Admit/Limit/Exclude
Defendant is charged with being a felon-in-possession of a firearm. Prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior felony conviction, including which felony and the underlying facts.
Admit the fact of the felony conviction, but not the nature of the felony which is likely to be substantially prejudicial than probative.
When might the rule of completeness apply?
A. To give the full context of the e-mail conversation
B. To prevent the portions defendant introduced from being misleading
C. To explain difficulties plaintiff was facing in his personal life at the time
B. To prevent the portions defendant introduced from being misleading
Defendant is charged with committing a murder in the fun zone of a county fair. Prosecutor seeks to call a witness to say that defendant was in the fun zone at the time of the shooting, and left immediately thereafter. The defense objects, “Relevance, defendant left quickly because he got a text message from his girlfriend saying she was going into labor.”
Overrule.
The prosecutor’s evidence is:
Defendant was in the fun zone at the time of the shooting, and
Defendant left immediately thereafter.
This is plainly relevant under FRE 401:
Presence at the scene → makes it more probable he committed the crime.
Sudden departure → can support consciousness of guilt.
The defense’s explanation (“he left because of a text about his girlfriend’s labor”) does not make the evidence irrelevant. That goes to weight, not admissibility.
Prosecutor/plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that defendant is very wealthy in a criminal case where defendant is charged with murder.
In a criminal case, a defendant’s wealth is not relevant unless it connects to a specific, articulated motive (e.g., financial dispute, insurance payout, inheritance motive).
Defendant is charged with fraud. Prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that, just hours after inducing the victim to give him $10 million to fund an experimental drug called “Liquid Sunshine,” defendant went to his bank to drain his bank account and convert that amount plus the $10 million into Euros. This evidence is:
A. Relevant to prove defendant’s flight, and hence consciousness of guilt.
B. Not relevant if defendant testifies that he had been planning to move to Austria for months.
C. Potentially subject to exclusion if the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
D. Both A and C.
D. Both A and C.
The evidence is relevant to show consciousness of guilt (flight-type behavior) and, like all prosecution evidence with strong emotional weight, is potentially subject to exclusion under FRE 403.
B is incorrect because an alternative explanation speaks to weight, not admissibility.
Defendant is charged with robbery. Prosecutor wishes to introduce evidence that defendant fled the scene when police arrived. Defendant wants to introduce evidence that he fled because he was currently on parole for murder and feared revocation of his parole due to his proximity to criminal activity, even if he did nothing wrong
The defendant may introduce his parole status and prior crime to offer an alternative explanation for flight. But because the prior murder is inadmissible to prove character or propensity, the court must give a FRE 105 limiting instruction restricting the jury to the proper purpose.
Does it matter that plaintiff’s statements from the e-mail string, when introduced by plaintiff, constitute inadmissible hearsay?
A. Yes
B. No
Under normal hearsay rules?
→ Yes, plaintiff can’t offer their own statements.
Under Rule of Completeness (FRE 106)?
→ NO. It does not matter. They come in anyway.
Defendant is charged with murder. While the charges are pending, defendant gets a tattoo on his forehead matching the Penal Code section for murder in that state. Prosecutor seeks to admit this fact. The defense objects, “Relevance.”
Overrule
A fact is relevant if it has any tendency to make a material fact more or less probable. A defendant, after being charged with murder, choosing to tattoo the exact Penal Code section for murder on his forehead tends to show:
Consciousness of guilt,
Adoption or embrace of the identity associated with the crime,
Lack of remorse,
Or even a statement of involvement.
You don’t need this to prove guilt by itself — relevance only requires a small logical step. This tattoo easily meets 401’s low bar.
Prosecutor/plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that defendant is very wealthy in a civil case where the victim’s family has sued defendant for wrongful death.
Overrule, at least if plaintiffs are also seeking punitive damages, which turns in part on defendant’s net worth. Defendant’s wealth = relevant to the amount of punitive damages.
Plaintiff sues defendant for injuries sustained in a boating accident. To prove the future medical expenses portion of her damages, plaintiff seeks to introduce a video that details her new daily routine now that she is confined to a wheelchair. This evidence is:
A. Relevant.
B. Relevant, but subject to exclusion if the video uses music and images that serve no purpose other than to elicit sympathy.
C. Irrelevant.
Answer: B. This is a classic case of whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under FRE 403.
Defendant is charged with murder. Prosecutor seeks to introduce a video, set to music, detailed the victim’s ties to his family and community to show the victim impact of his slaying
A video aimed at evoking sympathy for the victim likely goes too far and is unfairly prejudicial.
May recorded conversations fall under the FRE 106 Rule of Completeness?
Yes, recorded conversations count.
Defendant is charged with murder and personal use of a deadly weapon (specifically, a knife). Prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that, during a search, several knives were found in defendant’s bedroom. The defense objects, “Relevance.”
Sustain. Possession of weapons is NOT relevant unless the prosecution can show a specific link between the weapon found and the weapon used in the crime.
I think this could go either way, but the supplement says sustain.
Defendant is charged with unlawfully possessing guns and drugs. Prosecutor seeks to introduce rap lyrics posted by defendant on his social media page. The rap lyrics glorify guns and drugs. Objection "Relevance".
Sustain. Rap lyrics that merely glorify guns or drugs are not relevant unless there is evidence they were intended to describe real events.
Defendant is charged with a gang-related shooting. Prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that defendant is an amateur rap musician who has written, performed, and starred in YouTube videos. Defendant’s songs deal with “the gangster life.” This evidence is:
A. Admissible to prove defendant’s awareness of gang culture.
B. Admissible to prove defendant’s intent to commit the charged shooting.
C. Admissible to prove defendant’s intent to commit the charged shooting if the rap songs to be introduced have some connection to that shooting (by providing a motive, by detailing how it would be carried out, etc.).
D. Both A and B.
E. Both A and C.
Answer: E. The rap lyrics are relevant to prove defendant’s awareness of gang culture, so A is correct. However, rap lyrics are relevant only to the extent they have some connection to the charged crime, so C is correct but B is incorrect. Thus, E is the correct answer.
Defendant is charged with attempted murder. Prosecutor seeks to introduce a video that recreates the bullet patterns, and thus refutes defendant’s claim of self-defense in fighting off the knife-wielding victim.
As long as the science underlying the calculations is sound, and the video accurately represents the expert’s findings, this graphic representation is not unfairly prejudicial or misleading.
Can FRE 106 require admission of material that is otherwise hearsay?
Yes. If needed to correct a misleading impression, FRE 106 allows admission of portions that would normally be inadmissible hearsay.
Defendant is charged with a drive-by shooting. The police recover the semiautomatic assault weapon used in the shooting. The gun is tested for fingerprints, and none of them comes back to defendant. Defendant wishes to introduce this result. Prosecutor objects, “Relevance.”
Overrule. It makes it less probable that defendant handled the gun.
Defendant is charged with defrauding investors. Prosecutor wants to use evidence that defendant was living a lavish lifestyle at the time of the fraud, including pictures of defendant’s fancy house, car and parties. Objection "Relevance"
Overrule. Evidence of defendant’s lavish lifestyle may be relevant to show (a) income derived from the alleged fraud and (b) that defendant sought to appear wealthy to entice or reassure investors.
Defendant is charged with bank robbery. The prosecution seeks to introduce defendant’s prior conviction for bank robbery, which was entered 8 years before the current offense. Factors relevant to the trial court’s evaluation of whether to admit the prior conviction include:
A. The age of the prior conviction.
B. Whether defendant has committed any crimes in the time between his release from the prior conviction and the current offense.
C. The similarity between the current offense and prior conviction, and whether it might keep the defendant off the stand.
D. A and B.
E. A, B and C.
Answer: E. The considerations listed in A, B, and C are all relevant to the trial judge’s balancing of probative value versus prejudicial effect under FRE 403.
A prosecutor offers evidence that a defendant had recently been fired to show motive for a bank robbery. Under FRE 401, which prong of relevance does this evidence fail, and why?
FRE 401 (1) It has ANY tendency to make a fact more or less probable, and (2) That fact is of consequence to the action (i.e., material).
It fails Prong 1 (tendency to make a fact more or less probable). The inference from being fired → needing money → committing robbery is too weak, speculative, and prejudice-inviting to meaningfully increase the probability of motive. Motive is a consequential fact (Prong 2), but this evidence does not actually advance it.
If a partial admission of evidence may mislead the jury so that FRE 106 kicks in, does that make the entire document admissible?
No, only the portions necessary to avoid misleading the jury.
Defendant is charged with rape. He wants to introduce evidence that the police investigated another suspect before he was charged with the crime. Prosecutor objects, “Relevance.”
Sustain. Defendant’s knowledge of the classification of her prior conviction is not an element nor a defense to being a felon in possession.
However, After Rehaif (2019), the correct legal answer for an exam applying current doctrine is the opposite: Knowledge of felony status is an element --> Evidence negating knowledge is relevant --> FRE 401 --> Overrule.
Defendant is charged with arson for burning down a commercial building. Prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that, two weeks before the fire, defendant posted on his public Facebook page a photograph of himself standing in front of the same building with the caption:
“This dump is worth more to me burned down than standing.”
Defense objects, “Relevance and unfair prejudice.”
Overrule. Defendant’s social-media post is relevant because it suggests motive (the building being “worth more burned down”), and it references the specific property involved in the charged arson. This directly “moves the needle” on whether defendant intentionally set the fire, and the probative value is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice.
Defendant is charged with murdering her roommate. Prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that the roommate had slept with defendant’s boyfriend. This evidence is:
A. Admissible.
B. Admissible, but only if Prosecutor establishes that defendant knew of the relationship between the victim and defendant’s boyfriend.
C. Inadmissible under the Rape Shield Law.
Answer: B. This is a question of conditional relevance because the roommate’s acts are relevant to establish defendant’s motive only if defendant knew about the affair. Thus, A is wrong and B is correct. C is wrong because the roommate’s sexual conduct is not being introduced to show her character trait for promiscuity.