2) Relevancy

Question 1

401 relevance: def

Answer 1

evidence which tends to make the existence of any fact more or less probative than it would be w/o the evidence (ok just a piece of the wall)

Question 2

relevance: kinds

Answer 2

1) logical

2) legal

Question 3

logical relevance: def

Answer 3

re facts – probative value – some logical tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence

Question 4

legal relevance–def

Answer 4

inludes balancing policy factors – fairness + value of evidence (substantial remedial measures, offers to settle, offers to pay med expenses)

Question 5

relevance: gen rule 402

Answer 5

all relevant evidence is admissible (unless excluded by a rule)
evidence that is NOT relevant is NOT admissible

Question 6

403 balancing

Answer 6

relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
(things)

generally, favors admission

thru eyes of factfinder, not D

Question 7

403 balancing: things that can outweigh probative value

Answer 7

1) prejudicial effect
2) confusion of issues
3) misleading jury
4) undue delay
5) waste of time
6) needless presentation of cumulative evidence

Question 8

prejudicial effect: def

Answer 8

evidence invites the jury to make a dec on an improper ground

Question 9

403: consciousness of guilt

Answer 9

relevant to show guilty mind, generally admissible (fleeing, threats, hiding, alias, refusing BAC)

Question 10

direct evidence: def

Answer 10

no inferences required

Question 11

circumstantial evidence: def

Answer 11

inferences required

Question 12

demonstrative evidence: def

Answer 12

prepared before case to assist the trier of fact

Question 13

character evidence: def

Answer 13

person’s general propensity or disposition for honesty, peacefulness, violence

Question 14

ch admissible as

Answer 14

1) civil case–essential element
2) crim case–circumstantial evidence of conduct on a particular occasion
3) impeach credibility

Question 15

ch evidence: civil cases: rule 404(a)

Answer 15

ch evidence is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity. Exception: character is “at issue,” aka an element of the COA, claim, or defense

where ch is “at issue,” can use ROSA (reputation, opinion + Specific Acts)

Question 16

ch: opinion: req

Answer 16

witness esatblish sufficient knowledge to form opinion

Question 17

ch: reputation: req

Answer 17

wit establish he is aware of reptuationof party int eh relevant community

Question 18

ch evidence: civil: scenarios where ch is “at issue”

Answer 18

1) defamation (P’s ch)
2) child custody (both parents’ fitness for raising kids
3) negligent entrustment (entrustee)
4) neg hiring (employee)

NOT: assault, battery

Question 19

ch evidence: crim cases: rule re D’s ch evidence 404(a)(1)

Answer 19

1) prosecution may NOT initially introduce evidence of D’s ch
2) testimony re pertinent good ch trait of D must be raised by D [reputation + opinion only]
3) THEN prosecution may rebut w reputation or opinion

Question 20

ch evidence: “pertinent” def

Answer 20

determined by what D is on trial for (violence/peacefulness, fraud/honesty)

Question 21

ch evidence: analysis

Answer 21

• -check trait
• -check form
• -who’s offering + can they?

Question 22

ch evidence: crim: ways prosecution can rebut

Answer 22

1) cross-examine D’s ch wit. HERE SPECIFIC ACTS OK (this is just for impeachment–limiting instruction)
2) P can call its own wits to testify re D’s bad ch. (reputation + opinion only)

Question 23

ch evidence: “opening the door”

Answer 23

check what D exactly testified about
“I didn’t do it” = not opening the door (just fact based)
“I’m not a violent guy” yes ch and door is open now
–> D also puts his CREDIBILITY at issue by testifying, but this is a differnet rule

Question 24

ch evidence: re ch of victim 404(a)(2)

Answer 24

1) D may offer evidence of V’s pertinent trait as circumstantial evidence that V was first aggressor (so D self defense)
2) once door open, prosecution can rebut w good ch of V (reputation, opinion only) OR/AND ch evidence re D! (reputation/opinon only)
(all: only pertinent trait)

Question 25

ch evidence: re ch of victim SPECIL RULE for homicide cases #1

Answer 25

1) if D offers FACT (not ch) evidence that D was first agressor, then 2) P can offer evidence of V's good ch for peacefulness (but not of D's ch)

Question 26

ch evidence: special rule #2

Answer 26

D can offer evidence of his AWARENESS of V's ch for violence (reputation or SPECIFIC ACTS) for the limited purpose of showing D's som (fear). This is NOT ch evidence and doens't open the door

Question 27

ch: 404(b): rule

Answer 27

ch evidence may be admissible if offered for a purpose OTHER THAN to show conduct in conformity w ch (propensity) -- includes specific acts generally offered by P, on rebuttal

Question 28

404(b) ok uses of ch evidence -- mnemonic:

Answer 28

MIMIC KOP

Question 29

404(b) ok uses of ch evidence: list

Answer 29

``` Motive Intent Mistake (absence of) Identity (sig crime) Common plan or scheme (usu 2+x) Knowledge Opportunity Preparation ```

Question 30

404(b) MIMIC-KOP evidence: timing

Answer 30

can have occurred before, during, or even after date of offense

Question 31

406: habit: rule

Answer 31

Evidence of the habit of person or routine practice of org, 2) whether corroborated or not 3) and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses 4) is relevant to prove conduct in conformity w the habit 5) opinion or specific acts ok testify to your own

Question 32

406: habit: trigger words

Answer 32

usually, often, frequently | prob not enough

Question 33

406: habit: negative habit evidence

Answer 33

yes admissible

Question 34

legal relevancy: basic def

Answer 34

otherwise relevant evience that is barred due to public policy

Question 35

legal relevancy: kinds

Answer 35

1) subsequent remedial measures 2) offers to settle 3) payment of med expenses 4) pleas + discussions 5) liability insurance

Question 36

subsequent remedial measures: 407: INadmissible to prove

Answer 36

negligence culpable conduct design defect need for warning

Question 37

subsequent remedial measures: 407: yes admissible to prove

Answer 37

ownership or control impeachment feasibility of precaution (IF controverted) (in neg case ok)

Question 38

subsequent remedial measures: 407: def

Answer 38

must be SUBSEQUENT

Question 39

settlement offers 408: rule

Answer 39

evidence of an offer to settle a claim, which is DISPUTED either as to validity or amount is INADMISSIBLE to prove liability *also can't use as prior inconsistent st for impeachment

Question 40

settlement offers 408: exceptions

Answer 40

ok use to: - -show bias or prejudice - -negate contention of undue delay

Question 41

settlement offers 408: result

Answer 41

not severable so the whole convo, including admissions, is out!

Question 42

payment of meds 409: rule

Answer 42

evidnece of offering to pay medical bills is INADMISSIBLE to prove liability for an injury severable, so admissions of fault can come in even true if you're in a dispute (tho dispute not needed)

Question 43

plea discussions 410: rule

Answer 43

plea + statements by D to prosecutor in plea negotiations are inadmissible vs D in a later proceeding

Question 44

plea discussion 410: applies to

Answer 44

1) pleas of guilty later withdrawn 2) pleas of nolo contendere 3) offers to plead guilty (sts during negotiations)

Question 45

plea discussion 410: does NOT apply to

Answer 45

sts to police (only prosecutors)

Question 46

plea discussion 410: exception

Answer 46

actual plea CAN be admitted: 1) as st by party opponent in subsequent civil or crim case or 2) to impeach, if D testifies

Question 47

liability insurance 411: rule

Answer 47

evidence that person was or was not insured is inadmissible to prove negligence or fault severable from admissions of fault

Question 48

liability insurance 411: exceptions

Answer 48

ok evidence of insurance for other pruposes: 1) proof of agency/ownership/control 2) proof of bias or prejudice of wit

Question 49

liability insurance 411: sope

Answer 49

- -limits of insurance coverage: NEVER admissible | - -pretrial dy insurance coverage: usu allowed

Question 50

sex offense cases: V's past sexual beh 412: rule

Answer 50

in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct evidence offered to show alleged V's sexual beh, sexual predisposition or other sexual hx IS EXLCUDED

Question 51

sex offense cases: V's past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim

Answer 51

1) consent 2) source of semen/injury/evidence 3) const required

Question 52

sex offense cases: V's past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim: consent

Answer 52

evidence re past acts with THIS D, which tend to show consent, is admissible (in crim case)

Question 53

sex offense cases: V's past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim: source of physical evidence/injury

Answer 53

(in a crim case) evidence of assaults by other ppl admissible to prove that those assaults, not D's alleged crime, could have caused injuries

Question 54

sex offense cases: V's past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim: const required

Answer 54

(crim case) usu for impeachment confrontation clause

Question 55

sex offense cases: V's past sexual beh 412: exceptions: civil: reverse balancing

Answer 55

admissible if probative value substantially outweighs danger of: - -harm to any V - -unfair prejudice to any party

Question 56

sex offense cases: V's past sexual beh 412: exceptions: civil: reputation

Answer 56

evidence re V's reputation is admissible IF V has placed it in controversy

Question 57

sex offense cases: D's ch: 413-414: rule: crim

Answer 57

in a crim case where D is accused of child molestation or sexual assault: SPECIFIC ACTS by D are admissible and may be considered as they bear on any relevant matter, inc D's propensity to commit sex crimes notice requirement

Question 58

sex offense cases: D's ch: 415: civil

Answer 58

civil case re sexual assault or child molestation same rule -- specific acts may be admitted must give notice

Question 59

sex offense cases: D's ch: 413-415: standard of proof

Answer 59

dnn prior conviction or arrest --need preponderance of evidence no req that the specific acts be prior to other acts

Question 60

sex offense cases: D's ch: 413-415: vs 403

Answer 60

still subject to 403 so maybe inadmissible if ex. too gruesome or may confuse jury but per 413-415, highly probative. so likely in.