Relevance & Public Policy Exceptions (Module 2-3)

Question 1

Relevance Definition

Answer 1

Has any tendency to make a fact of consequence to the action more or less probable

Must be:
1) Material (“of consequence”; even if not for ultimate issue)
2) Probative (“any tendency”; make proposition more likely, can be as little as +0.1%)

Question 2

Rule 403 Balancing Test

Answer 2

Trial judge can exclude relevant evidence if probative value is substantially outweighed by:

WUCCUM

Waste of Time
Unfair Prejudice
Cumulative
Confuse issues
Undue Delay
Mislead jury

Question 3

Admissible Similar Occurrence Evidence

Answer 3

Generally if evidence involves something other than what’s involved in the case then it’s not relevant; but there are several exceptions:

HS CHIRPS

H - habit/routine
S - similar acts to prove intent

C - causation
H - history of P’s accidents
I - industry custom
R - rebut claim of impossibility
P - sale of similar property (market comp)
S - similar injuries by same event/condition

Question 4

Plaintiff’s Accident History (Admissible Similar Occurrence Evidence)

Answer 4

HS CH(accident History)IRPS

• evidence of P filing prior false claims OR
• showing a different event that caused P’s alleged injury are allowed

Question 5

Injuries Caused by Same Event/Condition (Admissible Similar Occurrence Evidence)

Answer 5

HS CHI(injuries from same event/condition)RPS

Admissible if event occurred under “substantially similar circumstances” to prove:
1) existence of a dangerous condition
2) the dangerous condition caused the present injury; AND
3) D had notice of the condition

Similarly lack of prior incidents can be used to show D’s lacking notice

Question 6

Previous Similar Acts to Prove Intent (Admissible Similar Occurrence Evidence)

Answer 6

HS CHIRPS(similar acts)

Similar conduct previously committed by a party can be admissible to show intent/motive in the current case

(ex. woman isn’t hired bc she’s a woman, use hiring history of company past 5 years to show they don’t hire women)

Question 7

Sales of Similar Property (Admissible Similar Occurrence Evidence)

Answer 7

Sales of similar real/personal property from same time period can be admissible to prove value

(i.e., compare to the market)

Question 8

Rebutting Claim of Impossibility (Admissible Similar Occurrence Evidence)

Answer 8

Prior occurrence to rebut party’s claim of impossibility

(ex. D claims impossible for car to go over 50mph, admit evidence to rebut)

Question 9

Causation (Admissible Similar Occurrence Evidence)

Answer 9

For complicated causation issues

(ex. damages to nearby homes caused by D’s bomb admissible to prove D’s bomb damaged P’s home)

Question 10

Habit Evidence (Admissible Similar Occurrence Evidence)

Answer 10

Evidence of habit (or routine practice in an organization) admissible as circumstantial evidence that the person acted in accordance with that habit during the issue here

i.e., it’s a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances

Question 11

Industry Custom (Admissible Similar Occurrence Evidence)

Answer 11

• How others in the same industry have acted in recent past can be offered as evidence of appropriate standard of care
• isn’t conclusive bc the whole industry can be acting negligent

Question 12

Public Policy Exceptions List (Evidence)

Answer 12

SLOPS

Settlement negotiations
Liability Insurance
Offer to pay medical expenses
Plea Discussions
Subsequent Remedial Measures

Question 13

Liability Insurance (Public Policy Exception)

Answer 13

SL(liability ins)OPS

Having/lacking insurance is inadmissible to show whether party acted negligently/wrongfully, but is admissible for:

1) to prove ownership/control
2) impeach a witness (usually bias)
3) as part of an admission of liability (ex. “don’t worry my insurance will pay it off”)

Question 14

Subsequent Remedial Measures (Public Policy Exception)

Answer 14

S(sub remed meas)LOPS

Can be admissible to show:

1) ownership/control
2) to rebut claim precaution wasn’t feasible
3) prove opposing party destroyed evidence

Question 15

Settlement Negotiations (Public Policy Exception)

Answer 15

SLOPS(settlement negotiation)

• There must be a 1) disputed 2) claim
• Can only be used to impeach witness on grounds of bias if there is a disputed claim
• To be a disputed claim, the dispute must be over who was liable or amount of damages (ex. go up to person immediately after accident and say I’ll pay you $ not to sue, no claim yet)

Exception: anything said in a settlement neg. with the government in a civil case is admissible in a later, criminal case on the same event

Question 16

Offer to Pay Medical Expenses (Public Policy Exception)

Answer 16

SLO(offer to pay med exp)PS

Offers to pay are not admissible, but admissions of fact are still admissible (ex. after accident “i will pay for any injuries” not admissible, but “that was all my fault” is admissible”)

Question 16

Plea Discussions (Public Policy Exception)

Answer 16

SLOP(plea disc)S

Generally inadmissible in both civil and criminal cases; can’t use admit:

1) offers to plead guilty
2) withdrawn guilty pleas
3) pleas of no contest
4) statements of fact