relevance

Question 1

relevance

Answer 1

basic principles
similar occurrences
policy based exclusions
D’s other crimes for non-character purpose

Question 2

relevance

basic principles

Answer 2

1. Evidence is RELEVANT if it has ANY TENDENCY to make a material fact more or less probable than would be the case w/o the evidence.
2. All relevant evidence is ADMISSIBLE unless some specific exclusionary rule applies or the court makes a discretionary determination that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by pragmatic considerations.

Question 3

relevance

similar occurences

Answer 3

In general, if evidence concerns some TIME, EVENT, OR PERSON other than that involved in the case at hand, the evidence is INADMISSIBLE.
Probative value is usually outweighed by pragmatic considerations.
But consider: accident history, similar accidents, intent in issue, habit, industrial custom and standard of care

Question 4

relevance
similar occurences
accident history

Answer 4

Generally, P’s accident history is INADMISSIBLE b/c it shows nothing more than P being accident prone (character evidence not permitted)
Exception: P’s prior accidents are ADMISSIBLE if the event that caused P’s injury is in issue.

Question 5

relevance
similar occurences
similar accidents

Answer 5

Generally, other accidents involving D are INADMISSIBLE b/c they suggest nothing more than general character for carelessness (character evidence not permitted)
Exception: Other accidents involving the same instrumentality or condition may be admitted for 3 potential purposes IF the other accident occurred UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. to show existence of a dangerous condition
2. to show causation of the accident
3. to show prior notice of D

Question 6

relevance
similar occurences
intent in issue

Answer 6

A person’s prior similar conduct may be admissible to raise an inference of the person’s Intent on a later occasion.

Question 7

relevance
similar occurences
habit

Answer 7

A person’s HABIT (or a biz org’s routine) is admissible as circumstantial evidence of how the person or biz acted on the occasion at issue.

Question 8

relevance
similar occurences
habit - definition

Answer 8

Habit - a repetitive response to a particular set of circumstances with 2 defining characteristics: 1) Frequency of conduct, and 2) Particularity of conduct
(key words: always, never, invariably, automatically, instinctively)

Question 9

relevance
similar occurences
habit v character evidence

Answer 9

Character evidence refers to a person’s GENERAL DISPOSITION OR PROPENSITY and not admissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion.
Habit refers to frequency and particularity of CONDUCT to a particular set of circumstances.

Question 10

relevance
similar occurences
industrial custom or standard of care

Answer 10

Evidence as to how others in the same trade/industry have acted in the recent past may be admitted as some evidence as to how a party should have acted as evidence of the appropriate standard of care.

Question 11

relevance

policy based exclusions

Answer 11

liability insurance
subsequent remedial measures
settlement offers
offer to pay medical expenses

Question 12

relevance
policy based exclusions
liability insurance

Answer 12

Evidence that a person has or does not have liability insurance is INADMISSIBLE for the purpose of proving fault or absence of fault.
EXCEPTION: May be admissible for some other relevant purpose such as proof of ownership, control of instrumentality IF that issue is disputed by D OR impeachment of a witness on the ground of bias.

Question 13

relevance
policy based exclusions
subsequent remedial measures

Answer 13

Subsequent remedial measures that could be construed as a party admission are INADMISSIBLE to show negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, or need for warning.
EXCEPTION: May be admissible for some other relevant purpose such as proof of ownership, control of instrumentality IF that issue is disputed by D.

Question 14

relevance
policy based exclusions
settlements

Answer 14

Evidence of a SETTLEMENT, offer to SETTLE, and statements of fact made during SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS are INADMISSIBLE to show liability or to impeach a witness as a prior inconsistent statement
EXCEPTION: May be admissible to impeach a witness on bias.

Question 15

relevance
policy based exclusions
offer to pay hospital/medical expenses

Answer 15

Evidence that a party has paid or offered to pay an accident victim’s hospital or medical expenses is inadmissible to prove liability.

Question 16

relevance

D’s other crimes for non-character purposes

Answer 16

Other crimes or specific bad acts of D are INADMISSIBLE during prosecution’s case in chief if the only purpose is to suggest that b/c of D’s bad character, he is more likely to have committed the crime.

Question 17

relevance
D’s other crimes for non-character purposes
MIMIC

Answer 17

D’s bad acts or other crimes may be ADMISSIBLE to show something specific about the crime currently charged.
MIMIC - Motive, Intent, Mistake or accident (the absence thereof), Identity, Common scheme or plan

Question 18

relevance
D’s other crimes for non-character purposes
Method of proof for MIMIC-purpose crimes

Answer 18

1. By conviction or
2. By evidence that proves the crime occurred
   Prosecution need only produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could concluded that D committed the other crime

Question 19

relevance
D’s other crimes for non-character purposes
MIMIC limitations

Answer 19

Upon D’s request, prosecution must give pretrial notice of intent to introduce MIMIC evidence.
In all cases, court must also weigh the probative value vs prejudice and give limiting instruction if MIMIC evidence is admitted.