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
-Relevant evidence may be (but is not automatically) admissible
-Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible

Question 2

Limitations on relevance

Answer 2

• Logical relevance does not equal probative value: evidence can have high relevance 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  -E.g. evidence of liability insurance, subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, guilty pleas withdrawn, and offers to pay medical expenses

Question 3

Discretionary exclusion of relevant evidence

Answer 3

A court may exclude logically 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
-FRE 403

Question 4

Exclusion of relevant evidence

Answer 4

Often arises with evidence that is:
* Emotionally disturbing
* Repetitive or confusing
* Admisible for one purpose but inadmissible for another (excluded to avoid risk of jury using evidence for the improper purpose)
* Note: unfair surprise to a party or witness is not a valid ground for excluding relevant evidence

Question 5

Discretionary exclusion of relevant evidence-Balancing test

Answer 5

To exclude relevant evidence, probative value must be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
-Note: memorize this standard; wrong MBE answer choices may use similar, but incorrect language

Question 6

Discretionary exclusion of relevant evidence-Exceptions

Answer 6

Impeachment evidence based on convictions for crimes involving false statements is not subject to discretionary exclusion

Question 7

Evidentiary hearings

Answer 7

Court may conduct a hearing on admissibility of evidence (or other preliminary questions, e.g. witness qualitfication) but must do so outside the presence of a jury)

Question 8

Liability insurance

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Subsequent remedial measures

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Settlements, offers to settle, and plea bargaining

Answer 10

• 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: pleas, offers to plea, and related statements (including factual admissions) are inadmissible to prove guilt

Question 11

Payment or offers to pay medical expenses

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Similar occurrences

Answer 12

Evidence of prior similar occurrences concerning the time, event, or person in the present controlversy is often inadmissible as irrelevant or as presenting an unfair risk of prejudice
* However, similar occurrences may be relevant for other purposes
* Admisible uses: similar occurences may be admissible to prove
1) Causation
2) Prior accidents demonstrating:
a) A pattern of fraudulent claims
b) 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)
7) Business routine (e.g. to show that a particular event occurred)

Question 13

Habit

Answer 13

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