Relevance Flashcards
Definition of Relevance
Evidence has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence
Elements of Relevance
(1) Material: proposition must be “of consequence” in the case (though it does not need to be the ultimate issue); and
(2) Probative: the evidence has “any” tendency to make the proposition more or less likely
Relevance
General Rule of Admissibility
Irrelevant evidence is always inadmissible. All relevant evidence is admissible, unless:
(1) it is kept out by some specific exclusionary rule of evidence; or
(2) the court uses its Rule 403 discretion to keep it out
Relevance
Rule 403
A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect
Relevance
Rule 403 Considerations
Exhaustive list:
(1) danger of unfair prejudice (there is a danger the jury will decide the case on an emotional basis)
(2) confusion of the issues (the evidence creates a side issue)
(3) Misleading the jury (there is a danger that the jury will give undue weight to the evidence)
(4) Undue delay
(5) Waste of time
(6) Needless presentation of cumulative evidence
Under Federal Rules, unfair surprise is NOT a valid ground upon which to exclude relevant evidence
Similar Occurrences
Generally, if evidence involves some time, event, or person other than that involved in the present case, it is inadmissible
Rationale: this evidence often doesn’t survive Rule 403 test
Similar Occurrences
Plaintiff’s Accident History - Prior False Claims or Same Bodily Injury
Evidence that a person has previously filed similar tort claims or has been involved in prior accidents is generally inadmissible to show the invalidity of the present claim; all it demonstrates is that the person is litigious or accident-prone.
Can be admissible to show something other than carelessness:
(1) evidence that a plaintiff has made previous similar false claims is usually relevant to prove that present claim is likely to be false
(2) evidence of prior accidents may be admissible where cause of P’s damages is at issue. If P previously injured the same part of their body, evidence may be admitted to show that the P’s condition is attributable (in whole or in part) to prior injury rather than current accident
Similar Occurrences
Similar Accidents or Injuries Caused by Same Event or Condition
Generally inadmissible because they merely show D’s general character for carelessness. However, evidence of prior accidents or injuries caused by the same event or condition and occurring under **substantially similar circumstances **is admissible to prove:
(1) the existence of a dangerous condition,
(2) that the dangerous condition was the cause of the present injury, and
(3) that D had notice of the dangerous condition (if the other accident occurred before P’s accident)
Similar Occurrences: Similar Accidents
Absence of Similar Accidents
many courts are reluctant to admit evidence of absence of similar accidents to show absence of negligence or lack of defect. However, evidence of absence of complaints is admissible to show D’s lack of knowledge of danger
Similar Occurrences
Previous Similar Acts Admissible to Prove Intent
Similar conduct previously committed by a party may be admissible to prove party’s present motive or intent in current case
Similar Occurrences
Sales of Similar Property
Evidence of sales of similar personal or real property around the same time period is admissible to prove property’s value. However, prices quoted in mere offers to purchase generally are inadmissible.
Similar Occurrences
Rebutting Claim of Impossibility
Requirement that prior occurrences be similar to litigated act may be relaxed when used to rebut a claim of impossibility
Similar Occurrences
Causation
complicated issues of causation may be established by evidence concerning other times, events, or persons (for example, damage to nearby homes caused by D’s blasting is relevant to prove D’s blasting damaged P’s home)
Similar Occurrences
Habit and Business Routine Evidence
Evidence of a person’s habit (or evidence of routine practice of an organization) is admissible as circumstantial evidence that person (or organization) acted in accordance with the habit on occasion at issue in the case.
Similar Occurrences
Habit
describes a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances. 2 defining characteristics:
(1) frequency of conduct and
(2) particularity of circumstances
Note: key words such as “always,” “invariably,” “instinctively,” and “automatically” in a question’s fact pattern generally indicate habit
Distinguish from character evidence which describes someone’s general disposition or propensity with respect to general traits. This type of evidence is generally inadmissible to prove how a person acted during the events of the case
