Pmbr Article Iv - Relevance

Front 1

Article IV - Relevance - Logical Relevance

Back 1

Relevant evidence must have some logical tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence. "Probative."

"Materiality" - Whether it bears on a fact of consequence in a matter before the court.

Front 2

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 401

Back 2

Relevant evidance definition has

1.Relevant strand
2. Materialty Strand

That which has the tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than without the evidence.

Must be probative of a fact

AND

that fact must be of consequence to the determination of the action.

Front 3

Article IV - Relevance - Direct Evidence vs. Circumstantial Evidence

Back 3

Does not depend on any inference for its relevancy.

EG - Eyewitness aw the accused shoot the victim\ vs saw the accused running from the crime.

Front 4

Article IV - Relevance - Similar accidents

Back 4

Evidence of other similar accidents (like on prpoerty)may be admissible by a plaintiff to prove a dangerous situation existed, or to prove that the D was aware of a dangerous condition IF AND ONLY if established a substantial identity of material circumstances.

EG - PLaintiff offers evidence of other accidents at a particular railroad crossing to show dangerous nature of crossing.

P would have to show similarity, like similar time, similar speed.

Evidence of absence of similar accident: courts more hesitant.

Must show both substantial identity of material circumstances AND if an accident had occured it would have been observed.

EG - P sues city after accident at intersection. D offers to prove that there have been no reported accidents as the intersection has stayed the same. Staying the same satisifies substantial identity of material circumstances, and public nature of intersection satisfies that it would have been observed.

Front 5

Article IV - Relevance - Similar accidents - Example

Back 5

P slips on freshly waxed floor in hotel lobby. D introduces that 1500 other people used it that day and were not hurt.

No substantial identity of material circumstances because not everyone stepped on freshly waxed floor.

Fact that P has filed claims for similar torts in the past may be admissible.

Prior contracts between same parties may be admitted to help interpret the contract terms, BUT past contract with only one similar party may only be introduced to show customary dealing and trade usage.

Prior sale of similar land may be used circumstantially to prove value, but need establish substantial evidence of material circumstances.

Sale of unique property, expert testimony would be required to show similarity of value.

Front 6

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 403 - Policy .considerations for excluding otherwise relevant evidence

Back 6

Policy considerations for which otherwise relevance is excluded, if its probative value is outweighed by risk of

1. unfair prejudice
2. confusion of issues
3. Mislead the jury

4. Undue Delay, Waste of Time, Needless presentation of cumulative evidence

First three can be appealed, 4th prolly not.

Front 7

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 404 - Character Evidence

Back 7

Determine the form of Character Evidence
a. Reputation
b. Opinion
c. Specific Instances of Conduct

Wherever character ev is admissible, all three are usable.



Kind of Case (crim vs. Civ)
Civil case - inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. eg. evidence that D has a reputation as a careful person is inadmissible in a negligence act. EXCEPT where character is as essential element of a claim, defense, or COA, or knowledge of character of another is an issue. eg. slef defense, goes to reasonableness of belief.

Purpose for which its being offered

Front 8

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 404 - Character Evidence - Negligent Entrustment

Back 8

Character evidence is an essential element as to the trustee of a vehicle, but not the trustor.

Front 9

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 404 - Character Evidence - Three ways to use in Criminal Cases

Back 9

Defendatn may use circumstantial character evidence in three ways:

1. Opening the door: D may offer evidence of good character by reputation or opinion (IF RELEVANT TO THE CHARGE), but NOT specific acts, not prove his innocence, prosecution may so rebut (he opened the door to opposing character evidence NOT specific acts).

EG - Honesty Doesn't bare on a charge of murder, but kind and gentle would.

EG - After opening the door as to honesty, P CAN ask the witness if he knew that D committed past acts because not to establish character but to impeach.

2. Bad Character - D may use all three forms to prove bad character of victim, P may so rebut.

EG - introduce evidence of violent character of victim to show victim was first aggressor, but P may then prove his peacefulness.

3. Rape Cases - Reputation and opinion is INADMISSIBLE, but specific acts of sexual behavior are admissible (1) behavior with other person to explain signs of rape (2) acts with D to show conse

Front 10

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 404b - Mimic Rule

Back 10

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts, is NOT admissible to prove the character of a prove the character of a person to show that he acted in conformity therewith, but can be used to show MIMIC

Motive
Intent
Mistake (absence of)
Identity
Common plan or scheme

MUST STILL WEIGH PROBATIVE VS PREJUDICIAL

Circumstantial Evidence may be offered in Criminal case by Prosecution, usually in rebuttal but not in casein-chief. Specific trait to be proved must be in issue.

Never admissible to prove criminal disposition or propensity to commit a crime.

Front 11

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 404 - Character Evidence - habit

Back 11

Evidence of the habit of a person, or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not, or eyewitnesses, is relevant to show action in conformity with the habit.

Can use opinion or specific acts.

Character is general as to disposition

Habit is as to a person regular response to a repeated specific situation.

EG - evidence of the routine manner of answering phone calls or processing orders.

EG - eyewitness says that passenger always wears his seatbelt in tort case - admissible to show habit, regardless of corroboration.

Front 12

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 407 - Subsequent remedial measures

Back 12

Inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.

EXCEPTIONS: Prove ownership or control, show feasibility of precautions, if controverted, impeachment

EG - Defendant put new brake linings in his truck after accident inadmissible to prove negligence vs. D cut down a rotted tree after it fell on P, admissible to show ownership and control if P opened the door alleging under cities control.

EG - Products liabiliy against tractor manufacturer, evidence that it changed its design three months after the accident. Policy - don't want to discourage from making necessary adjustments.

Front 13

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 407 - Offers to Settle

Back 13

Inadmissible to prove liability for a claim OR its value.

Policy - Don't want to chill settlement negotiations.

EXCEPTIONS:
Prove Bias or prejudice of a witness
Controvert a contention of undue delay
Prove that a part attempted to obstruct a criminal investigation.

EG - expert witness paid as exchange to help settle claim against expert.

Front 14

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 408 - Statements made in connection with offers to settle

Back 14

Inadmissible.

EG - negligence Action, following a car accident D walks over and says "sorry that was my fault, but I;m willing to settle."

No severance of the admission from the offer.

Front 15

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 409 - Offers to pay Medical Bills

Back 15

Inadmissible to show liability for an injury

But admission of guilt can be severed from offer to pay to show liability.

Front 16

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 409 - Offers to plead guilty

Back 16

Offers to plead guilty, withdrawn guilty pleas, pleas of nolo contendre, inadmissible against individual who made plea.

Policy - Encourage people to make such pleas.

EXCEPTION: Prosecution for perjury, or purposes of impeachment.

Unwithdrawn guilty plea is admissible as an admission.

Final judgment entered after a plea of guilty following a felony conviction is admissible as a hearsay exception.

Front 17

Article IV - Relevance - Rule 409 - Ownership of Insurance

Back 17

Inadmissible to prove negligence

Don't want to discourage purchase of insurance

BUT can be used to show ownership or control.

EG if D denied that he was the owner of a truck involved in criminal case, insurance policy is admissible.

No severance of admissions from statements with regard to insurance.

EG - don;t sever "my fault" from"my insurance will pay for it."