Evidence Flashcards
Relevance
For evidence to be admissible, it must be logically and legally relevant.
Logical Relevance
Under the FRE, logical relevance means that the evidence tends to prove or disprove a fact that is of consequence in the action. Under the CEC, evidence is logically relevant if it has any tendency to prove or disprove a disputed fact of consequence.
Legal Relevance
Under both the FRE and CEC, legal relevance means that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Prop 8
Under CA Prop 8 (the “Truth in Evidence” Amendment), any evidence that is relevant may be admitted in a criminal case. However, Prop 8 makes an exception for balancing under CEC 352, which gives a court discretion in excluding relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury (or, “legal relevance”).
Legal Relevance (Public Policy Exclusions)
As for legal relevance, certain evidence that is otherwise relevant may be excluded for public policy reasons. Public policy exclusions include evidence of (1) liability insurance; (2) subsequent remedial measures; (3) settlement offers, including–in CA only–discussions during mediation proceedings; (4) guilty pleas; (5) payment or offers to may medical expenses; and (6) in CA only, statement of sympathy.
Evidence of Liability Insurance
Evidence that a person had liability insurance is inadmissible to show whether the person acted negligently; however, it may be admitted for another purpose, such as (1) to prove ownership or control; (2) for the purpose of impeachment; or (3) as part of an admission.
Offers to Pay Medical Expenses
Offers to pay medical expenses are inadmissible when offered to prove liability for the injuries in question. Under the FRE, related statements of fault are admissible. Under the CEC, however, related statements of fault are inadmissible.
Settlement Offers
In a civil case, evidence of settlements, offers to settle, and related statements are inadmissible to prove liability or validity/amount of a disputed claim, unless (1) no claim has been asserted yet; or (2) there is no dispute as to liability or amount of damages. Under the CEC, discussions during mediation proceedings are also inadmissible because of a policy to encourage mediation. The same exceptions still apply under this California rule.
Statements of Sympathy
Under the CEC, statements of sympathy are inadmissible. However, statements of fault with a statement of sympathy are admissible. (Under the FRE, all statements of sympathy are admissible).
Character Evidence (criminal - defendant’s character)
Character evidence is any evidence offered to show that a person acted in conformity with his character on a particular occasion. In a criminal case, such evidence cannot be offered by the prosecution unless the defendant “opens the door;” in other words, the defendant must put his character at issue first, and only then may the prosecution rebut with character evidence.
Hearsay
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Evidence that falls within the definition of hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception to the rule or can be classified as non-hearsay. (Note that hearsay is excluded from Prop 8, so ordinary rules of evidence apply to hearsay in CA criminal cases.)
Hearsay within Hearsay
For multiple levels of hearsay, or “hearsay within hearsay,” the statement will be admissible only if both the outer and inner layers fall within a hearsay exception or can be classified as non-hearsay.
Not Hearsay
Some evidence is not hearsay because it is not being offered for its truth. The following are recognized as not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted: (1) legally operate facts; (2) effect on the hearer or listener; (3) nonhuman declarations (i.e., by machine or animal); or (4) circumstantial evidence of the declarant’s state of mind.
Non-Hearsay
FRE - “Hearsay EXEMPTIONS”; CA - “Hearsay EXCEPTIONS”
Courts consider the following to be non-hearsay, and therefore are not subject to the hearsay rule: (1) certain prior statements by witness, including (i) prior inconsistent statements; (ii) prior consistent statements; or (iii) prior identifications; and (2) admissions by party opponents, including (i) admissions of a party; (ii) vicarious authorized admissions; (iii) adoptive (tacit/silent) admissions; and (iv) co-conspirtator statements.
Hearsay Exceptions (Unavailability)
The following statements are admissible as hearsay exceptions when the declarant is unavailable: (1) declarations against interest; (2) dying declarations; and (3) former testimony.
