 403 discretion to keep it out

Question 3

Rule 403 (Court’s Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence)
High

Answer 3

Ct may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed
by the danger of:
(1) Danger of unfair prejudice (there is a danger that jury will decide case on emotional basis)
(2) Confusion of the issues (evidence creates side issue)
(3) Misleading jury (there is danger that jury will give undue weight to evidence)
(4) Undue delay
(5) Waste of time
(6) Needlessly cumulative (repetitive) evidence
- Note: You’ll encounter a few isolated situations where the judge must use a different balancing test to determine
whether evidence is admissible, but Rule 403 is the standard
balancing test for most evidence.

Question 4

Tip

Answer 4

Unfair surprise: not valid ground to exclude relevant
evidence.

Question 5

Unfairly Prejudicial
High

Answer 5

Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when evidence is
(1) unnecessary, AND
(2) might cause jury to improperly sympathize/ dislike a party.
- As an alternative to excluding evidence completely under Rule 403, ct could limit unfair prejudice to party by limiting scope of evidence/examination to specific topics.

Question 6

Plaintiff’s Accident History—Prior False Claims
or Same Bodily Injury
Low

Answer 6

• Evidence that a person has previously filed similar tort claims/involved in prior accidents is generally inadmissible to show invalidity of present claim
• May be admissible
  (1) Evidence that P has made previous similar false to prove that present claim is likely to be false.
  (2) Evidence of prior accidents may be admissible where cause of P’s damages is at issue. If P previously injured same part of their body, evidence may be admitted to show P’s condition is attributable (in whole/in part) to prior injury not current accident.

Question 7

Tip

Answer 7

When faced with an Evidence question, always ask
yourself, “For what purpose is the evidence being
offered?”

Question 8

Similar Accidents or Injuries Caused by Same Event or Condition
LOW

Answer 8

• Evidence of prior accidents/injuries caused by same event/condition & occurring under substantially similar
  circumstances is admissible to prove:
  (1) existence of a dangerous condition,
  (2) that dangerous condition was cause of present injury, and
  (3) D had notice of dangerous condition (if other accident occurred b/f P’s accident).

Question 9

Absence of Similar Accidents
LOW

Answer 9

• Evidence of the absence of complaints is admissible to show D’s lack of knowledge of danger.

Question 10

Previous Similar Acts Admissible to Prove Intent
LOW

Answer 10

Similar conduct previously committed by a party may be
admissible to prove the party’s present motive/intent in current case.

Question 11

Sales of Similar Property

Answer 11

• Evidence of sales of similar personal/real property around same time period is admissible to prove property’s value.
• Prices quoted in mere offers to purchase generally aren’t admissible

Question 12

Rebutting Claim of Impossibility

Answer 12

• Requirement that prior occurrences be similar to litigated act may be relaxed when used to rebut a claim of impossibility (ex. D’s claim the car will not go above 50 mph can be rebutted by showing occasions when car went more than 50 mph).

Question 13

Causation
LOW

Answer 13

• Complicated issues of causation may be established by
  evidence concerning other times, events, or persons (ex. damage to nearby homes caused by D’s blasting is
  relevant to prove D’s blasting damaged P’s home).

Question 14

Habit and Business Routine Evidence
Low

Answer 14

• Evidence of a person’s habit (or evidence of routine
  practice of an org) is admissible as circumstantial evidence that person (or org) acted in accordance w/habit on occasion at issue in case.
• Habit describes a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances.
• 2 defining characteristics of habit:
  (1) frequency of conduct and
  (2) particularity of circumstances.

Question 15

Tip

Answer 15

Watch for key words such as “always,” “invariably,” “instinctively,” and “automatically” in a question’s fact pattern. These words may indicate habit

Question 16

Industry Custom as Evidence of Standard of Care
Low

Answer 16

• Evidence as to how others in the same trade/industry have acted in the recent past may be offered as evidence of the appropriate SOC (to show how the party in current case should have acted).
• Industry custom isn’t conclusive on this point; ex. an entire industry may be acting negligently