Flashcards in Relevance Deck (18):
Rule 403 pragmatic considerations
• unfair prejudice
• confusion of issues
• misleading jury
• undue delay
• waste of time
• unduly cumulative
When are similar accidents by same instrumentality or condition admissible?
substantially similar circumstances, and (pick any):
• existence of dangerous condition
• causation of the accident
• prior notice to ∆
When is π's accident history admissible?
if the true cause of π's injury is in issue
What may a person's prior conduct be admitted to prove?
Intent on a later occasion
What is the admissibility test for habit?
• frequency of conduct
• particularity of habit
What may industrial custom be used to show?
appropriate standard of care
When is evidence of liability insurance inadmissible and admissible?
INADMISSIBLE: proving fault or absence
• show ownership or control, if disputed
• impeachment for bias
When is evidence of subsequent remedial measures inadmissible and admissible?
• proving negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, need for warning
• proving ownership, control, or feasibility of safer condition if disputed
What is the rule for admissibility of settlement offers?
When there is a (1) disputed (2) claim:
• evidence of the SETTLEMENT, the OFFER to settle, and STATEMENTS OF FACT are inadmissible to show liability and for impeachment
• for impeachment on bias
When are STATEMENTS OF FACT during settlement discussion admissible?
only in a criminal case when the settlement discussion was during civil litigation with a gov regulatory agency
When are criminal pleas inadmissible?
• offers to plead guilty and withdrawn guilty pleas – pending criminal case and subsequent civil case based on same facts
• offers of no contest – civil litigation based on same facts
• statements of facts in any of the above
When are offers to pay hospital or medical expenses admissible? What about other statements made in connection with the offer?
Offers to pay medical expenses: never admissible
Other statements: are admissible
In a criminal case, when is evidence of the defendant's character inadmissible, and when is it admissible? When admissible, how may it be proven?
INADMISSIBLE: during prosecution's case-in-chief
• by defendant to prove a relevant character trait (proven by reputation or opinion)
• by prosecution to rebut defendant's character, once he's opened the door (proven by cross-examining defendant's character witnesses with Qs about specific acts; or by calling its own reputation or opinion witnesses to contradict defendant's witnesses
In a criminal case, when may the defendant introduce evidence of the victim's character? May the prosecution rebut with character evidence? How may each be proven?
DEFENDANT'S USE: To prove conduct in conformity as evidence that victim was the initial aggressor. (proven by reputation or opinion)
PROSECUTION'S REBUTTAL: May introduce evidence of victim's character for peacefulness and of defendant's character for violence. (proven by reputation or opinion)
What is the rule for evidence of a victim's character in criminal and civil sexual misconduct cases?
• inadmissible: opinion or reputation about victim's sexual propensity, and evidence of victim's specific sexual behavior
• admissible: (1) specific sexual behavior to show another person was the source of semen or injury to victim, (2) victim's sexual activity with defendant to show consent, and (3) where exclusion would violate defendant's due process right (e.g., love triangle)
CIVIL: admissible if probative value substantially outweighs harm or unfair prejudice
In civil cases, when character evidence inadmissible and when is it admissible?
INADMISSIBLE: to prove a person's conduct on a particular occasion
ADMISSIBLE: when character is an essential element to the claim or defense (i.e., negligent entrustment, defamation, child custody)
When is evidence of prior crimes allowed? How is it proven?
ADMISSIBILITY: When it is used for non-character purposes, essentially, to prove: Motive, Intent, Mistake, Identity, Common scheme/plan
METHOD OF PROOF: either the conviction, or with evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that the person committed the other crime (conditional relevance)