Character Evidence
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.
Davis v. Adams
Trial judges must ensure that any scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant but reliable. In determining liability, judges should consider only the methods employed and the data relied upon, not the conclusions themselves. The proponent of the evidence has the burden of proving each section of MRE 702 by a preponderance of the evidence.
Moore v. Parker-Noblitt
The holding in Jeffries v. Polk County Police Department 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.
Simpson v. Rose
A verbal act is a statement offered to establish something of independent legal significance or effect, rather than the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Statements which by their existence impose legal responsibilities and grant legal rights upon the parties thereto are verbal acts and are admissible as non-hearsay.
Kaplan v. Sikora
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.
Pattison v He
MRE 609 does not categorically exclude evidence of a witness's prior criminal conviction punishable by less than one year of imprisonment, especially when the offense was a crime of dishonesty. Such evidence may still be admissible, subject to the MRE, on a case-by-case basis.
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.
Jeffries v. Polk County Police Department
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 and its progeny. However law enforcement officers may have specialized training, skills, and experiences 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, 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.
Farrant v. Westaway
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.
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.
Estate of Hamilton v. Walton
Testimony about a psychological condition does not constitute "evidence of a person's character or character trait," the only evidence excluded by MRE 404(a)1. The fact that a person suffers from a medically recognized psychological disorder is not character evidence any more than the fact that a person has a physical condition that would make it easier or harder for them to perform a given act.
Richard v. Mississippi BBQ
MRE 703 does not permit experts to testify or present a chart in a manner that simply summarizes inadmissible hearsay without first relating that hearsay to some specialized knowledge on the expert's part. The court must distinguish experts relying on otherwise inadmissible hearsay to form scientific conclusions from conduits who merely repeat what they are told. The testimony of the former is admissible; that of the latter is not. At the same time, statements that would otherwise be admissible are not inadmissible simply because they are offered by or through an expert witness.
Patel v. Rulli
Rogers v. Mars
In a Slayer Statute proceeding, the decedent is not considered either the plaintiff or he 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.
Dolly v. Ringo
Unlike most other evidentiary rules, MRE 801(d)(2) may be invoked in only one direction. Under that rule, the plaintiff may offer statements by the defendant, and the defendant may offer statements by the plaintiff. But MRE 801(d)(2) does not permit the plaintiff to offer statements by the plaintiff or the defendant to offer statements by the defendant, even if the opposing party has already elicited out-of-court statements by the party during a preceding examination, subject to MRE 106.
Claypoole v. Yoo
Expanding on the court's reasoning and holding in last year's Estate of Hamilton v. Walton 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 "evidence 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.
Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations
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 a 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. 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.
Samson v. Wagner
The trial court properly permitted plaintiff's expert to testify. While plaintiff's expert had never previously testified as an expert at trial, the trial court correctly found that the expert's opinion still met all elements of MRE 702. An expert's opinion may be sufficiently reliable even if that expert has never testified in court before. On the other hand, the fact that an expert has testified many times at trial will not make an unreliable opinion admissible.
McKanna v. Malburg
Although the Midlands Rules of Evidence mirror the Federal Rules of Evidence, there are differences.
Zedell v. Hussain
MRE 803(4) does not apply to statements made by a defendant to a medical or psychological expert retained as part of litigation. The reasoning behind MRE 803(4) is that declarants have an incentive to be truthful to their doctors. However, for doctors retained as part of litigation, no such incentive necessarily exists. Instead, a defendant may have an incentive to tell a doctor retained as part of litigation whatever furthers the defendant's position, regardless of the truth. And since the reasoning behind MRE 803(4) does not apply, neither does the hearsay exception.
ROE 608 is A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness
ROE 404 is Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts
Although a murder prosecution and a slayer statute proceeding share many parallels, a slayer statute proceeding is still ultimately a civil proceeding. Therefore, where rules governing criminal trials differ from rules governing civil trials, the rules governing civil trials apply.
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 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.
Chambers v. By the Book Publishing Ltd
The hearsay rule is only implicated where an out-of-court statement is being used for the truth of the matter asserted. If it only matters whether the out-of-court statement was made (not whether it was true), then the hearsay rule is not implicated.
Knox v. Revoir
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 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.