Is it Relevant?
The Scenario: In a simple robbery trial, the state introduces a surveillance audio recording of the incident. The tape is grainy, scratchy, and partially unintelligible. The defense objects that because parts of the recording cannot be clearly understood, it lacks probative value. Is It Relevant?
YES (Admissible). What is logically relevant evidence whose weight is evaluated by the jury?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 401 (State v. Lee), evidence does not need to have a predetermined minimum weight to be logically relevant. "A brick is not a wall"—poor audio quality or unintelligibility affects the weight given by the jury, not its threshold admissibility
In a criminal prosecution for armed robbery, the prosecutor subpoenas the defendant's current wife to testify against him regarding what she saw on the night of the crime. The wife takes the stand and asserts her privilege under La. C.E. art. 505 to refuse to testify.
What is the spousal testimonial privilege?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 505, in a criminal case or commitment proceeding, a witness spouse has a privilege not to testify against the other spouse. This privilege belongs exclusively to the witness spouse and terminates upon divorce or annulment.
In a criminal prosecution, the state calls a 6-year-old child witness to testify. The defense objects that she is automatically incompetent to take the stand due to her tender age. Is it admissible? Why or why not?
YES (Objection Overruled). What is "proper understanding" (or understanding the difference between truth and lies)?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 601 (State v. Bean; State v. Deutor; State v. Pierce), "proper understanding"—defined as the capacity to distinguish truth from falsehood and appreciate the duty to tell the truth—is the exclusive test for witness competency. Age is not a disqualifying factor.
Under La. C.E. art. 801(C), this is defined as an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
What is hearsay?
A statement relating to a startling event made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event falls under La. C.E. art. 803(2).
What is an Excited Utterance?
The Scenario: In a slip-and-fall lawsuit against a grocery store, the plaintiff offers testimony from a customer who heard another shopper tell the store clerk, "There is a wet spill on aisle 3," ten minutes before the plaintiff fell. Is It Hearsay?
NO (Not Hearsay). What is non-hearsay notice to the hearer?
Under La. C.E. art. 801(C), an out-of-court statement offered not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to show the effect on the hearer/receiver—such as proving that a business had notice or knowledge of a dangerous hazard—is non-hearsay.
The Scenario: Three days before an armed robbery, a defendant filled out a parole supervision form stating he was unemployed and could not afford to pay his $43.00 monthly fee. At trial, the defense objects that his general financial poverty has no bearing on whether he pointed a gun at the cashier. Is it relevant?
YES (Admissible). What is evidence of motive and financial distress?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 401 (State v. Wilkinson), evidence of immediate financial desperation close in time to a robbery is logically probative of motive and intent, making it more probable that the defendant committed the robbery.
Five years after a couple gets divorced, the ex-husband is sued in a civil breach-of-contract lawsuit. The plaintiff calls the ex-wife to testify about a private, confidential conversation the couple had during their marriage. The ex-husband objects under La. C.E. art. 504.
What is the spousal confidential communications privilege?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 504, each spouse has a privilege to refuse to disclose—and to prevent the other spouse from disclosing—confidential communications made between them while they were husband and wife. Unlike the testimonial privilege under Article 505, this privilege survives the dissolution of the marriage.
During a child custody hearing, an unsworn grandmother sitting in the spectator gallery calls out statements to the trial judge. The judge relies directly on her unsworn comments to reverse a prior custody decree. Is it Permissible? Why or why not?
NO (Reversible Error) What is the mandatory oath or affirmation requirement?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 603 (In re Custody of Landry), every witness must take an oath or affirmation before testifying. Receiving unsworn, informal statements from a non-party spectator deprives opposing parties of cross-examination and confrontation, affecting a substantial right under La. C.E. art. 103.
Under La. C.E. art. 801(A), a "statement" includes oral or written assertions, as well as this specific type of behavior if intended by the person as an assertion.
What is nonverbal assertive conduct?
Under La. C.E. art. 803(3), a declarant's statement of then-existing intent ("I am going home") is admissible as a hearsay exception to prove this.
What is the declarant's own future action?
The Scenario: While handing a friend a $500 check, the donor states, "Here is the money I borrowed from you last month." In a subsequent lawsuit over whether the transaction was a gift or a loan, the statement is offered into evidence. Is It Hearsay?
NO (Not Hearsay). What is a verbal part of an act?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 801(C) and controlling Louisiana jurisprudence (Simon v. Trahan), words spoken contemporaneously with an otherwise ambiguous physical act (such as transferring money) give legal character to the act and constitute an admissible non-hearsay verbal part of an act.
The Scenario: To support a defense theory of mistaken identity, a bank-bag snatching defendant seeks to introduce evidence that another young male was arrested for committing identical bank-bag thefts nearby. The trial judge excludes the evidence because the defendant did not present an alibi defense. Is it relevant?
YES (Exclusion was Error). What is logically relevant third-party evidence of mistaken identity?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 401 (State v. Mosby), evidence of similar crimes committed by a third party in the same general timeframe and location is logically probative of mistaken identity. Presenting an alibi defense is NOT a legal prerequisite to introducing such third-party evidence.
A corporate officer meets with an attorney to ask how to structure a fraudulent offshore accounting scheme to hide embezzled funds without being detected. When the prosecutor subpoenas the attorney, the officer asserts lawyer-client privilege under La. C.E. art. 506. Does the privilege apply?
Privilege Does Not Apply.
Under La. C.E. art. 506(C)(1)(a), there is no lawyer-client privilege if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.
Following a conviction, a juror contacts defense counsel and submits a sworn affidavit stating that during breaks, jurors discussed rumors that the defendant was a convicted felon and agreed to a compromise verdict. Is the affidavit admissible? Why or why not?
NO (Excluded under the Jury Shield Law). What is the Jury Shield Law?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 606(B) (State v. Wallace), Louisiana's "Jury Shield Law" strictly precludes jurors from testifying or submitting affidavits regarding internal jury deliberations, rumors, or mental thought processes. The prohibition yields only upon a substantial showing of improper outside influence or extraneous prejudicial information brought from an external source.
Computer-generated phone logs and bloodhound tracking results are not subject to the hearsay rule because a declarant must be this.
What is a human being (or person)?
Unlike Federal Rule 803(4), Louisiana's medical diagnosis exception strictly requires that statements describing medical history or symptoms be made for purposes of this
What is actual medical treatment (in connection with treatment)?
The Scenario: In an armed robbery trial, a bank teller testifies that as the robber approached the counter, he shouted, "Get on the floor and don't look at me!" Is It Hearsay?
NO (Statutory Non-Hearsay Exemption). What are "Things Said and Done" (or Res Gestae)?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 801(D)(4), spontaneous, impulsive, or instructive words spoken by participants during a criminal act are exempt from the hearsay rule as "Things Said and Done" (traditionally known as res gestae).
The Scenario: In a products liability suit over a farm ATV accident, the manufacturer offers an expert "comparative risk study" comparing the safety of riding an ATV to unrelated recreational activities like snowboarding, skydiving, and bungee jumping. Is it relevant?
NO (Excluded under Article 403). What is evidence excluded for confusing the issues under Article 403?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 403 (Laing v. American Honda Motor Co.), logically relevant evidence must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues or misleading the jury by introducing extraneous, complex side issues.
In a civil personal injury action following an auto accident, the plaintiff sues for severe spinal injuries and trauma. When the defense seeks to depose the plaintiff's treating physician, the plaintiff objects under the healthcare provider-patient privilege (La. C.E. art. 510)
What is the patient-litigant exception (or waiver by placing health condition in issue)?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 510(B)(2)(a), in a civil proceeding, there is no healthcare provider-patient privilege when the communication relates to the health condition of a patient who brings or asserts a personal injury claim, placing that physical or mental condition directly in issue in the litigation.
During a trial recess, defense witnesses talk in the hallway about a football halftime show. A court coordinator claims they were discussing the case, and the judge automatically disqualifies all four defense witnesses from testifying without proof that the defendant knew of the conversation. Is the disqualification valid?
NO (Reversible Error) What is the rule of sequestration (or witness disqualification as a sanction of last resort)?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 615 (State v. Lucas), witness disqualification is the sanction of last resort for a sequestration violation[14]. Stripping a criminal defendant of his witnesses without proof that he consented to, procured, or knew of the violation—and without a showing of actual prejudice by the state—violates the constitutional right to present a defense
Out-of-court statements whose making carries independent legal consequences—such as defamatory words, contract offers, or slander—are classified as this type of non-hearsay.
What is a verbal act (or operative fact)?
Under La. C.E. art. 803(8)(b)(iv) and McRay, public records setting forth factual findings resulting from an investigation into this specific topic are strictly excluded.
What is a particular complaint, case, or incident (or the specific facts on which the proceeding is based)?
The Scenario: To prove that a missing person traveled to Dallas on Friday night, a witness testifies that hours before disappearing, the person stated, "I'm driving to Dallas tonight." Is It Hearsay?
YES, BUT IT IS ADMISSIBLE under a statutory exception. What is the then-existing state of mind (intent) exception?
Under La. C.E. art. 803(3) (Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.), an out-of-court declaration of the declarant's then-existing state of mind or intent is admissible hearsay when offered to prove the declarant's own future action.
The Scenario: Six weeks after his arrest for armed robbery, a defendant jumps out of a moving police transport van and attempts to flee. The prosecutor cross-examines him about the escape to show his "consciousness of guilt." Is it relevant?
NO (Excluded under Article 403). What is evidence whose prejudicial effect as an uncharged crime outweighs its probative value?
Under La. C.E. art. 403 (State v. Harris), while flight is generally relevant to show consciousness of guilt, an escape attempt occurring weeks after arrest carries low probative value regarding the specific charged crime, which is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice as an uncharged "other crime"
After receiving confidential written legal advice from her attorney regarding a corporate dispute, a client voluntarily forwards the email to a competitor. Under La. C.E. art. 502, the attorney-client privilege is lost due to this legal concept.
What is voluntary waiver of privilege?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 502(A), a person waives a privilege if he or his predecessor voluntarily discloses or consents to the disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter to a third party.
Following a two-vehicle collision, two company employees inspect the crash site the next day, measure skid marks, and testify as lay witnesses to reconstruct the accident and assign specific skid marks to the plaintiff's car. Is the Testimony admissible? Why or why not?
NO (Inadmissible Lay Opinion). What is lay opinion testimony that exceeds direct personal perception (or unauthorized lay accident reconstruction)?
Under La. C.E. art. 701 (Yellott v. Underwriters Ins. Co.), lay opinion testimony must be rationally based on the witness's direct personal perception. While a lay witness may describe observable physical markings, interpreting unobserved skid marks to reconstruct an accident or assign fault crosses into expert accident reconstruction under La. C.E. art. 702.
Spoken words that accompany an otherwise ambiguous physical act to give it legal color—such as saying "You can take care of this in your own time" when handing someone a check to establish a loan—are non-hearsay under this doctrine.
What is a verbal part of an act?
Under La. C.E. art. 804(B)(3), a statement so far contrary to the declarant's financial or penal interest when made that a reasonable person wouldn't make it unless true, is called this
What is a Statement Against Interest?
The Scenario: In a hit-and-run trial, the prosecution offers an emergency room medical record containing the victim's statement to the attending doctor: "I have severe chest pain because my neighbor deliberately rammed my car." Is It Hearsay?
YES (Double Hearsay) — and the fault portion is INADMISSIBLE. What is hearsay not reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 803(4) (Weeks v. Byrd Medical Clinic; State v. Juniors), medical history and descriptions of symptoms made for treatment are admissible, but statements regarding fault, liability, or identity are not reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment and must be excised
The Scenario: Charged in Louisiana state court with being a felon in possession of a firearm (La. R.S. 14:95.1), a defendant offers to stipulate to his prior felony status so the jury won't hear that his prior conviction was for armed robbery. The state refuses the stipulation and offers the certified conviction record. Is it relevant?
YES (Admissible in Louisiana State Courts). What is admissible proof of an essential statutory element in Louisiana state court?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 403 (State v. Ball, rejecting the federal Old Chief rule for Louisiana), because La. R.S. 14:95.1 requires proof of specifically enumerated felonies, the name and nature of the prior offense are essential statutory elements that the state is entitled to prove, and the state cannot be forced to accept a defense stipulation.
A father is on trial for physical abuse of his minor stepchild. When the prosecutor calls the defendant's wife to testify about what she witnessed, the defendant objects, claiming spousal testimonial privilege under La. C.E. art. 505 and spousal confidential communications privilege under La. C.E. art. 504. Why would it be overruled?
What is the crime against a child exception?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. arts. 504(C)(1) and 505(C)(1), neither spousal privilege applies in a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed against the person or property of a child of either spouse.
To support an insanity defense in a murder trial (La. R.S. 14:14), the defense offers lay opinion testimony from a bail bondsman that he considered the victim and defendant's romantic relationship to be "unusual" months prior to the crime (State v. Butler). Is the testimony admissible? Why or why not?
NO (Objection Sustained). What is lay opinion testimony that fails the helpfulness requirement of Article 701?
Legal Rule: Under La. C.E. art. 701(2) (State v. Butler), lay opinion testimony is inadmissible unless it is helpful to determining a material fact in issue. A speculative opinion regarding whether a couple's relationship was unusual months before the shooting provides no assistance to the jury in determining whether the defendant knew right from wrong at the time of the offense.
Under La. C.E. art. 804(B)(7) and Giles v. California, a party forfeits their hearsay objection if they engaged in wrongdoing intended to procure a declarant's unavailability for this specific purpose.
What is preventing the witness/declarant from testifying?
In Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., the court held that a deceased worker's statement of intent to seek permission could prove he sought permission, but could NOT be used to prove this
What is the future action of a third party (or that he actually received permission)?
The Scenario: In a wrongful death lawsuit arising from a factory explosion, a surviving coworker attempts to testify that moments before applying heat to a pipe plug, the deceased worker walked out of the supervisor's office and stated: "I just spoke to my supervisor, and he gave me permission to heat the plug." The plaintiff offers this statement to prove that the supervisor actually granted permission. Is it hearsay?
YES (Inadmissible Multiple Hearsay). What is inadmissible hearsay offered to prove the conduct of a third party?