Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
31 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Relevance – General Rule
|
- Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the present action more or less probable.
- Generally, must relate to time, event, or person involved in the present litigation. - Exception: Certain Similar Occurrences. |
|
|
Relevance – California Distinction
|
- Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the present action more or less probable.
- CA also requires the fact of consequence to be in dispute. - E.g. murder prosecution, insanity defense. Evidence of fact of shooting not in dispute so a witness testifying to seeing defendant shoot victim is not relevant. |
|
|
Examples of Relevant Similar Occurrences
|
- Causation
- Prior False Claims or Same Bodily Injury - Similar Acts or Injuries Caused by Same Event or Condition o Absence of Similar Injuries - Previous Similar Acts -- admissible to prove intent - Rebutting Claim of Impossibility - Sales of Similar Property - Habit - Industrial or Business Routine - Industry Custom as Evidence of Standard of Care |
|
|
Prior False Claims or Same Bodily Injury
|
- Relevant Similar Occurrence exception to Relevance rule.
- Generally inadmissible to show invalidity of the present claim. - Evidence that defendant has made similar FALSE claims re: same bodily injury relevant to prove: 1. the present claim is likely to be false 2. OR the plaintiff’s claim is attributable to the prior injury. |
|
|
Similar Accidents or Injuries Caused by Same Event or Condition
|
- Relevant Similar Occurrence exception to Relevance rule.
- Admissible to prove: 1. The EXISTENCE of a dangerous condition 2. That the defendant had KNOWLEDGE of 3. And, the dangerous condition was the CAUSE of the present injury. |
|
|
Absence of Similar Accidents
|
- Relevant Similar Occurrence exception to Relevance rule.
- Admissible to show defendant’s lack of knowledge of the danger (never happened to him before, no reason to think it was dangerous). |
|
|
Previous Similar Acts -- Admissible to Prove Intent
|
- Relevant Similar Occurrence exception to Relevance rule.
- E.g. history of school segregation admissible to show motive for current exclusion of minorities. |
|
|
Rebutting Claim of Impossibility
|
- Relevant Similar Occurrence exception to Relevance rule.
- If one party claims event impossible, evidence of past time event ccured may be used to rebut. - E.g. defendant says impossible for his car to go over 50mph, plaintiff may show evidence of time car did go over 50mph. |
|
|
Sales of Similar Property
|
- Relevant Similar Occurrence exception to Relevance rule.
- Sales of Certain similar personal property that are not too remote in time admissible to prove value of property. - Price quotes not admissible. BUT rejected offers may be used as an admission. |
|
|
Habit
|
- Relevant Similar Occurrence exception to Relevance rule.
- Describes a person’s REGULAR RESPONSE to a specific set of circumstances. - Relevant to prove conduct of person on particular occasion in conformity with habit. - E.g. “he always stops his car two feet behind the crosswalk line.” |
|
|
Industrial Custom or Business Routine
|
- Relevant Similar Occurrence exception to Relevance rule.
- Evidence of a business’ established business routine relevant as tending to show that a particular event occurred. - “Business Habit” |
|
|
Industry Custom as Evidence of Standard of Care
|
- Relevant Similar Occurrence exception to Relevance rule.
- Industry Custom may be offered to show adherence to, or deviance from, an industry-wide standard of care. |
|
|
Discretionary Exclusion of Relevant Evidence test
|
- Trial judge has discretion to exclude relevant evidence if
- PROBATIVE value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair PREJUDICE. - FRE 403, CEC 352. - Unfair surprise is NOT a valid argument for exclusion or relevant evidence. |
|
|
Exclusion of Relevant Evidence for Public Policy Reasons, Generally
|
- Liability Insurance
- Subsequent Remedial Measures or Repair - Settlement Offers and Withdrawn Guilty Pleas - Offers to Pay Medical Expenses |
|
|
Evidence of Liability Insurance
|
- Not admissible to show negligence or ability to pay.
- May be admissible: 1. To prove ownership or control 2. To impeach 3. OR as part of an admission. |
|
|
Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures
|
- Not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, design defect, or a need for a warning.
- Admissible to: 1. prove ownership or control 2. rebut a claim the precaution was not feasible 3. OR prove the opposing party has destroyed the evidence. |
|
|
Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Repairs – California Distinction
|
- California admits evidence of subsequent repairs for purposes of proving design defect in strict products liability cases.
- Federal does not allow subsequent repair evidence to prove design defect. |
|
|
Evidence of Settlement Offers and Withdrawn Guilty Pleas
|
- Evidence of compromise or offers to compromise is NOT admissible to prove liability for, or invalidity of, a disputed claim.
- Direct admissions of liability during negotiations are NOT admissible. - Withdrawn guilty pleas and offers to plead guilty are NOT admissible. |
|
|
Evidence of Settlement Offers and Withdrawn Guilty Pleas – California Distinction
|
- Evidence of compromise or offers to compromise is NOT admissible to prove liability for, or invalidity of, a disputed claim.
- Discussions during mediation proceedings are also NOT admissible. |
|
|
Offers to Pay Medical Expenses
|
- Payment or offers to pay medical expenses are NOT admissible.
- BUT admissions of fact accompanying offers to pay medical expenses ARE admissible. |
|
|
Offers to Pay Medical Expenses – California Distinction
|
- Payment or offers to pay medical expenses are NOT admissible.
- In CA, admissions of fact made in course of such payment offers are also NOT admissible. |
|
|
Expressions of Sympathy – California distinction
|
- Federal law doesn’t protect expressions of sympathy from admissibility.
- In CA, expressions of sympathy are NOT admissible in civil actions. - BUT accompanying statements of fault ARE admissible. |
|
|
Relevance of Character Evidence, Generally
|
- Character evidence may be offered as substantive, rather than impeachment evidence to:
1. Prove character when it is the “ultimate issue” in the case 2. OR serve as “circumstantial evidence” of how a person probably acted. (more tested) - Generally NOT admissible in Civil Cases unless directly at issue (defamation) or to prove conduct in sexual assault or child molestation suits. - In Criminal Cases, generally only defendant can initiate. |
|
|
Exceptions where Prosecution may Offer Character Evidence First in Criminal Cases – w/ CA Distinctions
|
- FED and CA: Sexual Assault and Child Molestation cases. May offer evidence of past similar offenses.
- CA: domestic violence cases as well. May offer evidence of past similar offenses. - FED: court admitted evidence of victim's character offered by accused, pros can show defendant has the same trait. - CA: where court admitted evidence of victim's character for violence (only), prosecution may offer evidence that accused also has that violent character. |
|
|
Means of Proving Character
|
Character may be proven by:
- Evidence of Specific Acts - Opinion Testimony of a witness who knows the person - Testimony as to the person’s General Reputation in the community |
|
|
Character in Criminal Cases – How Defendant proves and Prosecution rebuts
|
Defendant proves character by:
- A witness for the defense may testify as to the defendant’s good reputation for the trait in question and may give his personal opinion about that trait. Prosecution rebuts by: - Cross-examining character witness regarding basis for the testimony and asking about specific instances of defendant’s misconduct - And on direct, calling qualified witnesses to testify about defendant’s bad reputation or character, but NO specific instances of past misconduct. |
|
|
Character Evidence of Victim in Criminal Cases
|
- Except in rape cases, defendant may introduce evidence of victim’s bad character trait.
- Prosecution may then present opinion evidence of (1) victim’s good character and (ii) introduce evidence that defendant has that same bad character trait. |
|
|
Character Evidence of Rape Victim
|
- Generally inadmissible.
- 2 Criminal Case Exceptions: o A victim’s sexual behavior is admissible to show that a 3d party was the source of semen, injury, or other evidence. o Specific instances of sexual behavior b/w the victim and the accused may be introduced to prove consent. - Civil cases: Evidence of victim’s sexual behavior subject to 403 balancing. Evidence of victim’s reputation admissible only if victim opens door. |
|
|
Character Evidence of Victim to Prove Conduct – w/ California Distinction
|
- FED: In a homicide case, if defendant offers evidence victim attacked first, FRE can offer evidence of victim's peaceful character.
- CA: if victim’s character is relevant, prosecution may offer it first under the Truth in Evidence Amendment (Prop. 8), subject to 352 balancing. - FED: on direct examination, reputation and opinion testimony allowed but no specific instances of victim’s conduct allowed. - CA: on direct, specific instances of conduct are also allowed, under Prop 8. |
|
|
Independently Relevant Specific Acts of Misconduct, Generally
|
- Not admissible solely to establish criminal disposition or bad character.
- M.I.M.I.C. o Motive o Intent o Mistake (absence of) o Identity o Common Plan or Scheme (M.O.) |
|
|
Admissibility of Specific Acts of Misconduct
|
To be admissible:
- Must be sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that defendant committed the prior act - AND it must be 403 balanced – probative value vs. prejudice. |
