Mbe And Ca Core Evidence (Double Sided)

Front 1

When is evidence relevant?
(Logical Relevance)

Back 1

When it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence

CA: The fact of consequence must also be in dispute

Front 2

CA Prop 8

Back 2

"Truth in Evidence Amendment." This makes all relevant evidence admissible in a criminal case, even if it is objectionable under the CEC (the Constitution overrules the CEC).

CA:
Exceptions to Prop 8:|1. Exclusionary rules under US Constitution (e.g., the Confrontation Clause);|2. Hearsay law; 3. Privilege law; |4. Limits on character evidence about the victim in a rape case;|5. The rule prohibiting prosecution from offering evidence of defendant's character before defendant opens the door;|6. The secondary evidence rule (CA's Best Evidence Rule); and|7. CEC 352 (court's power to exclude if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value

Front 3

When does the court have discretion to exclude relevant evidence?
(Legal Relevance)

Back 3

When the evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by:|1. unfair prejudice;|2. confusion; or|3. judicial economy

CA balances under CEC 352

Front 4

When should relevant evidence be excluded on public policy grounds and why?

Back 4

1. Liability insurance;|2. Subsequent remedial measures or repairs;|3. Settlements (pleas), offers to settle (plea), and related statements;|4. Payment or offers to pay medical expenses

CA adds:|1. Expressions of sympathy;|2. Discussions during mediation proceedings;|3. Statements related to payments or offers to pay medical expenses.

Front 5

Evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible when offered to prove what?

Back 5

1. culpable conduct; or|2. defendant's ability to pay a judgment

But admissible to prove ownership and control as impeachment or admission

Front 6

Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible when offered to prove what? And admissible when?

Back 6

1. culpable conduct; or|2. in products liability cases, defective product design (based on strict liability).

but admissible: 1. ownership and control; or |2. to rebut a defense that no feasible precautions could have been taken.

CA does not apply the policy to proof of defective product design

Front 7

Evidence of settlement, offers to settle, pleas, offers to plea, and related statements is inadmissible when offered to prove what?

Back 7

In civil cases, liability or fault; In criminal cases, guilt.

but admissible: 1. where no claim has yet been asserted at the time of settlement/offer to settle; and |2. where there is no dispute as to liability or damages.

CA: Discussions during mediation proceedings are also inadmissible

Front 8

Are statements made in relation to settlement, offers to settle, and pleas (as opposed to the actual settlement, offer to settle, or plea itself) admissible when offered to prove liability, fault, or guilt?

Back 8

No.

CA: The law is unclear as to whether Prop. 8 makes pleas later withdrawn, offers to plea, and related statements admissible. On an essay, raise the issue and mention that, even if Prop. 8 did apply, the court may still exclude it for unfair prejudice under CEC 352.

Front 9

What is the CA rule regarding the admissibility of evidence of expressions of sympathy

Back 9

CA: inadmissible in civil actions expressions of sympathy. But statements of fault made in connection with such an expression are not excluded.

Front 10

What questions should you consider when determining whether character evidence is admissible?

Back 10

1. For what purpose is the character evidence offered?|2. What method or technique is being used to prove character?|3. Is the case civil or criminal?|4. Does the evidence prove a pertinent character trait?

Front 11

Ignoring admissibility, what are the purposes for which character evidence might be offered?

Back 11

1. To prove character because character is an issue in the case (such as a. defamation;|b. negligent entrustment; and|c. child custody); |2. To prove character as circumstantial evidence of a person's conduct on the occasion in question;|3. To impeach or support a witness' credibility.

Front 12

What are the methods used to prove a person's character?

Back 12

1. specific instances of conduct;|2. a witness's opinion of the person's character; |3. a witness's testimony regarding the person's reputation

Front 13

General admissibility of character evidence in civil cases

Back 13

Inadmissible to prove conduct; with exceptions.

CA: Inadmissible to prove conduct; no exceptions

Front 14

What is the federal exception that makes character evidence admissible to prove conduct in civil cases?

Back 14

Where the claim is based on sexual assault or child molestation; in such a case, defendant's prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation are admissible to prove defendant's conduct in this case

This exception does not exist in CA

Front 15

In criminal cases, when may the prosecutor generally admit evidence of defendant's character?

Back 15

When defendant opens the door to evidence of his own character.

Front 16

In criminal cases, when may the prosecutor generally admit evidence of the victim's character?

Back 16

When defendant opens the door to evidence of the victim's character.

CA: Prop. 8 does not change this rule

Front 17

In a criminal case, when may the prosecutor admit evidence of defendant's character to prove defendant's conduct before the defendant has opened the door?

Back 17

1. In cases of sexual assault or child molestation, prosecutor may offer evidence that defendant committed other acts of sexual assault or child molestation;|2. FRE: Where court has admitted evidence of the victim's character offered by defendant, prosecutor may admit evidence that defendant has the same character trait

CA adds:|1. In prosecution for crime of domestic violence, prosecution may offer evidence that defendant committed other acts of domestic violence; and|2. Where court has admitted evidence of victim's character for violence offered by accused, prosecution must offer evidence that accused has violent character (a narrower version of the FRE rule)

Front 18

In a criminal case, once the door is open, what methods may be used to prove defendant's character on direct examination?

Back 18

FRE: Only reputation and opinion, not specific instances.

CA: Only reputation and opinion, not specific instances; but Prop. 8 makes it all admissible, subject to CEC 352 balancing

Front 19

In a criminal case, once the door is open, what methods may be used to prove defendant's character on cross examination?

Back 19

FRE: Reputation, opinion, and specific instances

CA: Only reputation and opinion, not specific instances; but Prop. 8 makes it all admissible, subject to CEC 352 balancing

Front 20

Specific instances of defendant's bad conduct may be admitted to prove anything other than character that is relevant, such as

Back 20

1. Motive;|2. Intent;|3. Mistake (absence of mistake);|4. Identity;|5. Common Plan or Scheme

Can still be excluded if admission would result in unfair prejudice

Front 21

What actions by a criminal defendant open the door to evidence of victim's character to prove victim's conduct?

Back 21

FRE: 1. defendant offers evidence of victim's character;|2. in a homicide case, defendant offers evidence that victim attacked first.

CA: 1. defendant offers evidence of victim's character;|2. Prop 8 (if the evidence of victim's character is relevant, it is admissible, subject to CEC 352 balancing)

Front 22

What happens when criminal defendant offers evidence that victim attacked first?

Back 22

Defendant opens the door, allowing prosecutor to admit evidence of victim's character for peacefulness, but only in homicide cases.

Not in CA

Front 23

What happens when criminal defendant offers evidence of a character trait in victim to prove victim's conduct?

Back 23

Defendant opens the door, allowing prosecutor to admit evidence to rebut that trait in victim and to show that defendant has that same trait

Front 24

In a criminal rape case, what types of character evidence are admissible to show victim's character and for what purpose?

Back 24

Only specific instances may be used, and only to show|1. third party is the source of semen or injury; or|2. prior acts of consensual intercourse between defendant and victim.

CA: Rape shield statute makes inadmissible opinion evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual conduct to prove consent; prior acts of consensual intercourse between defendant and victim are still admissible; Prop. 8 does not apply to evidence barred by this rule

Front 25

In a civil rape case, what types of evidence are admissible to show victim's character and for what purpose?

Back 25

Specific instance, opinion, and reputation all admissible if probative value substantially outweighs unfair prejudice and, in case of reputation evidence, victim put her reputation in issue.

Front 26

What qualifies a witness as competent to testify?

Back 26

1. Personal knowledge;|2. Ability to communicate; |3. Must take an oath or make an affirmation to tell the truth; and|4. Recollection

CA: Witness must also understand legal duty to tell the truth

Front 27

What categories of people are absolutely disqualified from testifying?

Back 27

Judge and jurors in the present case.

CA: Also disqualifies witnesses who have been hypnotized to help refresh recollection, except, in a criminal case, witness hypnotized by police using procedures that protect against suggestion.

Front 28

Objections to the form of testimony or questions are waived unless what?

Back 28

Timely and specific objection is made.

Front 29

What objections exist to the form of questions or testimony?

Back 29

Clowns Use Live Animals And Costumes = |1. calls for narrative;|2. unresponsive;|3. leading;|4. assumes facts not in evidence;|5. argumentative, and |6. compound

Front 30

When is an objection of calls for narrative appropriate?

Back 30

When a question is so open-ended that witness may say something irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial and, thus, no notice of such a response is given to opposing counsel

Front 31

When is an objection of unresponsive appropriate?

Back 31

When the witness's response does not answer the question asked.

Front 32

When is an objection of "leading" appropriate?

Back 32

When counsel asks a question that suggests the answer and witness is being direly examined and is not hostile.

Front 33

When is an objection of "argumentative" appropriate?

Back 33

When counsel makes an argument disguised as a question.

Front 34

When is an objection of "compound" appropriate?

Back 34

When counsel asks more than one question at a time.

Front 35

What is the appropriate objection whenever a witness reads a document into evidence?

Back 35

Hearsay.

Front 36

What may be used to refresh a witness's memory?

Back 36

Anything.

Front 37

What is the risk of refreshing a defendant's memory?

Back 37

Anything used to refresh may be inspected and offered into evidence by opposition.

Front 38

When is it appropriate to admit a recorded recollection into evidence?

Back 38

1. witness once had personal knowledge;|2. document prepared or adopted while witness's memory was fresh;|3. the document was accurate when made;|4. document was made by witness, under his direction, or adopted by him; and|5. witness now has insufficient recollection to testify re matters in document

Front 39

When is opinion testimony by a lay witness admissible?

Back 39

1. it's rationally based on witness's perceptions;|2. helpful to trier of fact; and|3. not be based on scientific or specialized knowledge.

Front 40

What are the requirements for admissibility of expert opinion testimony?

Back 40

1. Witness must be qualified;|2. Witness must believe in opinion to reasonable degree of certainty;|3. Opinion must be based on reliable principles reliable applied to the facts;|5. Opinion must be helpful to the jury;

Front 41

How is reliability of principles expert opinion applied?

Back 41

Reliability of scientific opinions determined by:
Daubert: |1. Publication/Peer review;|2. Error rate;|3. Results are tested and there is ability to retest; and|4. Reasonable level of acceptance (the reliability of non-scientific opinions is determined ad hoc looking at facts and circumstances of the case)

CA:
Frye: The opinion must be based on principles generally accepted by experts in the field; this standard is not altered by Prop. 8 because it is a standard of relevance and Prop. 8 only makes evidence admissible once it is relevant (the reliability of non-scientific and medical opinions based on facts and circumstances of the case)

Front 42

What basis of information for expert testimony are appropriate?

Back 42

1. expert's personal knowledge;|2. evidence already admitted; or|3. inadmissible evidence normally relied on in the field.

Front 43

What is the learned treatise hearsay exception?

Back 43

Learned treatise is admissible to prove anything stated therein if it is an accepted authority in the field.

CA: Very narrow exception; only admissible to show matters of general notoriety or interest, so it is almost never applicable

Front 44

When is a witness's prior consistent statement admissible?

Back 44

Only when witness's credibility is attacked and the consistent statement was made prior to the event alleged to have provided the motive for falsity; FRE: hearsay exemption

CA: Hearsay exception

Front 45

What is a collateral matter?

Back 45

A fact that is material to neither the case or the witness' credibility.

Front 46

When is a witnesses prior inconsistent statement admissible?

Back 46

FRE: Admissible if offered only to impeach. If given under oath, exemption to hearsay and admissible to prove truth of facts asserted (impeachment and substantive evidence of facts); otherwise, hearsay and inadmissible to prove those facts (impeachment but not substantive evidence of facts)

CA: Admissible if offered only to impeach. Hearsay if offered to prove truth of facts asserted, but admissible under exception, which extends to all inconsistent statements of witness, whether or not under oath

Front 47

When may extrinsic evidence be admitted to impeach a witness?

Back 47

Any time, except to contradict on a collateral matter or as a specific instance of misconduct.

For prior inconsistent statements evidence, witness must be given an opportunity to explain or deny the extrinsic evidence.

Front 48

When may a witness be impeached by evidence of a prior felony conviction involving false statement?

Back 48

FRE: Any time; but, if it has been more than ten years since judgment/release, it is inadmissible unless probative value outweighs unfair prejudice.

CA: All felonies involving "moral turpitude" are admissible, but court must balance under CEC 352 (time considerations are used in balancing) (Moral turpitude include crimes of lying, violence, theft, extreme recklessness, and sexual misconduct, but not crimes for merely negligent or unintentional acts)

Front 49

When may witness be impeached by prior felony convictions not involving false statement?

Back 49

FRE: Felony convictions within the last ten years are admissible if relevant, but the court may exclude if unfair prejudice outweighs probative value. If it has been more than ten years since judgment/release, it is inadmissible unless probative value outweighs unfair prejudice.

CA: Felonies not involving moral turpitude are inadmissible (Prop. 8 does not make such felonies admissible because convictions must involve a crime of moral turpitude to be relevant for impeachment)

Front 50

When may witness be impeached by prior misdemeanor convictions?

Back 50

FRE: All misdemeanors involving false statements are admissible (no balancing, except for old convictions); all other misdemeanor convictions are inadmissible to impeach

CA: Felonies not involving moral turpitude are inadmissible (Prop. 8 does not make such felonies admissible because convictions must involve a crime of moral turpitude to be relevant for impeachment)

Front 51

When may a witness be impeached by non-conviction misconduct bearing on truthfulness?

Back 51

FRE: Admissible in civil and criminal cases, subject to balancing; must be act of lying; extrinsic evidence inadmissible, but may ask witness about her misconduct on cross

CA: Inadmissible under CEC, but Prop. 8 makes it admissible in criminal cases if relevant (i.e., an act of moral turpitude); both cross-examination and extrinsic evidence permitted, subject to balancing

Front 52

What is hearsay?

Back 52

An out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that statement

Front 53

Common situations where out-of-court statement not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted?

Back 53

1. Verbal acts or legally operative facts (word of contract, defamatory words);|2. Offered to show effect on listener; (to prove notice in negligence case)|3. Offered as circumstantial evidence of declarant's state of mind (evidence of insanity or knowledge).

Front 54

List hearsay exemptions (considered non-hearsay, even though hearsay) and whether declarant must be unavailable.

Back 54

1. Admission by party-opponent;|2. Prior inconsistent statements given under oath;|3. Prior consistent statement offered to rebut charge of recent fabrication or improper influence/motive; and|4. Statement of identification made after perceiving a person.

CA: These are all exceptions, not exemptions (no exemptions under the CEC)

Front 55

What is an admission by a party-opponent (FRE) exemption/ (CEC) exception from hearsay?

Back 55

A statement made by party, or someone whose statement is attributable to a party, offered by a party opponent.
As opposed to Statements Against Interest exception:
- Statement need no have been against interest when made.
- Declarant need not have personal knowledge of facts.
- Declarant need not be unavailable.

Front 56

When is statement made by non-party still admissible as admission by party-opponent (vicarious admission)?

Back 56

When made by party-opponent's|1. expressly or impliedly authorized spokesperson; or|2. employee (a) concerning something in scope of employment (b) while employed;|3. When party-opponent adopts the statement;|4. Co-conspirator made the statement.

CA: Statement by employee of party is party admission of employer only where negligent conduct of that employee is basis for employer's liability in the case under respondeat superior (employer is responsible for employee's words only if also responsible for employee's wrongful conduct)

Front 57

List hearsay exceptions and whether declarant must be unavailable.

Back 57

Declarant must be unavailable:|1. Former testimony;|2. Declarations against interest;|3. Dying declarations.||Declarant need not be unavailable:|3. Excited utterance;|4. Present sense impression;|5. Statement of then-existing mental or physical condition;|6. Statement made for medical diagnosis/treatment;|7. Business records;|8. Public records;|9. Judgments of previous convictions

Front 58

When is testimony admissible under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 58

1. Declarant unavailable and opposing party had both opportunity and similar motive to examine the declarant in a prior proceeding; or|FRE: 2. In a civil case, declarant unavailable and the opposing party was not present at the prior proceeding, but had a privity-type relationship with a party in the prior proceeding who had an opportunity and similar motive to examine the declarant in the prior proceeding

CA: 2. In a civil case, declarant unavailable and a party in the earlier proceeding had the opportunity and similar interest to examine the declarant in the prior proceeding; or|3. In a civil case, declarant unavailable and former testimony offered against a successor in interest to the person who offered it in her own behalf in a prior proceeding; or|4. In the same civil case, declarant is unavailable or lives more than 150 miles away (the former testimony exception only applies to depositions given in the same civil case under this last option)

Front 59

When is declarant considered unavailable?

Back 59

1. Declarant has a privilege;|2. Declarant is dead or sick;|3. Proponent cannot produce declarant through reasonable means;|FRE: 4. Declarant refuses to testify despite court order;|FRE: 5. Declarant's memory fails.

CA: 4. Declarant refuses to testify despite court order or out of fear;|5. Declarant's memory fails on the subject of her statement or she suffers total memory loss

Front 60

When is testimony admissible under the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 60

1. Declarant is unavailable (need not die); and|2. At the time it was made, the statement was against the declarant's financial interest or would have subjected the declarant to criminal liability. FRE: In a criminal case, evidence that exculpates defendant must be supported by corroborating circumstances showing that the declarant's statement is trustworthy

CA: Also within the exception is a statement against social interest because it risks making declarant an object of hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community

Front 61

When is testimony admissible under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 61

FRE: 1. Declarant is unavailable;|2. Declarant believes he is about to die;|3. Statement describes cause/circumstances leading to his death; and|4. It is a homicide prosecution or civil case

CA: Exception applies in all civil and criminal cases and declarant must be dead

Front 62

When is testimony admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 62

1. Declarant need not be unavailable;|2. Statement relates to a startling event or condition; and|3. Made while declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by event or condition

Front 63

When is testimony admissible under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 63

FRE: 1. Declarant need not be unavailable;|2. Statement explains or describes event or condition;|3. Statement made while declarant was perceiving event or condition or immediately thereafter

CA: 1. Statement explaining conduct of declarant made while declarant was engaged in that conduct; or|2. Statement of an unavailable declarant made at or near time of injury or threat that describes or explains injury or threat, in writing or recorded or made to police or medical profession, under trustworthy circumstances (narrower than FRE; with OJ Exception, watch for Confrontation issue)

Front 64

When is testimony admissible under the then existing physical or mental condition exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 64

1. Declarant need not be unavailable;|2. Statement concerns declarant's then existing physical or mental condition or state of mind

A statement describing a memory or belief is not admissible to prove the fact remembered or believed

Front 65

When is testimony admissible under the statement of past or present mental or physical condition made for diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 65

FRE: 1. Declarant need not be unavailable;|2. Statement describes past or present mental or physical condition, or cause, of declarant or another person; and|3. Statement made for and pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.

CA: 1. Same as FRE, and declarant is a minor describing an act of child abuse or neglect (narrower); or|2. Statement of an unavailable declarant's past physical or mental condition, including a statement of intention, if the condition is an issue in the case; no requirement that statement be made for medical purposes

Front 66

When is testimony admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 66

FRE: 1. Declarant need not be unavailable;|2. Record of events, opinions, or diagnoses;|3. Kept in course of regularly conducted business activity;|4. Made at or near time of matters described;|5. By, or under direction of, person with personal knowledge of the facts; and|6. It was regular practice of the business to make such a record (court may exclude if untrustworthy).

CA: 1. Declarant need not be unavailable;|2. Record of events or conditions;|3. Kept in course of regularly conducted business activity;|4. Made at or near time of matters described;|5. By, or under the direction of, person with personal knowledge of the facts; and|6. Record is trustworthy.

Front 67

When is testimony admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 67

Declarant need not be unavailable|1. Record describes activities or policies of the office;|2. Record describes matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law;|3. Record contains factual findings from investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless untrustworthy.

CA: 1. Record made by public employee;|2. Making of record was within scope of duties;|3. Record was made at or near time of matters described; and|4. Circumstances indicate trustworthiness

Front 68

When is testimony admissible under the judgment of conviction exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 68

Declarant need not be unavailable. FRE: A felony conviction is admissible in both civil and criminal cases to prove any fact essential to the judgment; but, when offered by prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against person other than the accuses are inadmissible

CA: The specific exception for convictions applies only in civil cases. Prop. 8 does not change this hearsay law. But Prop. 8 permits the prosecutor or defendant in a criminal case to impeach a witness using a criminal conviction (felony or misdemeanor) if it involves moral turpitude. A certified copy of a judgment of conviction is admissible under the CA public records exception in both civil and criminal cases.

Front 69

When is testimony admissible under the catch-all exception to the hearsay rules?

Back 69

Evidence that is trustworthy and more probative of a particular material fact than any other evidence is admissible at the court's discretion.

Front 70

When does the confrontation clause exclude out-of-court statements?

Back 70

1. Declarant does not testify at current trial, |2. Declarant is now unavailable, |3. Statement is testimonial; and|4. Defendant had no chance to cross-examine at time statement was made.

Front 71

When is a statement considered testimonial?

Back 71

1. Made in court; or|2. Made to police in investigation to produce evidence for prosecution.

Front 72

What is authentication?

Back 72

Every item of non-testimonial evidence must be authenticated; this means proving it is what the proponent of that evidence claims it to be; the burden of proof is low: sufficient to sustain a finding.

Front 73

How can a signature be authenticated?

Back 73

1. Admission;|2. Eyewitness testimony;|3. Expert opinion;|4. Lay opinion;|5. Circumstantial evidence (Ancient documents rule);|6. Genuine exemplar

Front 74

What an ancient documents?

Back 74

1. Twenty years old or more;|2. Does not, on its face, present irregularities; and|3. Is found where such a document would be expected to be found.

CA: Document must be 30 years old or more

Front 75

What writings are self-authenticating?

Back 75

1. Certified copies of public documents;|2. Acknowledged (notarized) documents;|3. Official publications;|4. Periodicals;|5. Business records; and|6. Trade inscriptions

CA: Does not include Business Records or Trade Inscriptions

Front 76

How can non-unique items be authenticated?

Back 76

1. Chain of custody;|2. Indelible marking.

Front 77

What is the Best Evidence Rule (Secondary Evidence Rule)?

Back 77

Only the original item is admissible to prove the contents of the writing.

Secondary Evidence Rule is exempt from Prop. 8, so it applies even in a criminal case

Front 78

Other than the original, what tangible evidence is admissible to prove contents of a writing?

Back 78

FRE: Duplicates are usually admissible (a copy of original produced by same impression that produced original; a handwritten copy is not a duplicate).

CA: Admits duplicates and other written evidence of contents of original (e.g., handwritten notes)

Front 79

When is testimony admissible to prove contents of a writing?

Back 79

Testimony regarding contents of writing may be admissible where original lost or destroyed, unless bad faith by proponent of testimony

Front 80

When is testimony privileged?

Back 80

FRE: 1. Attorney-Client;|2. Psychotherapist-Patient;|3. Spousal Privileges

CA: Also recognizes|4. Doctor-Patient;|5. Confidential communications between a counselor and a victim of sexual assault or domestic violence;|6. Penitent-Clergy; and|7. Immunity from contempt for a journalist who refuses to disclose sources.

Front 81

When does the attorney-client privilege apply?

Back 81

1. Communications between attorney and client or their representatives;|2. Intended to be confidential;|3. Made to facilitate legal services.

Front 82

What are the exceptions to attorney-client privilege?

Back 82

1. Professional services sought to further crime or fraud;|2. Two or more persons consult attorney on a matter of common interest and the communication is offered by one of the these parties against the another;|3. Communication relates to alleged breach of duty between lawyer and client.

CA: Adds that the privilege does not apply where lawyer reasonably believes disclosure of communication is necessary to prevent crime that is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm

Front 83

What is the spousal testimony privilege?

Back 83

Permits witness to refuse to testify against spouse as to anything. FRE: Applies only in criminal cases

CA: Applies in civil and criminal cases and spouse of party is privileged not even to be called to witness stand

Front 84

What is the spousal communication privilege?

Back 84

Applies in both criminal and civil cases and protects confidential spousal communications during marriage

Front 85

What facts are appropriate for judicial notice?

Back 85

1. Facts generally known in the jurisdiction; or|2. Capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Front 86

What is the effect of judicially noticed facts in a civil case?

Back 86

FRE: Court instructs jury that it must accept judicially noticed fact

CA: Court instructs jury that it must accept judicially noticed fact

Front 87

What is the effect of judicially noticed facts in a criminal case?

Back 87

FRE: Court instructs jury that it may accept judicially noticed fact, but is not required to do so

CA: Court instructs jury that it must accept judicially noticed fact