RELEVANCE Flashcards
Relevance - Generally
Irrelevant evdience is inadmissible. Relevant evidence MIGHT be admissilbe
Relevance - Defined
Evidence is irrelevant if it has ANY TENDENCY to make the existence of any fact tha tis of consequence to the determination of the action MORE OR LESS PROBABLE that i twould be without the evdience
Examples:
“Of consequence” - Action for breach of K. Defendant testifies that, when he said “I accept your offer” he secretly was joking and had no subjective intent to enter into a K. Relevant? NO
“More or Less Probable” - Murder prosecution. Witness testifies he saw D holding a gun shortly before the fatal shooting. Relevant? YES
NOTE: Distinguish relevance from probative value
Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence
(Probative v. Prejudicial)
Even if evidence is relevant, court has discretion to exclude if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, or confusion, or waste of time. Look for emotionally disturbing evidence or evidence admissible for one purpose but inadmissilbe for another purpose.
Exclusion of relevant evidence for policy reasons.
- Liability Insurance
- Subsequent Remedial Measures or Repairs
- Settlements, offer to settle and pleas
- Payment or offers to pay medical expenses
Evidence of Relevant Evidence for policy reasons
1.Liability Insurance
Evidence of liablity insurance is inadmissible to prove culpable conduct like negligence or defendant’s ability to pay a judgment.
-Evidence of insurance is admissible to prove anything else
Ex:
a. Action for PI suffere in auto collision. To prove negligence and ability to pay judgment, P offered D’s liability insurance policy, which shows defendant has $500k of coverage. Admissible? NO
b. Evidence of insurance us admissible to prove anything else. Same Case. Defense witness testifies P was speeding. P offers evdience that witness is president of D’s ins. company. Admissible? YES
c. Same case. P claims D’s employer is vicariously liable for D’s negligent driving. Employer claims driving was not w/in scop of D’s employment, IN rebuttal, P offers evidence that employer paid for D’s auto liability insurance. Admissilbe? YES
Exclusion of relevant evdience for policy reasons
- Subsequent remedial measures or repairs
Evidence of safey measures or repairs after an accident is inadmissilbe to prove culpable conduct and, in a products liability action, is inadmissible to prove defective product design.
- Remedial measures evidence is admissible to prove anything else
- Admissible to rebut defense of no feasible precaution
Exclusion of relevant evidence for policy reasons
- Settlements, offers to settle and pleas
Civil Case: Evidence of settlements, offers to settle, and related statements are inadmissilbe to prove liability or fault.
Criminal Case: Pleas later withdrawn, offers to plea and related statements are inadmissible to prove guilt.
- Exception to settlement rule where no claim filed or threatened
- Exception to settlement rule where no dispute as to liability or damages
Exclusion of relevant evidence for policy reasons
- Payment of offers to pay medical expenses
Evidence of payments or offers to pay medical expenses is inadmissilbe when offered to prove liability for the injuries in quesiton. But related statements are still admissible.
-Distinguish between rule regarding settlement offers and rule regarding payment of medical expenses.
Similar Occurrences
Q: When is evidence about other people or events relevant?
Usually evidence is irrelevant if it is not about the specific people and events in issue.
Answer: When there are certain similarities between that evidence and the people and events at issue
How it appears on BAR:
- Similar occurences sometimes admissible to prove causation
- Prior accidents or cliams of P usually irrelevant
- Previous similar acts relevant to prove intent
- Evidence relevant to rebut a defense of impossibility
- Comparable sales relevant to establish value
- Habit evidence admissible
- Routine practice evidence
- Industrial custom evidence relevant to prove standard of care in negligence.
Similar Occurences
- Similar occurrences sometimes admissible to prove causation
P had roadkill mcnuggests at McDonalds. He got sick and was rushed to the hospital. He sues McD’s. To prove that the food caused his illness, P testifies that hte food poisoning patient in the next bed at the hospital was Ronal McDonald, who P saw eating McNuggets in the same restaurant at the same time. Relevant? YES
Similar Occurences
- Prior Accidents or claims of P usually irrelevant
+
Exceptions (2)
- Exception for pattern of fraudulent claims
- Exception for preexisting conditions
Similar Occurrences
- Habit Evidence admissible
Habit of a person to act in a certain way is relevant and admissilbe to show the person acted in accordance w/ the habit on occasion in question.
a. Distinguish habit from character (which is often inadmissible). Character evidence says something general about a person and conveys a moral judgment
b. Compare: Habit describes specific conduct and makes no moral judgment.
- Routine Practice Evidence
Routine business practice is relevant to show that conduct of entity was in conformity with that practice on the occasion in question.
