Relevance Flashcards
When is propensity character evidence admissible AGAINST VICTIM (∆’s affirmative defense) in a CRIMINAL case?
NOTE: NY Distinction
To prove victim’s conduct in CONFORMITY (e.g. to prove self-defense affirmative defense)
Method = Testify to VICTIM’S bad (i) reputation for violence; AND/OR (ii) may give opinion
Prosecution rebuttal (after “doors open”): prosecutor may introduce…
(1) evidence of VICTIM’S good character for peacefulness (reputation OR opinion); OR
(2) evidence of the ∆’s BAD character for violence (reputation OR opinion)
NY DISTINCTION: Evidence of VICTIM’S character for violence is NOT ADMISSIBLE to prove that the victim struck first
NOTE: 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
Generally INADMISSIBLE (i.e. to prove conduct in conformity) against the ∆
EXCEPTION: ∆ 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
IFF ∆ has “opened the door”, the prosecutor MAY REBUT, by…
(i) cross-examining ∆’s character witness re: specific acts or arrests of the ∆ that reflects ADVERSELY 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
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
Generally INADMISSIBLE (i.e. to prove conduct in conformity)
EXCEPTION: Very Narrow → where character is an essential element of claim OR defense:
1) Tort action alleging negligent hiring (i.e. ∆ should have known he was hiring a careless person)
2) Defamation (i.e. evidence of π’s reputation and its diminished state)
3) A child custody dispute (i.e. must prove fitness of a particular person)
Any method of introducing propensity C.E. OK: (1) reputation, (2) opinion, (3) specific acts
NY DISTINCTION: NO opinion evidence (only reptuation or specific acts)
What is propensity character evidence?
Person’s 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 INADMISSIBLE in a sexual misconduct case
EXCEPTIONS:
(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
NY DISTINCTION: 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 INADMISSIBLE?
NOTE: NY Distinction
General rule: all relevant evidence is ADMISSIBLE, UNLESS…
(1) Specific exclusionary rule (policy-based); OR
(a) Evidence that a person has (or DOES not have) liability insurance for the PURPOSE of showing fault (or absence of);
NOTE: Don’t confuse with OTHER TYPES of insurance
BUT CAN be admissible for some OTHER relevant purpose (e.g. showing ownership; impeachment)
(b) Evidence of subsequent remedial measures (e.g. post-accident repair, design changes, etc) for the PURPOSE of showing negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, or need for warning;
BUT CAN be admissible for some OTHER relevant purpose (e.g. showing ownership; feasibility of safer design IF ∆ disputes)
NY DISTINCTION: in a STRICT LIABILITY products liability action, a mnfrs post-accident design change ARE admissible
(a) to suggest the existence of a defect in the product at time of accident
(b) evidence of settlements of disputed CIVIL claims(evidence of settlement; offer to settle; OR stmts of fact made during settlement negotiations)
(c) for the PURPOSE of showing liability OR to impeach a witness as a prior inconsistent stmt
EXCEPTIONS: Settlement evidence IS admissible for the PURPOSE of (a) impeaching witness on grounds of BIAS
Stmts of fact made during settlement discussions in CIVIL CASE w/ a GOV’T AGENCY ARE admissible in a later CRIMINAL CASE (NY DISTINCTION: this exception DOES NOT exist in NY)
Evidence of plea bargaining in CRIMINAL cases
An offer to plead guilty (can’t be used in criminal or subsequent civil case)
Withdrawn guilty plea (can’t be used in criminal or subsequent civil case) [NY DISTINCTION: a withdrawn guilty plea IS admissable in a SUBSEQUENT civil case]
BUT a plea of GUILTY (not withdrawn) is ADMISSABLE against ∆ in subsequent litigation under the rule of party admission (both MBE and NY)
Offer to pay hospital or medical expenses to prove liability
NOTE: this exclusion does NOT exclude OTHER stmts made in connection w/ an offer to pay hospital/medical expenses
(2) Probative value of the evidence is outweighed by outweighed by pragmatic considerations (as determined by the ct)
(a) Danger of unfair prejudice
(b) Confusion of the issues (e.g. by introducing a collateral matter)
(c) Misleading the jury
(d) Undue delay
(e) Waste of time
(f) Unduely cumulative
What are the methods of proof for AND requirements to introduce non-character (MIMIC)evidence?
NOTE: NY Distinction
1) Conviction; OR
2) 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: 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 ADMISSIBLE as non-character evidence against ∆?
During prosecution’s case in chief IF
(i)purpose is to attack ∆’s character (and establish likeliness of guilt)…
BUT…evidence re:other crimes/misconduct IS ADMISSIBLE as NON-CHARACTER evidence to show:
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?
NOTE: NY Distinction
IF it has ANY TENDENCY to make a material fact MORE/LESS probable than would be the case w/o the evidence
Similar occurrences rule: Generally, evidence concerning SOME TIME, EVENT OR PERSON OTHER than that involved in the case at hand is INADMISSIBLE as not relevant;
EXCEPT…
(i) π’s accident history IF the event that actually caused π’s injuries is at issue (NOT as evidence of π being “accident prone”)
(ii) similar accidents caused by same instrumentality OR condition IF the other accident occurred under similar circumstances, AND for 3 purposes:
(a) existence of a dangerous condition
(b) causation of the accident
(c) prior notice to the ∆ (i.e. he knew of the condition and didn’t remedy)
(iii) prior similar conduct of a personIF it infers intent and “intent” is AT ISSUE (e.g. show practices of emplyr to show intent to discriminate)
(iv) comparable sales on issue of value (e.g. fair mkt value of a house in a certain neighborhood)
(v) habit evidence of a person (or routine of a business org) as circumstantial evidence of how the person acted on the PARTICULAR occasion at issue in the litigation
DISTINGUISH: character evidence, which prefers to a person’s GENERAL DISPOSITION/PROPENSITY, which is NOT admissible
Habit = Repetitive response to a PARTICULAR set of circumstances (frequency & particularity of conduct)
NY DISTINCTION: Personal, non-business habit evidence is INADMISSIBLE in NY
EXCEPTION: Products liability action = show how π used a product under her exclusive control (e.g. π always dips hairdryer in water before using)
Key words = “always”; “never”; “invariably”; “automatically”; “instinctively”
Evidence that establishes industrial custom as a STD of CARE
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: NOT allowed; ∆’s prior sex crimes INADMISSIBLE 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 occurrences
(i) π’s accident history NOT as propensity evidence;
(ii) similar accidents caused by same instrumentality/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? [(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 excluded under other rules (e.g. hearsay, best evidence, etc)
