Evidence Flashcards
(7 cards)
The basic rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of a fact of material consequence more or less likely to be true. Generally, evidence relating to the person, places, or timing relevant to litigation are admissible.
Is the Mechanic’s Testimony Admissible?
The mechanic’s testimony is admissible. The issue is whether the Mechanic can testify as an expert. Opinion evidence is generally inadmissible. However, under some circumstances an opinion evidence may be offered by either a lay witness or by an expert witness. Opinion evidence by a lay witness is admissible if it is a) helpful to the factfinder b) rationally based on his perception and b) not based on scientific evidence or expertise
Application
Here, the Mechanic’s testimony about the Woman’s car involves testimony about his experience and judgment as a mechanic. A lay witness would ordinarily not be qualified to testify on such a matter. Accordingly, the mechanic may testify as an expert witness. An expert witness may testify as to his/her opinion when it is a) helpful to the finder of fact b) the expert is qualified as an expert c) the expert is reasonably certain as to his opinion and d) the opinion has proper factual support. An expert witness may testify as to those things that he a) has personal knowledge of b) learned in the court room or c) was given knowledge of for the purpose of the trial and the item is something that an expert would ordinarily rely on in making a determination.
Here the Mechanic will testify that he examined the woman’s breaks a week before the accident and that her breaks were in need of repair. Here the expert appears qualified because he is a mechanic. Mechanics are experts for the purposes of the cars they work on. The testimony will be helpful to the jury because it goes to the issue of whether the woman had an opportunity to slow down. There is also proper factual support because the man inspected the vehicle a week before the crash. The testimony is also relevant because it tends to make the existence of a fact of consequence (whether the woman had the opportunity to stop and the man’s allegation that the woman did not have working breaks) more or less likely to be true. Accordingly, the mechanic may testify about his observations of the woman’s vehicle.
Is the Invoice for the New Parts for the Woman’s Truck Brakes Admissible?
The invoice for new part is admissible. Hearsay is a statement made out of court offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Subject to certain exception, Hearsay is inadmissible. The statement is in the document is hearsay because it is an out of court statement made by the mechanic and it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the woman’s breaks were not working). Here, the mechanic’s note might fall under two possible hearsay exceptions a) present recollection recorded (which would allow the note to be read into evidence) or b) the record of a regularly conducted business transaction exception.
The present recollection recorded exception applies to memorandum’s where a) the witness’s memory cannot be refreshed b) the witness made or adopted the statements in the memorandum c) at time where the event or thing recorded was fresh in the witness’s mind d) and the information is an accurate reflection of the witness’s recollection. Under the present recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule the record of the memorandum may be read into the record.
Application
Here, assuming the Mechanic’s recollection could not be refreshed the invoice would qualify under this exception. It appears to be made at or near the time of the transaction, by the mechanic and while it was fresh in the mechanic’s mind. The Mechanic singed the document as well. If the Mechanic’s recollection cannot be refreshed the statement may be admissible.
A record of a business transaction is admissible if it is a record of a transaction of a business, the transaction is in the ordinary course of business for the corporation and records of such transactions are customarily made, and where the record is authenticated by a person with a duty to report the information as accurate. Here, the memory is record of the transaction to purchase parts for the Woman’s truck. It is a record of a business transaction. It is an invoice and the mechanic’s shop probably regularly purchase parts, further it appears that the item is customarily made in response to such transactions because the mechanic kept the record in a file with records of other invoices for customers. Finally, the document was signed by the mechanic, so it was authentic.
Accordingly, the information contained in the Mechanic’s invoice is admissible.
Is the Doctors Testimony Admissible?
The Doctors testimony is admissible. Hearsay is a statement made out of court offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Subject to certain exception, Hearsay. The statement by the doctor that the woman told her “I have suffered from painful arthritis in my neck for five years.” Is admissible under the hearsay rules but may be subject to a claim of privilege by the woman. Here the statement is admissible either under two exceptions a) statement by a party opponent or b) statement made for medical purposes.
Application
A statement by a party opponent is an exception to the hearsay rule. Here, the woman said, “I have suffered form painful arthritis in my neck for the past five years.” The woman is a party opponent, the statement would be admissible against her. Further, statements made for the purposes of medical treatment are also exceptions to the hearsay rule. It appears that the statement was made to the doctor for the purpose of seeking medical treatment. It is therefore probably admissible under that exception to the hearsay rule.
All that said, the statement by the doctor might be subject to the woman’s claim of privilege. The federal rules do not recognize the doctor patient privilege. However, if the state in which this claim is being brought does, the woman could claim the statement is subject to her doctor patient privilege. Further, the federal rules recognize that statement made by clients to doctors when the doctor is acting as the doctor’s agent to provide advice to the lawyer as the client’s injuries would be protected by the attorney client privilege under an agency theory of attorney client privilege. Accordingly, the statements are admissible but may be subject to a claim of privilege by the Woman.
Is the Roommate’s Testimony Admissible?
The roommate’s testimony is inadmissible. The basic rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of a fact of material consequence more or less likely to be true. However, character evidence is inadmissible in civil trials. Character evidence is evidence that shows that a person has a particular disposition and acted in accordance with that disposition at the time in question. An exception to that rule is the habit exception. The habit exception allows evidence of a habit into evidence when it demonstrates a person automatic reaction to a particular set of facts. Habit evidence may be offered to show a person acted in conformity with the habit. To qualify a habit must be frequent and particular. Here, the roommate will testify that the man is always on his phone and that his addicted to it and that he even texts while driving. This evidence is not specific and particular enough to be habit evidence because it does not show an automatic reaction on the party of the man. The evidence is inadmissible as character evidence outside an exception.
