Slayer & Burden
The defendant need not be the decedent’s actual killer in order to be a culpable actor in the death of the decedent. The defendant can also be a culpable actor if they facilitated the death of the decedent. A defendant facilitates the death of the decedent when the defendant knowingly or purposefully aids, abets, commands, counsels, encourages, hires, induces, procures, or solicits another person (or persons) to knowingly or purposefully kill the decedent.
What is Bearinger v. Rajan (2009)?
MRE 801(d)(2) governs statements “offered against an opposing party.” This rule does not require the proponent of the evidence to offer the statement “against the party’s interests” in order to qualify as an exemption to hearsay under MRE 801(d)(2)—that language is notably only found in MRE 804(b)(3). If the drafters of the MRE had wanted 801(d)(2) to only apply if the statement was “against the party’s interest,” they would have drafted the rule as such.
What is Knox v. Revoir (1995)?
Emails or text messages are properly authenticated when the proponent has produced evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would allow a reasonable jury to determine the author of the message. The fact that an email, text message, or other electronic communication is listed as coming from an address or number that is either known or purports to belong to a particular person is sufficient to lay foundation that the communication was sent by the person in order to determine its admissibility, at least absent particularized reasons to believe that the communication may have been sent by someone else.
What is Ginger v. Heisman (2015)?
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.
What is Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994)?
Depositions are distinct from affidavits. Whereas witnesses are required to include all relevant and pertinent information in an affidavit, the only obligation a witness has during a deposition (other than telling the truth) is to answer the questions posed to the witness. If a deposing attorney fails to ask a relevant question during the deposition, it is not the witness’s obligation to provide that information.
What is Pathan v. White (2024)?
Because a Slayer Statute proceeding is a civil proceeding with a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial, an acquittal, hung jury, or lack of criminal charges against the defendant does not preclude a Slayer Statute proceeding. Additionally, evidence of acquittal, hung jury, or lack of criminal charges against the defendant is inadmissible as misleading under MRE 403 given the differing burdens of proof.
What is Maloney v. Soucar (1974)?
Identification is a permissible non-hearsay purpose for a statement. Where a statement is not being used for the truth of the matter asserted but is instead being used to identify a particular object, the statement is being used for identification. For example, if a license plate is being used to identify a particular car, the statement on the license plate is admissible as non-hearsay.
What is Farrant v. Westaway (1994)?
A comparison of handwriting samples may be done by lay jurors on their own or with the aid of witness testimony. Either direct or circumstantial evidence may support a jury’s conclusion regarding handwriting. Attorneys during closing arguments may also comment on the similarity (or lack of similarity) of handwriting samples, even without the aid of witness testimony. Jurors may give such evidence and conclusions the weight they believe appropriate in concluding the ultimate issue in any particular case.
What is State v. Sinclair (2016)?
Midlands does not permit parties to use their experts as weapons in a trial by ambush or unfair surprise. Expert reports that are exchanged prior to trial must contain a complete statement of all opinions the expert will testify to and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered by the expert in forming their opinions, and the expert’s qualifications. Experts are strictly prohibited from testifying on direct and redirect examination about any opinions or conclusions not stated in their report, and such testimony must be excluded upon a timely objection from opposing counsel. For example, an expert may not testify on direct or redirect examination that they formed a conclusion based on evidence that came out during trial that the expert did not previously review. However, if an expert is asked during cross examination about matters not contained in their report, the expert may freely answer the question as long as the answer is responsive.
What is Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations (1998)?
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.
What is Omnidirectional Solutions v. Little Bird Word LLC (2023)?
The key question in a Slayer Statute proceeding is whether the defendant was a “culpable actor” in the death of the decedent. There are three ways to establish that the defendant was a culpable actor: (1) the defendant knowingly caused the death of the decedent; (2) the defendant purposefully caused the death of the decedent; or (3) the defendant facilitated the death of the decedent. In a Slayer Statute proceeding, a plaintiff is free to pursue any or all theories of culpability.
What is Caltry v. Bridgeman (1985)?
Pursuant to MRE 801(d)(2)(D), a statement that would otherwise be hearsay is admissible against a party if: (1) the declarant is the party’s agent or employee; (2) the statement concerns a matter that is within the scope of the agency or employment relationship; and (3) the statement was made while the agency or employment relationship existed.
What is Kaplan v. Sikora (2013)?
Interrogatories are written questions and answers exchanged by the parties during the discovery stage of a civil case. One party sends a list of questions, and the other party answers them. Since such discovery responses are statements that “the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true” (MRE 801(d)(2)(B)), those answers are not hearsay if offered by the opposing party, though other evidentiary objections may still apply.
What is Cain v. Abel (2015)?
On rare occasions, an expert may prepare an affidavit or other sworn statement in lieu of an expert report. In such instances, the lack of an expert report does not automatically prohibit the expert from testifying to their opinions and conclusions on direct or redirect examination. Instead, prior to trial, the court should determine whether the affidavit or sworn statement contains a complete statement of all opinions the expert will testify to and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered by the expert in forming their opinions, and the expert’s qualifications. If the affidavit meets these requirements, the expert shall be permitted to testify on direct or redirect examination about any opinions or conclusions stated or incorporated in their affidavit or sworn statement. Any such affidavit or sworn statement is still subject to Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations (1998) and Yu-Oh Industries v. Beckstein Alekri Inc. (2000).
What is Nelson v. Dunn (2001)?
Appellants argue that the trial court improperly excluded testimony from the defense expert on the basis that certain testimony amounted to “trial by ambush” under the precedent set by Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations (1998). Appellants admit that the defense expert was attempting to testify to certain underlying facts that were not expressly disclosed in the expert report and that such facts contributed to the expert’s conclusions, but they argue that the conclusion itself was disclosed and thus it was unnecessary for every underlying detail to be disclosed. We hold that the Appellants’ argument has merit. Experts should not be expected to include in their reports every basic scientific fact known to lay people and known realities that support their conclusion. Similarly, experts should not be expected to include in their reports every underlying fact from a specific document so long as the experts explicitly disclosed that they relied upon that document in forming their opinions and that document was made available to the other party through discovery. Such requirements would lead to expert reports that are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages long. For example, an accident reconstructionist need not explain Newton’s laws of motion in their report. However, if an expert wishes to testify that they believe the indentations on a vehicle’s door means that the vehicle collided with a streetlamp at 45 MPH, then measurements, equations, and other relevant facts that form the basis for that specific conclusion must be disclosed in the expert’s report. Reversed and remanded to the trial court for reconsideration consistent with this decision.
What is Yu-Oh Industries v. Beckstein Alekri Inc. (2000)?
The fact finder may rely on both direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness personally did, saw, or heard. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence from which the fact finder may infer that another fact is true. Neither type of evidence should be given categorically more weight than the other.
What is Haug v. Sanders (2002)?
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.
What is America’s Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles (2011)?
In lieu of submitting an entire deposition into evidence, a party may instead elect to read excerpts of a deposition onto the record. The excerpt must include the full question(s) asked and the full answer(s) given, unless both sides agree to specific redactions. Any excerpt read onto the record is still subject to the Midlands Rules of Evidence. Should a party elect to read excerpts of a deposition onto the record, that party cannot also submit the deposition itself into evidence.
What is Midlands Television Studios v. Kosack (2019)?
Generally, law enforcement officers are not “experts” subject to MRE 702 or this Court’s holding in Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994) and its progeny. However, law enforcement officers may have specialized training, skills, and experience beyond the average citizen as contemplated in MRE 701 and may testify based on such specialized knowledge. Insofar as a law enforcement officer is asked to provide an opinion based on that officer’s general training, skills, and experience as a law enforcement officer (e.g., whether the officer followed standard protocol in collecting evidence), the admissibility thresholds of MRE 702 and Tarot Readers do not apply. Rather, the admissibility of a law enforcement officer’s non-expert opinion is subject to the standards of MRE 701 and any other applicable rule of evidence.
What is Jeffries v. Polk County Police Department (2007)?
Expanding on the Court’s reasoning and holding in last year’s Estate of Hamilton v. Walton (2009), in a Slayer Statute proceeding, evidence showing that the defendant’s psychological profile does not match the psychological profile of a hypothetical culpable actor does not constitute “[e]vidence of a person’s character or character trait,” the only evidence excluded by MRE 404(a)(1). Additionally, if the defense offers evidence that the defendant’s psychological profile does not match the psychological profile of a hypothetical culpable actor and / or the defense calls an expert who reached an opinion on such an issue, the plaintiff may provide evidence to show the defendant fits the psychological profile; such evidence also does not constitute character evidence.
What is Claypoole v. Yoo (2010)?
Although a defendant is not required to present evidence or offer an alternative theory of the case, if a defendant does so, the plaintiff may cross-examine defense witnesses on the lack of corroborative evidence or otherwise note the defense’s failure to offer evidence in support of its theory of the case. Such questions and comments do not imply that the burden of proof has shifted to the defense.
What is Clement v. Mason (2015)?
MRE 803(6) covers a wide range of records and documents. These can include receipts, emails, memos, and any other such records so long it qualifies as a regularly conducted activity. The key inquiry is whether such records are indeed a regularly conducted activity of the business or organization. For example, if a business or organization regularly creates memos (whether written or via voice), such memos fall under MRE 803(6) (assuming all elements are established).
What is Garmoe v. Evans (2016)?
In Midlands, substantive objections are not appropriate during a deposition. As a result, failure to object to a question during a deposition does not preclude a party from objecting to the deposition (or an excerpt under Midlands Television Studios v. Kosack) being offered at trial.
Rosen v. Groff (2020)?
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.
What is Moore v. Parker-Noblitt (2009)?
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.
What is Krent v. Lions, Inc. (2009)?