Relevance

Question 1

Logical Relevance

Answer 1

tends to make a [CA: disputed] fact of consequence +/- less probable

Question 2

Legal Relevance

Answer 2

1. Public policy exclusions of relevant E
   - -Insurance, Sub Rem Measure, Settle/Plea[/Mediation], Med Expenses, [Expressions of Sympathy]
2. Court discretion to exclude relevant E if probative value sig. outweighed by risk of confusion / waste of time / unfair prejudice (emo. distress, other inadmissible purpose)

Question 3

Legal Relevance - Insurance

Answer 3

Excluded to show liability or ability to pay

Question 4

Legal Relevance - Sub. Rem. Measure

Answer 4

Excluded to show liability or defective product design

• -CA: not def. product design
• -OK to show control or rebut impossibility claim

Question 5

Legal Relevance - Settle/Plea[/Mediation]

Answer 5

Excluded to show liability
Related statements excluded
Req’s threatened/filed claim + dispute re liability or damages

CA: unclear if Prop 8 makes pleas admissible in criminal cases

Question 6

Legal Relevance - Offers to Pay Med Expenses

Answer 6

Excluded to show liability

Related statements admissible [CA: related admissions of fact excluded]

Question 7

Legal Relevance - [Expressions of Sympathy]

Answer 7

CA only
Excluded to show liability
Related statements admissible

Question 8

Relevance - Similar Occurrences

Answer 8

Generally not relevant
OK to show (1) causation, (2) habit, (3) routine biz practice, (4) industry custom to show standard of care, (5) rebut impossibility, (6) prior accident/claim to show intent or preexisting condition, or (7) comparable sale to show value,

Question 9

Relevance - CA Prop 8

Answer 9

All relevant E admissible in criminal case

• Exceptions: balancing, character E for propensity, hearsay, conf. clause, secondary E rule, privilege
• Process: (1) inadmissible under CEC, (2) overruled by Prop 8, (3) balance