Relevance

Question 1

Relevance defined:

Answer 1

Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the outcome of the action mroe or less probable than it would without the evidence

Question 2

Determining relevance

Answer 2

1. GR: must relate to time, event, or person in controversy
2. Exceptions - certain similar occurences
   
   1. Causation
   2. Prior false claims or same bodily injury
   3. Similar accidents or injuries to show:
      
      1. existence of dangerous condition
      2. knowledge
      3. cause
   4. caused by the same event
   5. Previous similar acts to show intent
   6. rebutting claim of impossibility
   7. Sale of similar property
   8. Habit: regular response to specific set of circumstances
   9. Industrial or business routine: show particular event occured
   10. Industry custonm as E of standar of care

Question 3

Discretionary exclusion of relevant E

Answer 3

Tr Judge has broad discretion to exclude relevant E if it probaitve value is substantiall outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, and waste of time

Question 4

Exclusion of relevant E for public policy reasons

Answer 4

1. Liability insurance - not admissible to shwo negligence or ability to pay substantial judgment. Admissible to:
   
   1. prove ownership or control
   2. impeach
   3. admission of liability
2. Subsequent remedial measures - not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, defect in design, or need for warning. Admissible to:
   
   1. prove ownership or control
   2. rebut claim that precaution was not feasible
   3. destruction of E
3. Settlement offers & Withdrawn guilty plea - not admissble to prove or disprove validity or amount of disputed claim.
4. Offers to pay medical expenses - Inadmissible to prove culpable conduct. Admissions of fact accompanying offers to pay admissible

Question 5

Character Evidence

Answer 5

Character E may be offered as substantive rather than impeachment, evidence to: prove character when it is the untimate issue in the case, or (ii) serve as circumstantial E of how a person probably acted

1. Means of proving character:
   
   1. specific acts
   2. opinion testimony
   3. reputation
2. Generally not admissible in civil case (unless ultimate issue)

Question 6

Accused in criminal case

Answer 6

Prosc cannot initiate E of bad character of D merely to show D is more likely to have committed the crime. Accused may introduce E of his good character to show innocence of alleged crime.

1. W may testify D’s good reputation for trait in question and may give personal opinion
2. Once D opens door, Prosc may rebut by:
   
   1. cross-examining the W - specific instances of D’s misconduct (may not use extrinsic E)
   2. calling qualified W to testify D’s bad reputation/opinion

Question 7

Victim in criminal case

Answer 7

Except in rape cases, D may introduce reputation or opinion E of bad character trait of V to show D’s innocence. Prosc may counter w ith reputation or opinion E of (i) V’s good character for any pertinent trait, or (ii) D’s bad character for the same trait

Question 8

Rape V’s past behavior

Answer 8

Generally inadmissible in any criminal or civil proceeding except:

1. Criminal case - specific instance of V’s sexual bahavior admissible to show (i) source of semen, (ii) injury, or (ii) physical E. Specific instance btwn D and V admissible to show consent.
2. Civil case - admissible if probative value is substantially outweighs the danger of harm to V.

Question 9

Homicide Cases - V’s character for peacefulness

Answer 9

In homicide cases where D plead self-defense, E of any kind that V is first aggressor opens door to E that V had good character for peacefulness.

Question 10

Specific acts of misconduct

Answer 10

E of person’s other crimes or misconduct inadmissble if offered solely to establish criminal disposition or bad character.

1. Admissible if independently relevant (MIMIC)
   
   1. Motive
   2. Intent
   3. Mistake (absence of)
   4. Identity
   5. Common plan or scheme (preparation)
2. Requirements: (i) sufficient E to support jury finding, and (ii) probative value not be substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice

Question 11

Prior acts of child molestation

Answer 11

Admissible in a case where D is accused of committing act of sexual assault or child molestation