Flashcards in Relevance Deck (19):
Always admissible. Must be Probative and Material.
fact has tendency to make the fact more or less probable than w/o evidence
consequence in determining the action
Identical to the factual proposition that it is offered to prove. (I saw D shoot victim dead.)…DON’T need for conviction.
Sometimes better than direct evidence…if greater probative value. It’s evidence that tends to indirectly prove a factual proposition through inference from collateral facts
Exclusion of Relevant Evidence
Rule 403 provides it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Generally, inadmissible. But can be introduced to rebut previously admitted irrelevant evidence.
Character Evidence - Civil
inadmissible to prove a person acted in accordance with that character on a particular occasion.
Admissible when character is essential element of the claim/defense instead of proving persons conduct (i.e. defamation, negligent hiring, child custody.)
Defendant's Character Evidence - Criminal - By Prosecution
Not permitted to introduce bad character to show D has propensity to commit crimes so likely to have committed this crime.
Defendant's Character Evidence - Criminal - By Defense
Permitted to introduce evidence of good character as inconsistent with type of crime charged, but must be PERTINENT to crime charged.
Reputation and opinion testimony must be from people who regularly engage with Defendant.
D "opens the Door"
when D offers good character evidence. Prosecution can rebut by attacking character.
Victim's Character Evidence by Defense
Defense can introduce reputation or opinion evidence of victim’s character when relevant to the defense asserted.
Victim's Character by Prosecution
Prosecution can offer rebuttal evidence of victim’s good character when D introduced evidence of victim’s bad character.
Character evidence = admissible for impeachment to show witness is not a person whose testimony should be believed.
Typically inadmissible to show a person acted with that character on a particular occasion. CAN BE USED TO PROVE:
• Mistake (absence of)
• Common Plan
Specific Acts - Civil Cases
If essential element of claim or defense, can be proved by specific instances of person’s conduct by testimony on reputation or opinion.
Specific Acts - Criminal Cases
Specific instances of conduct are not admissible. Only reputation or opinion testimony. Rep and opinion testimony must be from people who regularly engage with Defendant.
Specific Acts - Cross Examination
Witness can be asked about D’s specific acts.