Relevance Flashcards
What is the general rule of relevance?
As a rule, evidence must be relevant to be admissible, and all relevant evidence is admissible unless excluded by a specific rule, law or constitutional provision.
When is evidence relevant?
Evidence is relevant if:
- It is probative, or has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, AND
- Material: the fact is of consequence in determining the action
What is the difference between sufficiency and relevance?
Relevance is like the brick, and sufficiency is like the wall. To be relevant, evidence need not, by itself, establish an element that a party must prove or refute (such as death in a homicide trial). The test of sufficiency of a party’s evidence focuses on all evidence submitted and admitted by the court. By contrast, under the relevancy test, evidence is admissible even if it is a single brick in a wall that establishes a party’s position.
What is direct evidence?
Direct evidence is identical to the factual proposition that it is offered to prove. An eyewitness who testifies that she saw the D shoot the victim dead is an example of direct evidence that the D committed homicide.
Is direct evidence required for a conviction?
No, there is no rule that requires the presentation of direct evidence in order to convict a D. In other words, a D can be convicted solely upon circumstantial evidence.
What is circumstantial evidence?
Circumstantial evidence that tends to indirectly prove a factual proposition through inference from collateral facts is circumstantial. An eyewitness who testifies that, moments before entering a room, she heard a shot, and upon entering the room saw the D standing over the body of the victim holding a smoking gun is circumstantial evidence.
Is direct evidence always more probative?
no, circumstantial evidence can be stronger than a fleeting eyewitness account, for instance
When can relevant evidence be excluded?
All relevant evidence 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. This exclusion is often denominated by the applicable rule, that is Rule 403 exclusion.
What if the danger of prejudice or other factors outweighs the probative value?
Under Rule 403, that evidence can only be excluded if the danger of prejudice or other factors SUBSTANTIALLY outweighs the probative value.
What happens when relevance is dependent on the existence of a fact?
When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof is introduced later.
How does a court determine that sufficient evidence has been introduced to support the existence of a fact (to establish relevancy)?
In making its determination that sufficient evidence has been introduced, the court must examine all of the evidence and decide whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact by the preponderance of the evidence. The court itself is not required to find that the conditional fact exist by a preponderance of the evidence.
What is a curative admission?
Generally, irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. However, when a court admits evidence that is not relevant, the court may permit the introduction of additional irrelevant evidence to rebut the previously-admitted evidence. This is known as curative admission and is necessary to remove unfair prejudice.
The failure of a party to object to the admission of the initial irrelevant evidence is a factor to be considered in determining whether the party was unfairly prejudiced by it.
What is laying a foundation?
Various types of evidence are admissible subject to the existence of a necessary predicate (i.e. a foundation), such as the authentication of tangible evidence. The failure of the proponent of the evidence to establish that foundation may be challenged by an objection for lack of proper foundation.
what is character evidence?
generalized information about a person’s behavior, such as information that the defendant is a criminal, a bad parent, or an inattentive driver.
Is character evidence admissible?
No; generally character evidence is inadmissible.
What is a quick summary of when character evidence is admissible in civil trial?
YES:
Past sexual assault or molestation by a D when claim is related
Sometimes past behavior of a sexual victim
Character at issue
NO:
prove conforming conduct
Can character evidence be admitted to prove conforming conduct in a civil case?
No, in a civil case, evidence of a person’s character or character trait is generally inadmissible to prove that the person acted in accordance with that character or character trait on a particular occasion.
EX: a P cannot introduce evidence that the D is a reckless driver to prove that the D drove recklessly on the day in question.
When is past sexual activity character evidence admissible in a civil case?
D: Evidence concerning past sexual assault or child molestation committed by the D is admissible when the claim for relief is based on the D’s sexual conduct.
P: Evidence concerning the past sexual behavior of a victim of sexual misconduct is admissible in limited circumstances.
Is character evidence admissible in a civil trial when character is at issue?
Yes, in a civil trial, character evidence is admissible when character is an essential element of a claim or defense, rather than a means of proving a person’s conduct. Character is most commonly an essential element in defamation (character of P), negligent hiring, negligent entrustment, and child custody cases.
When is character evidence regarding the D admissible in a criminal case?
In general, the same rule applies for criminal cases as for civil cases: the prosecution is not allowed to intro evidence of a D’s bad character to prove that a D has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question.
EX: even if a D is accused of murdering his wife, the prosecution cannot present evidence of the D’s violent nature
Can a D introduce evidence of his own good character in a crim trial?
Yes, a D is permitted to introduce evidence of his good character as being inconsistent with the type of crime charged.
EX: a D who is charged with murder could present evidence of his peaceable nature
However, the evidence must be relevant to the crime, so a peaceable nature is not, however, relevant to embezzlement charges.
how must proof of good character offered by a D be presented?
Proof of good character offered by the defendant must be in the form of reputation testimony or opinion testimony. Reputation evidence is defined as a D’s reputation in the community. Community includes people with whom the D engages on a regular basis.
How does a D ‘open the door’ to character evidence?
Although the prosecution cannot introduce evidence of the D’s bad character, the D makes his character an issue in the case if he offers evidence of his good character. Doing so opens the door, and the prosecution is free to rebut the D’s claims by attacking the D’s character.
D can also open the door by introducing evidence of the victim’s bad character. In this case, the prosecution’s evidence must relate to the same character trait (such as violence) that the D’s evidence about the victim did.
Does the D ‘open the door’ by taking the stand?
no, the defendant does not open the door to character evidence merely by taking the stand, but as a witness, the D is subject to impeachment.
