Relevance Flashcards
Definition of Relevance
Evidence is 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.
In other words, evidence is relevant if it is:
Material - meaning it is “of consequence” in the case; and
Probative - meaning it has any tendency to make the proposition more or less likely.
This is a threshold question and a low bar to overcome.
General Rule of Admissibility
Irrelevant evidence is always inadmissible. All relevant evidence is admissible, unless:
it is kept out by some specific exclusionary rule of evidence (hearsay, privilege, public policy, etc)
the court uses the Rule 403 discretion to keep it out.
Rule 403
A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more of the following considerations:
Danger of unfair prejudice
Confusion of the issues
Misleading the jury
Undue Delay
Waste of Time
Needless presentation of cumulative (repetitive) evidence
Similar Occurrences
As a general rule, if evidence involves some time, event, or person other than that involved in the present case, it is inadmissible.
Despite the general rule, some recurring situtations have produced concrete rules that allow prior similar occurrences to be admitted.
Plaintiff’s Accident History - Prior False Claims or Same Bodily Injury (exception to Similar Occurrence)
Evidence that a person has previously filed similar tort claims or has been involved in prior accidents is generally inadmissible to show the invalidity of the present claim; all it demonstrates is that the person is litigious or accident-prone.
However, such evidence may be admissible if it tends to show something other than carelessness:
- Evidence that a P has made previous similar false claims is usually relevant to prove that the present claim is likely to be false.
- Evidence of prior accidents may be admissible where the cause of the plaintiff’s damages is at issue. If the P previously injured the same part of their body, the evidence may be admitted to show that the P’s condition is attributable (in whole or in part) to the prior injury rather than the current accident.
Similar Accidents of Injuries Caused by Smae Event or Condition
Generally other accidents involving the defendant are inadmissible because they merely show the defendant’s general character for carelessness.
However, evidence of prior accidents or injuries caused by the same event or condition and occurring under substantially similar circumstances is admissible to prove:
- the existence of a dangerous condition;
- that the dangerous condition was the cause of the present injury; and
- that the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition (if the other accident occurred before the p’s accident).
Absence of Similar Accidents
evidence of complaints is admissible to show the D’s lack of knowledge of the danger.
Previous Similar Acts Admissible to Prove Intent
Similar conduct previously committed by a party may be admissible to prove the party’s present motive of intent in the current case.
Sales of Similar Property
Evidence of sales of similar personal or real property around the same time period is admissible to prove the property’s value. However, prices quoted in mere offers to purchase are generally not admissible.
Rebutting Claim of Impossibility
the requirement that prior occurrences be similar to the litigated act may be relaxed when used to rebut a claim of impossibility.
I.e., d’s claim that the car will not go above 50 miles per hour an be rebutted by showing occasions when the car went more than 50 miles per hour.
Causation
Complicated issues of causation may be established by evidence concerning other times, events, or persons.
Habit and Business Routine Evidence
Evidence of a person’s habit (or evidence that is routine business practice of an organization) is admissible as circumstantial evidence that he person (or organization) acted in accordance with the habit on the occasion at issue in the case.
Habit describes a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances. Thus, there are two defining characteristics of habit:
- frequency of conduct; and
- particularity of circumstances
Distinguishing Character Evidence
Character describes someone’s general disposition or propensity with respect to general traits. Character is generally not admissible to prove how a person acted during the events of the case.
Industry Custom as Evidence of Standard of Care
Evidence as to how others in the same trade or industry have acted in a recent past may be offered as evidence of the appropriate standard of care (to show how the party in the current case should have acted).
However, industry custom isn’t conclusive on this point; for example, an entire industry may be acting negligently.
