ROE
801
Hearsay- an out of court statement being used for the truth of the matter asserted
(a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion. (b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement. (c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
701 (a,b,c)
Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
What are the times for trial?
Total: 3 hours
Statements: 14 mins each
Directs: 25 mins each
Crosses: 25 mins each
Davis v. Adams
Trial judges must ensure that any scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant but reliable. In determining reliability, 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 Rule 702 by a preponderance of the evidence.
America's Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles (2009)
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.
702 (a,b,c,d)
Testimony by Expert Witnesses A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
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.
State v. Singh (2019)
Venue and identification of the defendant are necessary elements of every criminal prosecution. Because Midlands does not permit motions for acquittal, the defense closing argument is the proper place to bring it to the court’s attention that the prosecutor has failed to prove these necessary elements of the charged offense.
Richards v. Mississippi BBQ
Midlands Rule of Evidence 703 does not permit experts to testify or to 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. Of course, statements that would otherwise be admissible are not inadmissible simply because they are offered by or through an expert witness.
State v. Tate (1987)
Midlands Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) may be invoked in only one direction in a criminal case. Specifically, Rule 801(d)(2) permits the State to offer statements by a criminal defendant. Subject to MRE 106, Rule 801(d)(2) does not permit the defense to offer the defendant’s own statements, even if the State has already elicited other out-of-court statements by a defendant during a preceding examination.
705
Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert’s Opinion
Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion – and give the reasons for it – without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.
803(8)(a,b)
Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if: (A) it sets out: (i) the office’s activities; (ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or (iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and (B) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
what is in the casebox?
Phone stand, Demo stand, 5 binders (3 evidence, 2 bench books), Plaque, timekeeper cards, 3 of each affidavit and reports.
State v. Tamoe (2015)
A criminal defendant is never required to present evidence or offer an alternative theory of the crime. If a defendant does so, however, a prosecutor may note the defense’s failure to offer evidence in support of its theory of the case. Such comments do not imply that the burden of proof has shifted to the defense, nor do they necessarily constitute an infringement on a defendant's exercise of the right to remain silent.
Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations (1998)
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. When an objection is made under Kane Software, the trial court should ask the proponent of the testimony to refer the trial court to where the proposed testimony is contained or otherwise referenced in the expert’s disclosure to ensure that the record is clear.
803(18)(a,b)
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. If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit. Comment: This rule concerns published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets that have been provided in the case packet. Mere reference to a title in the packet is insufficient; the entirety of the item must be provided in the case packet for this rule to be applicable.
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.
Stip. 15
Exhibit 14 is a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Oxalic Acid from the Midlands Product Safety Commission. A PDF version of this document was lawfully recovered from Charlie Martin’s personal cell phone. An analysis of the document’s metadata by digital forensic technicians determined that the PDF document was downloaded and saved on Martin’s personal cell phone on January 8, 2025 at 9:46 am.
State v. Smarda (2005)
A witness testifying to their own recollection of what they saw occur on a video recording cannot be hearsay. Here, the defendant’s description of what she viewed happening (e.g. people’s movements and interactions) during a movie “outtake” video is not hearsay. However, it may be a violation of MRE 802 if a witness testifies to statements they heard or saw on the video depending on whether the statements met the definition of hearsay or if an exception to the hearsay rule applied.
State v. Barrow
Death by 1000 cuts. Defendant appeals his conviction for murder based on a violation of MPC §18-303(A)(2). Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence of “extreme recklessness” to convict him of murder. MPC §18-303(A)(2) prohibits the reckless killing of another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. The legal concept behind this version of murder has been described as “death by a thousand cuts.” While the Court declines to adopt that phrase as a valid legal doctrine, the concept presented therein is apt. When a defendant commits a series of actions that may not, in and of themselves, evince a specific intent to kill the victim, that defendant can still be found guilty of murder if the cumulative harm of their actions shows an extreme indifference to the value of human life. For example, if a defendant purposefully or knowingly put poison in someone’s food, that defendant would be guilty of murder. But if, instead, that defendant mistakenly gave someone peanuts when the defendant knew that person had a peanut allergy, that defendant would be guilty of at least negligent homicide and perhaps manslaughter. However, if the defendant gave someone nonfatal doses of a toxic substance every day for an extended period of time and eventually the cumulative toxicity killed the person, the defendant would be guilty of murder under MPC §18-303(A)(2). Clearly, the repeated harmful actions by the defendant show greater culpability than accidental or unintentional poisoning. Because the actions of this defendant were a marked deviation from the standards of a law-abiding person, his actions were reckless, and the repeated injurious acts prove that the defendant manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life.
603 & 615
603- Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully Before testifying, a witness shall be presumed to have been sworn in, by an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully administered in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness’s conscience.
615- Excluding Witnesses from the Courtroom; Preventing an Excluded Witness’s. Access to Trial Testimony. (a) Excluding Witnesses. At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses constructively excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. But this rule does not authorize constructively excluding: (1) a party who is a natural person; (2) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated as the party’s representative; (3) omitted; or (4) a person authorized by a statute provided in the case materials to be present.
608
A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness (a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked.
Comment: Written notice is required in civil and criminal cases. In lieu of rebuttal witness availability, if the party attacking the character of the witness for truthfulness is the defense and the witness is a plaintiff/prosecution witness, the defense must first notify opposing counsel in writing at the Captains’ Meeting of the intention to offer such evidence. If such notice is given, the form included with these Rules of Evidence should be completed and presented to the judges with the ballots, and the plaintiff/prosecution may offer evidence of truthful character during its case-in-chief.
Stip. 10
The Parties agree that they waive all objections to the admissibility of Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21. Parties further agree that these exhibits may be admitted into evidence during the case in chief of either party.
Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994)
In assessing reliability under Rule 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, and 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.
State v. Teglia (2025)
Defendant appeals her conviction for depraved heart murder. Defendant was a famous movie actor and director who worked for Pohlmann & Smith Production Studios. During the filming of a bank robbery scene in a movie that Defendant was directing, a prop gun was used. Unfortunately, the firearm was loaded with live ammunition and one of the cast members died from a gunshot wound. The production studio was found liable for wrongful death; however, the trial court prohibited the Defendant from presenting evidence of negligence or recklessness of cast members and production managers during Defendant’s murder trial. Evidence of 5 recklessness or negligence of others may be relevant to whether the Defendant knew or should have known that her actions or omissions had a high probability of causing severe bodily harm to another person. However, the actions of others are not dispositive on whether the Defendant manifested an extreme indifference to human life when evaluating the Defendant’s actions independent of the additional negligent or reckless actions of a third party.