401
What are the requirements for establishing relevance?
Describe the balancing test of 403.
Highly prejudicial, low probative value evidence will come in.
Is evidence of a person's character trait generally admissible to prove that they acted in conformity with the trait on a particular occasion?
Evidence of a person's character or character trait is NOT admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
The judge, decisions on the admissibility of evidence are for the judge. The jury is assigned the tasks determining the credibility and weight assigned to the admitted evidence
What are the exceptions to the general rule that character evidence is inadmissible to prove that a person acted in accordance with that character on a particular occasion?
1. criminal defendant of own character trait if pertinent....404(a)(2)(a)
2. pertinent trait of alleged victim.... 404(a)(2)(b)
3. homicide where victim was the aggressor, may introduce evidence of peacefulness 404(a)(2)(c)
4. impeach the credibility of the witness 404(a)(3)
What is always relevant?
Bias and credibility
Professor S is being tried for murder. Prosecution wants to offer evidence that when he was 16, he got a DUI. How would defense counsel object?
403, Substantially more prejudicial than probative. in this case, it would be confusing the issues, you are here on a murder charge not a DUI charge.
Dr. Decay, a dentist, performs a root canal on Buckteeth. Subsequently, Buckteeth jaw becomes infected. He sues Decay claiming lack of informed consent. Dr. Decay wants to testify sayin that even though he didnt have a consent form, that it was his routine practice to warn all patients of the possibility of infection. Buckteeth objects. how should the court rule?
Overruled, the evidence is allowed because it is habit or routine practice. there does not need to corroboration of the witness's testimony
The obviously murdered body of Jimmy Hoffa is found, and the search is on for the murderer. Police discover that when Hoffa was in kindergarten, he stole Sparky's cookie and when Sparky discoevred the theft, Sparky said "Hoffa im going to kill you".... Sparky is tried for the murder and the prosecutor wants to introduce evidence of the kindergarten threat. The defense objects, claiming only that the evidence is irrelevant. How should the court rule?
Objection sustained. The court should sustain the relevance objection because the statement was made long ago. Because the threat was made so long ago, the threats existence does not make it more likely that the murderer was Sparky.
Oedipus Wrecks is charged with murdering his mother, T-Rex. At tria, the prosecution seeks to introduce 6 different photos from slightly different angles. Will the prosecution be able to succeed in getting all of these photos admitted over objection?
No, admission of one is okay but combined the gruesome nature of the pictures would prejudice the jury and having all six images would be needlessly cumulative evidence as well.
Maddie slapped Ami in the face, Ami now sues maddie. Ami wants to bring in that six months ago, maddie slapped sarah in the face and six months before that she slapped diedre. maddie objects to this being brought in. what would be the ruling?
lack of accident, habit of maddies to slap people
Elias the chimpanzee mauled his owner across the face. Stacy who witnessed the event yelled "I cheated on my husband!!" The defense objects to relevance of this statement being entered, how would the judge rule?
Sustained, this would not be allowed to come in because it does not make any fact of todays case more or less likely.
Salome is on trial for masterminding the murder of John. The prosecution seeks to enter Johns severed head into evidence to show that he was killed by beheading. The defense objects on the ground that the head is so gruesome that it will unfairly prejudice the jury against Salome. The defense offers to stipulate that John is dead and that he was beheaded. Should the court sustain the defense objection?
Yes, while the head is relevant there are 403 factors at play. Here, the gruesomeness would have a tendency to unfairly inflame the jury and since they are willing to stipulate it lowers the probative value of bringing in the head as well.
Brutus is tried for the murder of Julius Caesar. Brutus claims the stabbing was accidental, he tripped, dagger in hand and the blade plunged into JC chest. The prosecutor tries to admit evidence that 6 months before the stabbing, Brutus tried to slip hemlock into caesar's wine. brutus's lawyer objects and assuming the prosecution makes the best argument available, how should the court rule?
Overruled, the evidence is admissible to show a lack of accident. Absence of mistake or lack of accident.