Relevance Flashcards
When is propensity character evidence admissible AGAINST VICTIM (∆’s affirmative defense) in a CRIMINAL case? NOTE: NY Distinction
Criminal ∆ MAY introduce evidence of VICTIM’S violent character to as circumstantial evidence that the victim was the first aggressor
Proper method = character witness may testify to VICTIM’S bad (i) reputation for violence; AND/OR (ii) may give opinion
Prosecution rebuttal (after “doors open”): prosecutor may introduce (i) evidence of VICTIM’S good character for peacefulness (reputation OR opinion); OR (ii) evidence of the ∆’s BAD character for violence (reputation OR opinion)
NY DISTINCTION: evidence of VICTIM’S character for violence is NOT ADMISSABLE to prove that the victim struck first
NOTE: there is a SPECIAL RULE for ∆’s KNOWLEDGE of victim’s bad character for violence. ∆ MAY offer evidence of HIS OWN awareness of the victim’s bad character for violence (reputation or opinion) for the PURPOSE of showing the ∆’s state of mind (i.e. he was fearful). THIS IS ALLOWED UNDER MBE OR NY
When is propensity character evidence admissible AGAINST ∆ in a CRIMINAL case? NOTE: NY Distinction
Propensity C.E. in CRIMINAL cases is INADMISSABLE in prosecution’s case-in-chief against the ∆
EXCEPTION: the ∆ MAY introduce character evidence during DEFENSE, which “opens the door”
Can be done by (i) reputation; OR (ii) opinion testimony (NOT specific acts) NY DISTINCTION: ∆ can ONLY use reputation evidence, NOT opinion
IF ∆ has “opened the door”, the prosecutor MAY REBUT, by (i) cross-examining ∆’s character witness re: specific acts or arrests of the ∆ that reflects ADVERSLY on the trait that the ∆ has INTRODUCED; OR(ii) by calling ITS OWN reputation/opinion witness to CONTRADICT ∆’s witness [NY DISTINCTION: it would only be a reputation rebuttal]; OR (iii) NY DISTINCTION: prosecutor may rebut the ∆’s good character evidence by proving that the ∆ has been convicted of a crime that reflects on RELEVANT trait
When is propensity character evidence admissible in a CIVIL case? NOTE: NY Distinction
Propensity C.E. in CIVIL cases is generally INADMISSABLE (i.e. to prove conduct in conformity)
EXCEPTION: Very Narrow → where character is an essential element of claim OR defense: (i) a tort action alleging negligent hiring (i.e. ∆ should have known he was hiring a careless person); (ii) Defamation (i.e. evidence of π’s reputation and its diminished state); (iii) A child custody dispute (i.e. must prove fitness of a particular person)
Any method of introducing propensity C.E. OK: (i) reputation, (ii) opinion, (iii) specific acts NY DISTINCTION: NO opinion evidence (only repuation or specific acts)
What is propensity character evidence?
Propensity C.E. = a persons GENERAL propensity or disposition (e.g. honesty, fairness, peacefulness or violence)
What is the purpose of the rape shield law? NOTE: NY Distinction
Opinion OR reputation OR acts evidence about VICTIM’S sexual propensity is INADMISSABLE in a sexual misconduct case
EXCEPTIONS: specific acts ARE admissable to prove: (i) Other source of semen or injury OTHER than ∆; (ii) Previous acts w/Δ to prove consent defense by ∆, or; (iii) if exclusion would violate due process (e.g. love triangle defense to show motive)
Civil Cases: kurt may admit evidence of specific sexual behavior or propensity if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to the victim and unfair prejudice to any party.
NY DISTINCTION: evidence IS admissible when it tends to show that the victim was convicted of prostitution w/in 3 yrs PRIOR to the time of the alleged rape
When is OTHERWISErelevant evidence INADMISSABLE? NOTE: NY Distinction
General rule: all relevant evidence is ADMISSABLE, UNLESS… (i) there is a specific exclusionary rule (policy-based) or (ii) the court makes a discretionary determination that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by one of 6 pragmatic considerations: (1) danger of unfair prejudice, (2) confusion of the issues, (3) misleading the jury, (4) undue delay, (5) waste of time, (6) unduly cumulative (see specific examples)
hat are the methods of proof for AND requirements to introduce non-character (MIMIC)evidence? NOTE: NY Distinction
Method of Proof:
2 methods of proof for MIMIC evidence (i) if there was a conviction; OR (ii) other evidence (witnesses, etc) sufficient for reasonable juror to conclude that Δ committed other act (i.e. the Conditional Relevancy Std→Preponderance of Evidence)
NY DISTINCTION: in showing IDENTITY of ∆, evidence must beclear and convincing
3 Requirements:
1) Pretrial notice to Δ if requested
2) The ct must weigh probative value against prejudice
3) The ct must give limiting instruction
When are acts or previous crimes ADMISSABLE as non-character evidence against ∆?
General rule: other crimes/specific bad acts of ∆ are INADMISSABLE during prosecution’s case in chief IF the only purpose is to attack ∆’s character (and establish likeliness of guilt)… BUT…evidence re:other crimes/misconduct IS ADMISSABLE as NON-CHARACTER evidence to show something specific about crime currently charged
MIMIC: Motive Intent Mistake (the LACK OF) Identity (∆'s M.O.) Common Scheme/Plan
NOTE: The std is the SAMEfor criminal and civil trials. The trial ct could STILL exclude evidence if the probative value is less than the danger of unfair prejudice.
When is evidence relevant?
Evidence is relevant IF it has ANY TENDENCY to make a material fact MORE/LESS probable than would be the case w/o the evidence
What is the ONLY instance where a prior act CAN be introduced to establish propensity? NOTE: NY Distinction
In a case alleging sexual assault OR child molestation, Δ’s prior specific sexual misconduct is ADMISSIBLE by anyone atany time and as propensity evidence
NOTE: this rule allows for PRIOR ACTS ONLY, NOT reputation or opinion
NY DISTINCTION: this is NOT allowed; ∆’s prior sex crimes INADMISSABLE unless MIMIC rule is satisfied (e.g. to ID perp; to show motive against a certain victim)
What are the 4 steps to determine the admissibility of evidence based on relevancy?
STEP 1: Is the evidence relevant? [tends to prove/disprove a material fact by relating to time/event/person in PRESENT litigation; OR there is an exception for SIMILAR occurances {(i) π’s accident history NOT as propensity evidence; (ii) similar accidents caused by same intrumentality/condition; (iii) comparable sales; (iv) habit evidence NOT as general propensity evidence}]
YES: STEP 2
NO: INADMISSIBLE
STEP 2: Can the evidence be excluded based judicial discretion? [probative value substantially outweighed by (i) danger of unfair prejudice; (ii) confusion of the issues; (iii) misleading the jury; (iv) undue delay; (v) waste of time] YES: INADMISSIBLE
NO: STEP 3
STEP 3: Can the evidence be excluded based on policy-based exclusion? [(i) liability insurance to est guilt; (ii) subsequent remedial measures to est guilt; (iii) settlement offers/plea offers; (iv) offers to pay medical expenses] YES: INADMISSIBLE
NO: STEP 4
STEP 4: Is the evidence INVALID propensity character evidence? [(i) civil: character evidence when character NOT at issue; (ii) criminal: character evidence when ∆ didn’t “open door”; (iii) non-MIMIC specific conduct evidence in civil/criminal]
YES: INADMISSIBLE
NO: ADMISSIBLE, provided it’s not exlcluded under other rules (e.g. hearsay, best evidence, etc)
What is the similar occurrences rule?
Similar occurances rule: generally, evidence concerning SOME TIME, EVENT OR PERSON OTHER than that involved in the case at hand is INADMISSABLE as not relevant bc probative value is outweighed by pragmatic considerations.
What are the 6 concrete rules that may permit admissibility?
1) π’s Accident History: IF the event that actually caused π’s injuries is at issue (NOT as evidence of π being “accident prone”)
2) Similar Accidents Caused by Same Instrumentality or Condition: IF the other accident occured under similar cirucumstances, AND for 3 purposes: (i) existence of a dangerous condition, (ii) causation of the accident and (iii) prior notice to the ∆ (i.e. he knew of the condition and didn’t remedy)
3) Prior Similar Conduct of a Person:IF it infers intent and “intent” is AT ISSUE (e.g. show practices of emplyr to show intent to discriminate)
4) Comparable Sales on Issue of Value: IF similar type, general location and close in time (e.g. fair mkt value of a house in a certain neighborhood)
5) Habit Evidence: habit of a person (or routine of a business org) admissible as circumstantial evidence of how the person acted on the occasion at issue in the litigtaion (DISNTINGUISH: character evidence, which prefers to a person’s GENERAL DISPOSITION/PROPENSITY, which is NOT admissable)
Habit = a repetitive response to a PARTICULAR set of circumstances (frequency & particularity of conduct)
NY DISTINCTION: personal, non-business habit evidence is only admissible if person is in complete control of the circumstances
Key words = “always”; “never”; “invariably”; “automatically”; “instinctively”
6) Industrial Custom as Standard of Care: can use evidence of how others act in same trade or injury as some evidence as to how a party should have acted (not dispositive)
What are the policy-based exclusions to relevance? NOTE: NY Distinction
1) Liability Insurance: inadmissible for the purpose of fault; CAN be admissible for (i) proof of ownership/control of instrumentality or location if in dispute, (ii) for the purpose impeaching of a witness (i.e. bias)
2) Subsequent Remedial Measures: inadmissible for the purpose of proving negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, or need for warning; CAN be admissible for some other relevant purpose, such as proof of ownership/control or feasibility of safer condition, if either is disputed
NY DISTINCTION: in products liability action against a manufacturer on strict liability for a manufacturing defect, manufacturer’s post-accident manufacturing or design are admissible
3) Settlement of Disputed Civil Claims: a settlement, offer to settle and statement of fact made during settlement talks are all inadmissible for the purpose of liability or to impeach a witness as prior inconsistent statement
Note: CLAIM must have been asserted and validity or amount must be DISPUTED
Exception: (1) settlement evidence admissible for impeachment by bias, (2) statements of fact during settlement w govt regulatory agency are admissible in later criminal case
NY DISTINCTION: no govt agency exception
4) Plea Bargaining in Crim Cases: following are inadmissible: (i) offer to plead guilty, (ii) withdrawn guilty plea (NY DISTINCTION: admissible in subsequent civil case against he ∆), (iii) nolo contender, (iv) statements of fact made in above plea discussions
5) Offer to Pay Hospital or Medical Expenses: inadmissible to prove liability BUT does not exclude other statements made in connection w/ the offer to pay
