Relevance: Determining Relevance, Discretionary Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Question 1

In general, what are the two steps with regards to a relevance question?

Answer 1

Step one: is the evidence RELEVANT?
Step two: even if relevant, should evidence nonetheless be excluded on the basis of
(1) judicial discretion (probative value is SUBSTANTIALLY outweighed by prejudice)
(2) public policy (insurance, subsequent repairs)

Question 2

When is evidence “relevant”?

What is the special rule in CA?

Answer 2

Evidence is “relevant” if it tends to make any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence

IN CA –> same as fed rule, but evidence must go to a DISPUTED fact

Question 3

What is rule w regards to judge’s discretion to exclude relevant evidence?

What is CA rule?

Answer 3

A trial judge has BROAD DISCRETION to exclude RELEVANT EVIDENCE if its probative value is SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED by the danger of:

• unfair prejudice
• confusion of the issues, misleading the jury
• due delay, waste of time, needless presentation of cumulative evidence

CA RULE –> same thing. EXCEPT:

1. in criminal case, rem that prop 8 applies, and “ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE” must be admitted
2. HOWEVER –> note that judge may still exclude based on CEC 352 balancing, if probative value is “substantially outweighed” by dangers