Rules of Evidence
803(3)
Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.
803(1)
Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
Stipulation 6
Exhibits 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 18, 20, 21, 37, and 42 are pre-admitted. Both parties further stipulate that all pre-admitted exhibits may be used (or referred to) during opening statements.
Borealis Industries v. Ellen Nora Hobbs
Plaintiff sued defendant for computer fraud, claiming that she initiated a malware attack that ultimately resulted in the loss of millions of dollars. At trial, defendant argued that she was not liable because someone else conducted the malware attack. Plaintiff argues that defendant should have been precluded from raising an alternative suspect argument because defendant did not plead any affirmative defenses. Held: Defendant does not need to plead an affirmative defense to argue an alternative suspect theory. Defenses and affirmative defenses are different. Whereas affirmative defenses involve admitting the acts in question but claiming a legal justification for those acts, pure defenses deny committing the acts entirely. An alternative suspect theory is a pure defense, not an affirmative defense. As a consequence, defendant is free to argue an alternative suspect theory when disputing a claim without needing to raise an affirmative defense.
The Estate of Genesis Petrillo v. Harper Martini and Peony Estates
Labels that are placed on commercially sold products for purposes of identifying the product and / or the contents thereof should not be excluded as hearsay. While Midlands has no general residual hearsay exception, commercial labels are relied upon by the public and are subject to legal requirements to ensure their accuracy and completeness. Thus, the reliability concerns that underlie the hearsay rule are not present with labels that are placed on commercially sold products.
803(2)
Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.
602
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’s own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
Stipulation 11
If Dr. Hillary Edmund is not testifying, Exhibit 19b is pre-admitted. If pre-admitted, Exhibit 19b may be used (or referred to) during opening statements. Further, Exhibit 41 is the same type and brand of rodenticide as mentioned in Exhibit 19b.
Rogers v. Mars
In a Slayer Statute proceeding, the decedent is not considered either the plaintiff or the defendant. Therefore, MRE 801(d)(2) does not apply to statements made by the decedent. Statements by the decedent, however, may be otherwise admissible, such as under MRE 803 or MRE 804.
Jeff v. Wario's Toolkit
Absent some special rule to the contrary, a plaintiff in a civil case must establish all the elements of their claim by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., establish that all elements are more likely than not true).
901
Authenticating or Identifying Evidence (a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. (b) Examples. The following are examples only – not a complete list – of evidence that satisfies the requirement: (1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.
Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony
Rule 703. An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
Stipulation 3
All parties and witnesses are at least of normal intelligence, and none has or ever has had a mental condition that would impact a person’s perception, memory, or ability to respond to questions on cross examination. This stipulation does not prevent crossing a witness to attack their perception or memory (or lack thereof).
America's Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles
The Court recognizes that practices differ in other jurisdictions. But in Midlands, the definition of “hearsay” includes out-of-court statements by a witness who is on the stand or by another person who has or will be testifying in a particular trial.
Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow
In assessing reliability under MRE 702(c), judges should consider whether the theory or technique has been or can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether it has a known error rate, or whether it has gained widespread acceptance within the field. These factors, while relevant, are not necessarily dispositive. For example, lack of publication does not automatically foreclose admission; sometimes well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published. There is no definitive checklist. Judges must make such assessments based on the totality of the circumstances.
Recorded Recollection
803(5)
A record that: (A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately; (B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and (C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge. If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.
803(18)
Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets.
A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if: (A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and (B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.
Stipulation 22
At the time of his death, Avery Bancroft’s estate was worth approximately $404 million USD
Krent v. Lions Inc.
Occasionally, the defendant will seek to establish that another party is to blame by showing that third party’s bad character. For example, in a murder trial, the defendant may try to introduce evidence that another suspect has a criminal record. Many legal scholars call this “reverse character evidence.” Ordinarily, such evidence would be inadmissible because it is being used to show action in conformity therewith. However, we decline to say that reverse character evidence is automatically inadmissible. Because the person whose bad character is being introduced is not a party to the case and therefore not subject to criminal or civil penalties as a result of trial, much of the justification behind MRE 404(a) does not apply to reverse character evidence. In our view, there are instances where it is appropriate to introduce this reverse character evidence and other instances where it may not be. Accordingly, we leave it to trial courts to resolve the admissibility of reverse character evidence by balancing its relevance against its prejudicial effect.
Omnidirectional Solutions v. Little Bird Word LLC
It was never the intention of this Court for its holding in Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994) and its progeny to create a rigid and unyielding standard for expert opinions. So long as the expert can sufficiently explain their expertise, training, and method for review, Tarot Readers Assoc. shall not be used by trial courts to prohibit otherwise credible and admissible opinions simply because there is not a known error rate or prior peer review of the expert’s analysis. Such questions and potential challenges of credibility are better left to cross examination.
803(6)
Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity.
A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if: (A) the record was made at or near the time by – or from information transmitted by – someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and (E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
Rule 611
Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
(a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
(b) Scope of Examinations. The initial cross examination is not limited to matters discussed on direct examination. Re-direct and re-cross examination are permitted. But any re-direct or re-cross examination may not go beyond the subject matter of the examination immediately preceding it and matters affecting the witness’s credibility.
(c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily the court should allow leading questions: (1) on cross- examination; and (2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.
Stipulation 8
Exhibit 30 is a screenshot taken from Avery Bancroft’s phone by the Australian Federal Police on April 25, 2024. Further metadata analysis confirmed that Exhibit 30 was created and last modified at 4:57am on April 25, 2024.
MRS 41B.200
Slayer Statute. (a) Notwithstanding MRS 41B.100, a person who was a culpable actor in the death of another shall not receive any part of the decedent’s estate. If the person was named in an otherwise valid will or would inherit via the rules of intestate succession, the person will be deemed by operation of law to have disclaimed any inheritance. (b) The provisions of MRS 41B.200(a) may only be triggered by (1) a relevant conviction; or (2) a judgment obtained in an action brought under MRS 41B.200(c). (c) Any person who would inherit upon the triggering of MRS 41B.200(a) may bring forth a Slayer Statute proceeding in the appropriate circuit court under this section against any person who would inherit absent the triggering of that section. The defendant is entitled to a trial by jury, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant was a culpable actor in the death of the decedent by a preponderance of the evidence. If the jury finds for the plaintiff, the court must enter a judgment declaring the defendant ineligible to receive any part of the decedent’s estate.
Moore v. Parker-Noblitt
The holding in Jeffries v. Polk County Police Department (2007) also applies to licensed private investigators and other such non-law enforcement investigators who possess specialized training, skills, and experience. It also applies to other professionals, such as firefighters and nurses.