Relevance & General Rules of Admissibility Flashcards
Relevance?
Evidence is relevant if it has the tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Irrelevant evidence is always inadmissible. Relevant evidence is admissible unless subject to exclusionary rule or 403.
403?
Rule 403 gives judges broad discretion to exclude evidence if the probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of:
- unfair prejudice
- confusion of the issues (i.e. creates side issue)
- misleading the jury
- undue delay
- waste of time
- needless presentation of cumulative evidence
Note: unfair surprise is NOT a reason to exclude (this list is exhaustive)
Prior similar occurrences that involve person/time/events other than those in issue are generally not admissible except:
(1) P accident history when (a)P accident history to show they have made previous similar false claims (b) evidence of prior accidents damaging same part of body to prove lack of causation (but prior tort claims not admissible to show invalidity of present claim generally)
(2) Similar accidents cause by D generally inadmissible CE to show carelessness BUT will be admissible if substantially similar circumstances + used to show (a) existence of dangerous condition (b) dangerous condition was cause of injury at issue (c) D had notice of dangerous condition, AND absence of complaints admissible to show D lack of knowledge
(3) Previous similar acts may be used to show intent/motive (e.g. sex discrimination patterns)
(4) sales of similar property to prove value
(5) Rebut claim of impossibility (+ doesnt need to be similar occurence)
(6) complex issues of causation
(7) habit and business routine evidence to show they acted in accordance with habit
When is P accident history admissible in tort claim?
when (a) P accident history used to show they have made previous similar false claims (b) evidence of prior accidents damaging same part of body to prove lack of causation (but prior tort claims not admissible to show invalidity of present claim generally)
When are similar accidents caused by D inadmissible in tort claim?
Similar accidents cause by D generally inadmissible CE to show carelessness BUT will be admissible if substantially similar circumstances + used to show (a) existence of dangerous condition (b) dangerous condition was cause of injury at issue (c) D had notice of dangerous condition, AND absence of complaints admissible to show D lack of knowledge
Habit vs. CE?
Habit describes person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances. Habit evidence is admissible to show someone responded to the set of circumstances as they usually would. CE is generally inadmissible.
When is evidence of industry custom admissible?
When used to show what the appropriate standard of care may be - but it will not be conclusive.
