Relevance Flashcards
When is evidence relevant?
Evidence is relevant if:
i) It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence (i.e., probative); and
ii) The fact is of consequence in determining the action (i.e., material).
Direct evidence
Direct evidence is identical to the factual proposition that it is offered to prove.
Conviction without direct evidence
There is no rule that requires the presentation of direct evidence in order to convict a defendant. In other words, a defendant can be convicted solely upon circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence that tends to indirectly prove a factual proposition through inference from collateral facts is circumstantial.
403 Exclusion
Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Relevance deponent on the existence of a fact
When the relevance of evidence depends upon whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof is introduced later.
In making its determination that sufficient evidence has been introduced, the court must examine all of the evidence and decide whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence; the court itself is not required to find that the conditional fact exists by a preponderance of the evidence.
Curative admission
When a court erroneously admits evidence, the court may permit the introduction of additional inadmissible evidence to rebut the previously admitted evidence. Such evidence can admitted at the court’s discretion when necessary to remove unfair prejudice. The failure of a party to object to the admission of the initial evidence is one factor to be considered in determining whether the party was unfairly prejudiced by it.
Character Evidence in Civil cases: Inadmissible to prove conforming conduct
In a civil case, evidence of a person’s character (or character trait) generally is inadmissible to prove that the person acted in accordance with that character (or character trait) on a particular occasion.
Exceptions to Character Evidence in Civil cases
Character evidence is admissible, however, when character is an essential element of a claim or defense, rather than a means of proving a person’s conduct. Character is most commonly an essential element in defamation (character of the plaintiff), negligent hiring or negligent entrustment (character of the person hired or entrusted), and child-custody cases (character of the parent or guardian).
The defendants character- Offered by the State
The prosecution is not permitted to introduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question.
The defendants character- Offered by the defendant
A defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of his good character as being inconsistent with the type of crime charged. The defendant’s character evidence must be pertinent to the crime charged.
How the defendant opens the door
If the defendant makes his character an issue in the case by offering evidence of his good character the defendant “opens the door” and the prosecution is free to rebut the defendant’s claims by attacking the defendant’s character.
Defendant as witness
As a witness, the defendant is subject to impeachment.
The Victims character- Offered by the defendant
The defendant “opens the door” for the prosecution to introduce evidence of his bad character by introducing evidence of the victim’s bad character. The prosecution’s evidence regarding the defendant must relate to the same character trait (e.g., violence) that the defendant’s evidence about the victim did.
The Victims character- Offered by the state
The prosecution may offer rebuttal evidence of the alleged victim’s good character only after the defendant has introduced evidence of the alleged victim’s bad character.
