"" Relevance ** Flashcards
What are the 4 steps to determine the admissibility of evidence based on relevancy?
STEP 1: Is the evidence relevant?
[ having any tendency to make a material fact more or less probable than would be the case without the evidence relating to time/event/person in PRESENT litigation;
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
- (vi) unduly cumulative]
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)
Step 5: 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}]
When is evidence relevant?
NOTE: NY Distinction
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 are considerations in determining if “relevant”?
- Materiality
- Probativeness
- Proximity in time to the events in question (witness testimony)
When is evidence “competent?”
When it is not subject to an exclusionary rule.
What is propensity character evidence?
Propensity C.E. = a persons GENERAL propensity or disposition (e.g. honesty, fairness, peacefulness or violence)
Relevancy:
Relevance of Similar Occurences
General rule: Evidence of prior similar acts is inadmissible to prove conduct/event at hand occurred
6 Common Exceptions:
- P’s accident history IF issue = cause of P’s injury
- (not just that P is accident-prone; character evidence)
- Similar accidents caused by same instrumentality/condition IF issue =
- existence of dangerous condition
- causation of accident
- prior notice to D
- (need substantially similar circumstances)
- Intent at issue
- ex: prior instances of women being fired –> intent to discriminate based on gender
- Comparable sales values IF issue = property value
- Habit
- MBE habit =
- particularity conduct
- & frequency of conduct
- NY Habit =
- particularity conduct
- frequency of conduct
- *circumstances must be _w/in person’s contro_l
- MBE habit =
- Industrial Custom IF issue = standard of care
- how other co’s behave is relevant as to standard of care
Character evidence:
When admissible AGAINST D in a CRIMINAL case?
NOTE: NY Distinction
Propensity C.E. in CRIMINAL cases is generally INADMISSABLE (i.e. to prove conduct in conformity) against the D
EXCEPTION: the criminal D MAY introduce evidence of relevant character trait, which “opens the door”
- relevant trait: violent, honesty, maybe “law abiding”
Means of proving character:
- MBE: (i) reputation; OR (ii) opinion testimony
- NY: (i) reputation ONLY
- (NOT specific acts)
–> Prosecutor MAY REBUT, by…
- MBE:
-
cross-examining D’s character witness re: specific acts or arrests of the D that reflects ADVERSLY on the trait that the D has INTRODUCED;
- **Standard = good faith belief that actarrest occurred
- (judge can exclude if danger that probative val. will be substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice)
- calling ITS own reputation/opinion witness to CONTRADICT D’s witness
-
cross-examining D’s character witness re: specific acts or arrests of the D that reflects ADVERSLY on the trait that the D has INTRODUCED;
- NY:
- Same 1 + 2 (reputation only);
- D has been convicted of a crime that reflects on RELEVANT trait
- (can show certified copy of conviction into evidence)
- D has been convicted of a crime that reflects on RELEVANT trait
Character Evidence:
Against VICTIM (D’s affirmative defense) in a CRIMINAL case?
NOTE: NY Distinction
Criminal ∆ MAY introduce evidence of VICTIM’S violent character IF: criminal case & asserting self-defense –> prove was first aggressor
–> Prosecution rebuttal (after “doors open”): prosecutor may introduce…
- MBE:
- (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:
- *Victim’s character NOT admissible to show self-defense**
NOTE: exclusion n/a IF showing D’s belief/knowledge at time
- ∆ 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 in a CIVIL case? NOTE: NY Distinction
Propensity C.E. in CIVIL cases is generally INADMISSABLE (i.e. to prove conduct in conformity)
- (**Civil D not get an opp’y to prove good character)
EXCEPTION: Very Narrow → where character is an essential element of claim OR defense:
- 1) a 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)
Method of introducing propensity C.E. OK:
- (1) reputation,
- (2) opinion,
- (3) specific acts
- NY DISTINCTION: NO opinion evidence (only repuation or specific acts)
Victim’s Sexual Conduct/Propensity:
NOTE: NY Distinction
Applies in: civil/criminal (but diff std for exception)
General Rule: Opinion/reputation/acts evidence about VICTIM’S sexual propensity are INADMISSABLE in a sexual misconduct case
Federal exceptions:
-
a) Criminal: specific acts ARE admissable to prove:
- Other source of semen or injury OTHER than D
- Previous acts w/D to prove consent defense by D
- Or if exclusion would violate due process
- (Love triangle- must be able to prove motive to lie)
-
b) Civil
- Always IF prob. value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to vic AND unfair prejudice ot 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 OTHERWISE relevant evidence INADMISSABLE? NOTE: NY Distinction
General rule: all relevant evidence is ADMISSABLE, UNLESS… (i) there is a specific exclusionary rule (policy-based); OR evidence that a person has (or DOES not have) liablity insurance for the PURPOSE of showing fault (or absence of); BUT CAN be admissible for some OTHER relevant purpose (e.g. showing ownership; impeachment) 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; fesibility of safer design IF ∆ disputes) NY DISTINCTION: in a STRICT LIABLITY products liability action, a mnfrs post-accident design change ARE admissable to sugest the existentence of a defect in the product at time of accident evidence of settlements of disputed CIVIL claims (evidence of settlement; offer to stettle; OR stmts of fact made during settlement negotiations) for the PURPOSE of showing liability OR to impeach a witness as a prior inconsistent stmt EXCEPTIONS: settlement evidence IS admissable for the PURPOSE of impeaching witness on grounds of BIAS stmts of fact made during settlement discussions in CIVIL CASE w/ a GOV’T AGENCY ARE admissable 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 (ii) the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by outweighed by pragmatic considerations (as determined by the ct) Danger of unfair prejudice Confusion of the issues (e.g. by introducing a collateral matter) Misleading the jury Undue delay Waste of time Unduely cumulative
What are the methods of proof for AND requirements to introduce non-character (MIMIC) evidence? NOTE: NY Distinction
2 methods of proof for MIMIC evidence: 1) if there was a 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: in showing IDENTITY of ∆, evidence must be clear and convicing 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 MIMIC: Motive Intent Mistake (the LACK OF) Identity (∆’s M.O.) Common Scheme/Plan NOTE: The std is the SAME for criminal and civil trials The trial ct could STILL exclude evidence if the probative value is less than the danger of unfair prejudice
What is the ONLY instance where a prior act CAN be introduced to establish propensity?
NOTE: NY Distinction
If case alleges sexual assault OR child molestation
- (as propensity evidence)
- (can be civil OR criminal)
- Form: prior acts only (not rep/opinion)
NY: NOT admisisble UNLESS MIMIC
- ∆’s prior sex crimes INADMISSABLE unless MIMIC rule is satisfied (e.g. to ID perp; to show motive against a certain victim)
