Relevance and Misc

Question 1

California Proposition 8

Answer 1

Prop 8 states that all relevant evidence is admissible in a criminal case.

EXCEPTIONS
* CEC 352 Balancing Test
* Hearsay
* Privilege
* Character evidence (doesn’t apply to evidence of defendant or victim’s character to prove conduct)
* Secondary Evidence Rule (Best Evidence Rule)
* Exclusionary Rule

Question 2

Logical Relevance

Answer 2

FRE: The evidence has a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than without the evidence.

CEC: The evidence has a tendency to make a DISPUTED fact of consequence more or less probable than without the evidence.

Question 3

Legal Relevance

Answer 3

FRE and CEC: The probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the risks of:
* unfair prejudice
* confusion of the issues
* misleading the jury
* undue delay
* waste of time
* needless presentation of cumulative evidence

CEC: Proposition 8 states that any evidence that is relevant may be admitted in a criminal case. However, the balancing test under CEC 352 is an exception to Prop 8.

Logically relevant evidence will be excluded if it is not legally relevant.

Question 4

Burden of Proof for Admissibility of Evidence

Answer 4

Burden of proof for preliminary facts that must be shown to make evidence admissible is on the party offering the evidence.
* Party must show evidence sufficient sustain a finding of the EXISTENCE of the preliminary facts (low bar)

Question 5

Personal Knowledge

Answer 5

A witness must have personal knowledge of what he will testify about.

A hearsay declarant must also have personal knowledge of the facts described in the out-of-court statement.

Question 6

Limited Admissibility

Answer 6

If evidence is admissible for one purpose (ex. impeachment), it isn’t excluded just because jury might consider it for an improper purpose (ex. substantive eidence) as long as court provides a limiting instruction.
* If PV would be substantially outweighed by UP even with limiting instructions, evidence IS excluded.

Question 7

Judicial Notice

Answer 7

Judicial notice occurs when court recognizes a fact as true without evidence presented to support it.
* FRE: Unless party requests it, judge may take judicial notice if (1) fact is matter of general knowledge in community OR (2) fact can be readily determined from sources whose accuracy can’t be reasonably questioned.
* CEC: Judge must take judicial notice if fact is matter of general knowledge universally known

Conclusiveness
* FRE: Jury MUST accept judicially noticed fact as conclusive in civil case, but NOT in criminal case.
* CEC: Jury MUST accept judicially noticed fact as conclusive in both civil and criminal cases.

Question 8

Jury’s Experiment

Answer 8

Judge may allow demonstration/scientific experiment in courtroom, but jury cannot conduct an independent investigation. Jury’s role is to weigh evidence admitted in court and reach conclusion based on only that, not outside evidence.

Question 9

Testimony by Juror

Answer 9

Juror can’t testify in post-verdict proceedings regarding internal matters during jury deliberations; can only testify about whether there was prejudicial information or outside influence.

Question 10

Public Policy Exceptions

Answer 10

Certain evidence that is relevant may be excluded for public policy reasons

Offer to Pay Medical Expenses: public policy is to avoid discouraging humanitarian acts
* FRE: Offers to pay injured party’s medical expenses is inadmissible to prove liability for injury. Accompanying admissions of fact are ARE admissible
* CEC: Offers to pay injured party’s medical expenses AND accompanying admissions of fact are BOTH INADMISSIBLE to prove liability for injury.

Liability Insurance: Evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible to prove negligence.
* Admissible to prove ownership or control or to impeach witness

Subsequent Remedial Measures: Evidence of repairs/safety measures after an accident is inadmissible to prove negligence or design defect.
* Admissible to prove ownership or control, rebut claim of no feasible precaution; prove destruction of evidence
* CEC: Admissible to prove design defect (same otherwise)

Civil Settlements and Negotiations: Evidence of settlements/offers to settle + statements made during discussions are inadmissible to prove validity or amount of DISPUTED claim
* Same for FRE and CEC

Plea Discussions: Evidence of withdrawn pleas, offers to plea, pleas of nolo contendere and statements made during plea discussions are inadmissible
* Same for FRE and CEC