EVIDENCE OUTLINE
Why Have Rules of Evidence?:
1. To limit information to the jury – to avoid prejudice & confusion.
2. To limit the scope & duration of the trial.
3. To protect social interests outside of the trial (E.g. marital privilege)
RELEVANCE
Introduction to Relevance
FRE 402: Relevant evidence is generally admissible & irrelevant evidence is not.
-What is relevant is contextual, there is no universally-applicable test
FRE 401: Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency” to make the existence of any consequential fact “more or less probable” than it would be without the evidence.
Direct Evidence: Evidence that, if accepted as true, necessarily establishes the point for which it is offered.
Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence that, even if fully credited, may nevertheless fail to support the point in question, simply because an alternative explanation seems as probable or more so.
-The FRE draws no distinction between direct & circumstantial evidence.
* * *
Old Chief v. US (1997)
Facts: D was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. D offered to stipulate to the prior conviction so that the jury wouldn’t hear the name of his prior violent crime. Prosecution refused, wanting to present the case in its own way. DC & COA sided with the prosecution.
Held: A court abuses its discretion by not allowing the stipulation where the evidence is only to prove the element of prior conviction, if this would risk jury prejudice. But, in general, the prosecution must be allowed to present its case in its own way.
-Merely stipulating to something does not mean that evidence cannot be introduced. Prosecution must be able to prove not only guilt, but level of guiltiness. This helps the jury to hear the whole story and fairly evaluate it.
* * *
FRE 401 (Advisory Cmte Notes): Even evidence that is essentially background in nature is routinely admitted “as an aid to understanding”.
Shannon v. US (1994): The jury’s function is to find the facts & decide guilt or innocence, information regarding the severity of a verdict is irrelevant. This has been applied to prohibit instruction regarding minimum sentences.
* * *
FRE 401: Provides no particular test of relevancy, but sets a general standard requiring a “tendency” to prove or disprove a consequential fact. There are varying ideas on how strong this “tendency” must be:
1. If it makes the point more probable than not. (The problem with this is th
p; deny requests for time to locate new witnesses or evidence.
State v. Chapple (Az. 1983): D said that the trial court erred in admitting pictures of the charred body & skull of a shooting victim, claiming that they were inflammatory.
Held: If relevant exhibits may be inflammatory, the value of the exhibits must outweigh the danger of prejudice. In this case the photos had little probative value because they helped prove nothing. The victim’s death, the cause of death, and what happened to the body were not in dispute. Only the D’s ID was. To show the photos could only inflame the minds of the jury and this was an abuse of discretion.
Acceptable uses of corpse photos (From State v. Chapple):
-to prove to corpus delicti,
-to ID the victim,
-to show the location or nature of the injury,
-to determine the degree of atrociousness of the crime,
-to corroborate a state witness,
-to illustrate testimony,
-to corroborate the state’s theory why the homicide was committed.
