Relevance

Question 1

401

Answer 1

evidence is relevant if:
a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action- does not need to prove guilt itslef to be relevant

Question 2

402

Answer 2

Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise
Constitution, a federal statute, these rules, or other rules prescribed by the supreme court.
irrelevant evidence is not admissible

Question 3

104(b)

Answer 3

Conditional relevance:
when the relevance of evidence depends upon whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. the court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later.
Examples: spoken statement is not relevant unless D heard it
letter is an admission by D only if the D wrote it

Question 4

FBI search home, find classified documents in desk drawer. same desk drawer as several passports. is this relevant to proving that the D was in possession of classified documents

Answer 4

yes- mixing documents with personal possessions shows he is in possession of all
probative of possession

Question 5

US v. Scheffer

D charged with murder, takes a polygraph. wants to introduce E that was willing to take test

Answer 5

claim is that it is probative of the fact that D believes he is innocent.
Is that fact material to the case?
If D has consciousness of innocence, more likely actually innocent of charged
result: minimal probative value, but under the rules minimal is allowed.

Question 6

401: material

knowledge- crime of possession of fish under authorized length. wanted to offer E that he did not know. material?

Answer 6

no- knowledge is not required under the crime charged.

Question 7

Montana v. Egelhoff
Murder charge, D in back seat with BAC of .36
E: level of intoxication of the D, offered by the D

Answer 7

Offered to negate mental state at the time of events. even if probative, not material under montana law because voluntary intoxication is not a defense and is immaterial to the charges- irrelevant.

Question 8

US v. James
Manslaughter charge, V abused D in violent relationship. V told D he had killed somone and robbed a man with a knife.
E: D offered court record shows robbery did occur.

Answer 8

probative value: what fact does this prove? the knife robbery did actually happen
material?
if this actually did happen, it is more likely that the V told the D it did- material

Question 9

Sherrod v. Berry
E: the fact that violin case held money and not a weapon

Answer 9

held that evidence inadmissible because reasonable fear unrelated to the contents. state of mind is issue

Question 10

Cox v. Indiana
Murder charge after late night shooting of V
E: bond hearing 4 days prior where more charges were added to D’s friend hammer

Answer 10

Conditional on D knowing what happened in bond hearing
Held: standard for 104(b): E admitted so long as there is enough evidence for a reaosnable jury to make the finding on facts before it, to a preponderance of the E.
Very low bar to admit
enough factual basis here to admit.

Question 11

E: wife to tell son of his true father

Answer 11

Relevant because may provide motive for husband to kill
conditional because relavent only if the D knew of the plan before the murder

Question 12

Tom is an avid baseball card collector and has been since he was a child. He is now being charged with the theft of a 1951 Mickey Mantle rookie card, appraised at a value of $10,000. The D.A. wants to provide evidence of the extensive nature of Toms card collection. The defense objects

Answer 12

Is the DA evidence relevant?

a. yes, but only if the judge finds a jury could find Tom owned collection by preponderance of the E
b. no, it is not material to the issues in the case
c. yes, it makes it more likely Tom is guilty, so relevant
d. no, the evidence is not probative of any fact

Question 13

relevant

Answer 13

any tendency to make material fact more/less likely

Question 14

probative

Answer 14

evidence helps prove what it is intended to

Question 15

material

Answer 15

fact addresses something at issue in the case
knowledge: elements of offense make D’s knowledge immaterial
Intoxication: state law makes voluntary intoxication immaterial

Question 16

403

Answer 16

Excluding relevant E
the court may exclude relevant E if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:
unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay
Unfair prejudice: AC notes states this is an undue tendency for a decision on an improper basis, often an emotional one

Question 17

State v. Bocharski
D charged with murder of 84yr old V.
E: 6 photos- 2 of body, 2 after wash, 2 from autopsy

Answer 17

should E be excluded because death is not contested and prejudice is high?
Held: deferential standard of review. Overturned only for abuse of discretion.
first 4 photos ok to admit because DA cannot be forced to try the case in a sterile setting but last 2 (autopsy) are not- low probative value and only seems to inflame the jury

Question 18

ppl v. jones
murder, E: photo of child V

Answer 18

Admissibe? shows revenge motive, consistent with theory of death
Inadmissible? limited probative value, highly inflammatory to jury. alternative means because availability of other evidence
held: inadmissible

Question 19

Witness tampering; E: DA show clip from Godfather

Answer 19

probative? animates reference
why exclude? confuse the jury
held: as a general principle DA has the option of presenting case in the manner they intend, for full narrative richness
to exclude, E must be unfailry prejudicial
Result: not enough prejudice to substantially outweigh probative value= ADMIT

Question 20

Commonwealth v. Serge
Murder charge, claim of self-defense
E: computer generated animation of the crime

Answer 20

held:
1. accuracy: w’s had to authenticate CGA before admitted, lacks prejudicial features
2. cost: no right to rebut CGA, but appropriate to consider as one factor
3. persuasion: TC instruction aided jury on right inference, not unfailry prejudicial

Question 21

US v. Myers
Bank robbery, E: 2 instances of flight of D from Fl to Ca

Answer 21

relevance of flight based on 4 inferences.
if shown, can admit to show guilt as admission by conduct
1. D behavior is flight
2. Flight shows consciousness of guilt
3. consciousness of guilt is for this crime
4. consciouness of guilt for this crime means actual guilt.
Held: Fl flight is more probative when close in time to crime. not clear that he was evading police at the time because the cops were not in uniform

Question 22

People v. Cutchall
Flight

Answer 22

D leaves scene of crime, says he did so because of a prior conviction
issue: is this admissible as flight E?
Held: AC affirmed TC admission of the E
probative value low, but not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice

Question 23

John is charged with the murder of Steven. John admits that he killed Steven in a bar fight, but cliams he acted in self defense. During the trial, the DA calls a crime scene investigator to the stand, and then offers one CSI photo showing the V lying in a pool of blood. Defense objects

Answer 23

what should the judge’s ruiling on the objection be?
A) sustiained- the photo is irrelevant to the case
B) sustained- murder V phots are presumpitvely prejudicial
C) sustained- the phot is relevant, but its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
D) overruled- photo admissible

Question 24

407

Answer 24

when measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
negligence, cuplable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or- if disputed -proving ownership, control or feasibility of precautions

Question 25

408

Question 26

409

Question 27

specalized rules of relevance

Answer 27

address similar issues to 403 balancing of specific needs v. prejudice of E. Public policy choices about when E should be out

407-411

Question 28

Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival Center

Answer 28

3/22; wolf jumps fence and attacks beagle
response: owner chains wolf inside pen
3/23; daniel passes fence and is attacked
E: owner chained wolf to fence night of 22.
Admissible in trial with beagel owner? No
Rule: 407 subsequent remedial measures to show fault is out.
Admissible in trial with Daniels parents? Yes.
pior to the injury and can be used to show negligence

Question 29

Tuer v. McDonald

Answer 29

Doc gives Heparin, stopped before surgery, surgery delayed, V has heart attack and dies
E: changed hospital policy on Heparin administration
P/C: E of the change in policy is admissible for 2 purposes
1. impeachment: shows starting heparin was safe unlike testimony
Held: impeachment in 407 cannot be read so broadly, bc all SRM impeach to some extent, not just for culpability or negligence- not impeachment but just real time balancing of risks
2. feasibility: D implied it wasnt feasible to restart Heparin, but the new policy requires the medication prior to OR
depends on definition of feasible: D was saying it was possible just not adviseable
held: not issue of feasibility, but of judgement

Question 30

407 impeach

Muzyka

Answer 30

allowed to counteract statement that product was of best safety

Question 31

407 impeach

Dollar

Answer 31

W said product safe, but letter says product had death-dealing propensities
question of credibility as W not for determining culpability at trial.

Question 32

wood v. Morbark Industries
P sues D for V’s death in chipper, later redesigned chipper

Answer 32

TC: redesign is not admissible to show fault of design
says that the old design was not in use anymore
D mentioned more sales and that this was still in use
Held: admit- i do not want to leave the false impression that the machine bought by the army was this machine
ADDED FACTS
“that was the safest length chute you could put on the machine” can impeach

Question 33

408

Answer 33

(a) prohibited uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible- on behalf of any party -either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction
1. furnishing, promising, or offering - or accepting, promising to accept- a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim and
2. conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim- except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, invetigative, or enforcement authority.
(b) exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution

Question 34

Bankcard America v. Universial Bankcard
E: settlement statements of ok to change accounts

Answer 34

admitted to show why Universial breached
rule 408 excludes statements to show liability, invalidity of, or amount of a claim, or to impeach. But any other purpose is ok
Held: statements should have been admitted
Limitations: no use of the word “settlement” or disclose any details

Question 35

408 application notes

Answer 35

excludes E for improper purpose- not all purposes
limiting instructions: limits held to reduce prejudice
Posner in Bankcard case: application can be difficult
CLAIM: must be a claim for rule to be invoked
if no claim, no settlement protection. But if lawsuit, or a demand for $, then claim exists and E out
applied only to civil cases

Question 36

Ramanda Development v. Rauch
lawsuit over hotel dispute
E: ramadas architect report to evaluate defects claimed

Answer 36

held: report should be excluded because architect was P’s agent for negotiations, admissibility would hamper settlement efforts of litigants

Question 37

409 compared to 408

Answer 37

408: offer to settle and all statements are out for the improper purpose, so long as there is a claim
409: E of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.
covers act of payment- not the statements
rationale: probative force: not as strong, and higher inducement to end claims

Question 38

sorry statements not covered under 409

Answer 38

some states have passed statute to protect apologies
two forms:
1. all statements out
2. apology out, statements of fault admissible
problem: study shows an increase in claims for some situations after a limited statute

Question 39

while staying at the iceland inn, johns valuable pocket watch is taken from the nightstand while he is out for dinner. The assailant had kicked in the door to gain entry. John sues the inn for negligence in failing to provide adequate door security. 2 weeks after his suit, the inn installs new hardened steel deadbolts and new safety chains. John wants to introduce evidence of the new measures taken to show that the prior condition was unsafe.

Answer 39

when the defense objects, the judges ruiling should be:
A) admit, as this E is relevant to the issue
B) Admit, but only if the D claims they were not negligent, admissible to impeach
C) exclude by 407
D) exclude 403.

Question 40

410

Answer 40

plea negotiations

Question 41

411

Answer 41

liability insurance. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership or control.
Purpose: promotes insuring and prevents fault on improper basis but when highly probative/necessary proof, policy reasons do not apply

Question 42

Ventura v. Kyle
P sues D for defamation- says he knocked P out in a fight

Answer 42

P has several Ws who say no fight, D has others who say there was
D called 2 Ws from publisher to explain this story is not central to success of book
E: P wants to ask 2 W’s about the insurance policy for the publisher.
Held: admission was improper because was not used for a permissible purpose and fails 403 balancing- probative value low and prejudice is high

Question 43

Lacher v. Anderson
Negligence case for injuries from fall at D home
E: person who taped interview was D insurance adjustor

Answer 43

tape of insurance adjustor interview used to impeach at trial- said she had never been to the home before at trial but said that she had been there before on the tape.
Held: tape recording of statement was P only, not adjustor
Adjustor cannot be impeached with his position as D’s agent for insurance. Adjustor not a W= properly excluded

Question 44

Robertson v. Netherton
Medical negligence action, D retains expert

Answer 44

D experts covered by same insurer as D
E: P wants to impeach the D expert on insurance issue for bias
Held: not offered for an improper purpose requiring exclusion under 411. BUT 403; highly prejudicial v. minimal value= exclude

Question 45

410

Answer 45

in a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the D who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions.
(1) a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn;
(2) nolo contendre plea
(3) any statement made in the course of entering a plea
(4) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney which do not result in a plea of guilty
Exceptions: already in, for fairness and perjury

Question 46

D reckless driving charge
P sues D for injuries
D goes to court for charge and states that he will agree to plead guilty if reckless is dropped. DA agrees At plea hearing, judge asks the D is he was speeding and ran a red light- D admits. Judge denied plea

Answer 46

Exclude statement as in the course of negotiations

Question 47

US v. Biaggi

Answer 47

corruption case involving defense contracts. DD was CEO
E: D wants to introduce evidence of rejecting immunity deal
Held: not excluded by the language of 410. 403 balancing: minimial prejudicial because D is offering it and highly probative of innocence

Question 48

Murder case, 2nd degree plea offered, D rejects.
D wants to introduce offer for 2nd degree

Answer 48

not probative enough- offer doesnt prove weakness just a desire to settle.
Plain language doesnt exclude E against prosecutor however, not very probative and is frustrating the purpose of the rule.