Relevance Flashcards
In a criminal case, mention the…
“Truth in Evidence” amendment to California
Constitution (Proposition 8).
“Truth in Evidence” amendment to California
Constitution (Proposition 8).
This makes all relevant evidence admissible in a criminal
case, even if it is objectionable under the CEC. The constitution overrules the CEC.
Important Exceptions to Prop. 8 (i.e., these objections are not overruled by Prop. 8):
- exclusionary rules under US Constitution such as the Confrontation Clause,
- hearsay law,
- privilege law,
- limits on character evidence to prove the defendant’s conduct,
- limits on character evidence to prove the victim’s conduct,
- the secondary evidence rule (California’s version of the Best Evidence Rule) , and
- CEC 352 (court’s power to exclude if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value).
Three step approach to applying California law on essay:
- raise all objections under CEC,
- for each objection, mention if Prop. 8 overrules the objection (Is the evidence relevant? Do one of the exceptions to Prop. 8 apply?),
- if evidence seems admissible under Prop. 8, balance under CEC 352. (balancing unfair prejudice verse probative value)
Relevance defined. Federal and California:
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
California only:
- the fact of consequence also must be in dispute.
Exclusion of relevant evidence for policy reasons.
- Subsequent remedial measures or repairs
- Settlements, offers to settle and related statements
- Payment or offers to pay medical expenses
- Expressions of sympathy
- Pleas later withdrawn, offers to plea, and related statements
Subsequent remedial measures or repairs. Federal and California:
Evidence of safety measures or repairs after an accident is inadmissible to prove negligence.
Federal only:
- such evidence is also inadmissible to prove defective design in a products liability action based on theory of strict liability.
Products liability action against toy manufacturer. Plaintiff alleges toy’s sharp corners caused injury. To prove defective design, plaintiff offers evidence that defendant redesigned toy to remove sharp corners. Admissible?
Federal Law No, California Yes
Settlements, offers to settle and related statements. Federal and California:
Evidence of settlements, offers to settle, and related statements are inadmissible to prove liability or fault.
California only:
- discussions during mediation proceedings also inadmissible.
Payment or offers to pay medical expenses. Federal and California:
Evidence of payments or offers to pay medical expenses is inadmissible when offered to prove liability for the injuries in question.
California also makes inadmissible admission of fact made in the course of making such payments or offers.
Federal law only excludes such statements if part of a settlement offer.
Plaintiff falls down stairs in defendant’s building. Defendant visits plaintiff in the hospital and says “I’ll pay your hospital bill. I shouldn’t have dropped that banana
peel on the stairs.” Admissible?
Federal, the offer to pay hospital bill inadmissible - but the banana peed admission is admissible.
CA excludes all of it.
Expressions of sympathy
California makes inadmissible in civil actions expressions
of sympathy relating to suffering or death of an accident victim. But statements of fault made in connection with such an expression are not excluded. No comparable
Federal rule.
Pleas later withdrawn, offers to plea, and related statements.
Inadmissible under both Federal Rules and CEC. But does Prop. 8 make this admissible in California?
The law is unclear. On an essay, raise the issue and mention that, even if Prop. 8 applies to such evidence, the court still may exclude for unfair prejudice.
