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 prove victim’s conduct in CONFIRMITY (e.g. to prove self-defense affirmative defense) 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… (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 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 generally INADMISSABLE (i.e. to prove conduct in conformity) 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 IFF ∆ has “opened the door”, the prosecutor MAY REBUT, by… cross-examining ∆’s character witness re: specific acts or arrests of the ∆ that reflects ADVERSLY on the trait that the ∆ has INTRODUCED; OR 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
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: 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) Any method of introducing propensity C.E. OK: (1) reputation, (2) opinion, (3) 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: Other source of semen or injury OTHER than ∆ Previous acts w/Δ to prove consent defense by ∆ Or if exclusion would violate due process 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 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 beclear 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 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
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 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; EXCEPT… π’s accident history IF the event that actually caused π’s injuries is at issue (NOT as evidence of π being “accident prone”) similar accidents caused by same instrumentality OR condition IF the other accident occured under similar cirucumstances, AND for 3 purposes: existence of a dangerous condition causation of the accident prior notice to the ∆ (i.e. he knew of the condition and didn’t remedy) 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) comparable sales on issue of value (e.g. fair mkt value of a house in a certain neighborhood) 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 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 INADMISSABLE in NY EXCEPTION: in a products liability action, to 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: 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? [(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)
