Relevance Cases Flashcards
Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc. (401)
A small fire broke out in Supreme Pork’s pressure washer room. Pork contracted Master Blaster to restore the damage. MB contracted PP&H. PP&H had caused another fire in 1999. Supreme Pork’s room caught fire again and sued MB for negligently hiring PP&H. Pork introduced evidence that PP&H had caused the other fire in 1999 in another building.
Rules:
(a) For evidence to be admitted during trial, it first mist be found to be relevant.
(b) For evidence to be relevant, it need not conclusively prove the ultimate fact in issue, but only have a 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.
(c) Motion in Limine is a request made to the trial judge prior to trial for a ruling on the admissibility of evidence
Kaechele v. Kenyon Oil Company, Inc. (401/403)
P gets beat up in the parking lot by another customer. P sues D and introduces evidence that the cops have been called to the store before because of violent customers. The court allowed the evidence b/c it was relevant to the legal theory that the store should have been aware of the possibility of harm to P.
Rules:
(a) For evidence to be relevant, party must relate the evidence to the legal doctrine that support a claim or defense.
(b) Prejudice and Unfair Prejudice – All evidence ought to be prejudice that is partial to one side. Unfair prejudice refers to the effect evidence might have in addition to some legitimate effect. For example, if a jury’s reaction to it is likely to include two sets of ideas: a legal conclusion and some derogatory additionally fact that does not have a legitimate relationship to the legal dispute
a) United States v. Dillion – Flight (401)
Defendant was selling drugs. His friend later sold to an FBI informant. the friend was subpoenaed to testify before a Grand Jury. The friend told the defendant of his plans to testify before the Grand Jury and he planned on telling the truth. The D would be arrested in Florida by an FBI agent who said the appellant was living there under an assumed name.
(1) Flight Factors – Four Inferences
(a) From behavior to flight
(b) From flight to sense of guilt
(c) From sense of guilt to sense of guilt about this crime (crime charged)
(d) From sense of guilt to actual guilt
Rule: When evidence of flight has genuine probative value it is usually admissible evidence of guilt
Aloi v. Union Pacific Railroad Corp. – Destruction of Evidence
Train company destroys evidence. At trial the court allows for jury instructions that say the jury can infer that the evidence would have been against them.
Rule: Remedial purpose – restore the harmed party to where they were. Punitive purpose – to punish and deter parties from destroying evidence.
Huddleston v. State (104; conditional relevance)
The D was selling stolen cassette tapes. In the past, he had sold stolen TV’s and had been convicted of selling stolen property. Now, the D claims he did not know that the cassette tapes were stolen. D received the cassette tapes and the TV’s from the same person. The P sought to introduce evidence of D’s past conviction of the TV’s because he knew they were stolen; thus he should have known (or did know) that the cassette tapes were stolen.
(1) Rule: To establish the intermediate evidence, it only needs to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence, both in civil and criminal litigation.
(2) Rule: The judge examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact – here that the TVs were stolen – by a preponderance of the evidence
(3) Rule: The judge asks whether there is enough evidence that a reasonable jury could find the intermediate evidence to be true
(4) If there was not ultimately enough evidence to instruct the jury to ignore the evidence.
Cox v. State (104(b))
D shot and killed a man sleeping in his home. The D’s friend had been convicted of molesting the victim’s daughter. At trial, evidence was introduced that D knew that his friends bond was revoked and therefore, he killed the victim. The question was whether he knew about the bond hearing.
Evidence whose relevance depends on the fulfillment of a condition of fact is admissible if the judge finds that a reasonable jury could make the requisite factual determination based on the evidence before it.
(1) Rule: Under 104(b) A judge may admit evidence only after it makes a preliminary determination that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the conditional fact exists.
(2) Rule: The judge must determine only that a reasonable jury could make the requisite factual determination based on the evidence before it.
Old Chief v. United States (401, 403, 104)
Gov. wants to introduce that Old Chief was convicted of a previous crime giving him a felony. He wanted to stipulate that. Gov. said no. Court allowed the Gov. evidence under 401 but excluded it under 403. The evidence was relevant under 401, but inadmissible under 403 due to unfair prejudice.
(1) Rule: For evidence to be relevant it only, by itself in isolation, needs to have SOME probative value. Do not compare the evidence to the stipulation.
(2) Rule: You only compare the evidence and its values under 403
b. Cyr v. J.I. Case Co. (407)
Bulldozer backed up over employee. He sues the manufacturer. Seeks to admit evidence of the employer’s subsequent remedial evidence of placing back up noises on the bulldozer. Court said permissible under 407, but not under 403.
- Rule: Subsequent remedial measures made by parties that are not in the suit are admissible
- Rule: Even if the subsequent remedial measures are admissible under Rule 407, make sure the evidence is admissible under 403.
- Policy Rationale: Companies will be more likely to make repairs if they won’t be punished for it in litigation. We want companies to make products safer. Don’t discourage remedial measures; Don’t punish good behavior.
Bethel v. Peters (407)
Old lady fell in the showers at the nursing home. She sought to introduce the after-accident report. The court allowed a portion of it to be allowed which said, “recommended to add shower handles.” It didn’t say the nursing home did in fact add the handles, even though they did. Peters is suing the city.
- Rule: Remedial measures are measures that are actually taken – a concrete action. An investigation or recommendation is not a concrete action.
- Dissent: Admitting such post-accident evidence would discourage defendants from carefully investigating accidents and considering how to prevent them in the future.
Flaminio v. Honda Motor Co (407 Exceptions; Feasibility)
Guy falls off motorcycle and is hurt. He tries to introduce blueprint that D made after the accident that fixed to the problem. Court didn’t let it in. Honda didn’t say it was something they couldn’t do. They said they choose to leave the bike like it was b/c of the balance wobble and weave. The feasibility was not disputed
- Rule: If feasibility is not disputed then the P cannot introduce subsequent remedial measures to show the change was feasible
Kenny v. Southeastern Penn. Transport Authority (407 Exceptions; Disputing Feasibility)
Sadly, a lady was raped in a subway tunnel. SPTA said they had checked the lights daily and exercised reasonable care. But they installed new fluorescent lights after the incident. She sought to introduce this to say to it they didn’t exercise reasonable care.
Rule: If the defendant claims that all reasonable care (doing all we can do) is being exercised at the time of the incident (disputing feasibility), then the P may attack that contention of reasonable care by showing subsequent remedial repairs which show there were more/better precautionary measures.
Question: What does ‘Feasibility’ even mean??
Two views of feasibility:
a.Narrow- the defendant must say “that’s impossible to do”
b.Broad – “it was unreasonable to do more.”
-It was reasonable to avoid the action in question, given the circumstances
-that the calculations about what decision to take did weighed against it.
-This swallows the rule b/c every D would be denied feasibility
Wal-Mart v. Londigan (408)
Rule: Framework - To invoke Rule 408 (make a settlement offer):
a. There must be a claim
b. The purpose of offering the evidence must be to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of the claim;
c. Valuable consideration must be furnished or offered to be furnished , or promised to be furnished, or valuable consideration must be accepted in an effort to compromise or attempt to compromise a claim
d. The claim must be disputed as to either validity or amount
(Here, the fourth element was not satisfied)
Quirion v. Forcier (408 Exceptions: Bias/Prejudice)
Medical malpractice suit between four doctors. P’s expert witness testified to 3 of the D attorney and they settled. At the trial of the last doctor, apparently P’s expert witness testimony changed to shift more blame on this doctor then on the ones who settled. D sought to introduce evidence of the settlement in order to impeach P’s expert witness testimony. The court allowed it.
Rule: Settlements can be introduced as evidence under the exception to show that a witness (in this case the expert witness) is biased/prejudice. In this case he changed his testimony in-between the settlement and trial.
Boyd v. United States (1892) (404; Crimes or other acts)
Robbery gone bad. They ended up shooting and killing the ferryman’s friend. Evidence was introduced that the D had committed robberies in the past. The appellate court revered
Rule: Evidence is inadmissible if it is only intended to prejudice the defendants with the jurors, to draw their minds away from the real issue.
Whatever they have done in the past, they should only be tried on evidence for the offense charged.
John A. Russell Corp v. Bohlig (404)
Corporation fires COO b/c he was dishonest about using funds to renovate his house. The company says he using company funds for his own self interest. Bohlig claims for severance pay and benefits because he he was dishonest. The Corporation introduce evidence that D was fired from his las t job from being dishonesty. The court remanded bc the evidence was about his character and created prejudice under 404.
Rule: 404 prohibits using character evidence to infer that someone acted a specific way on a specific occasion.
