Evidence Outline

Ø Wellborn_EvidenceFall_2014

o no need for a separate rule statement if your knowledge of the rule is clearly communicated in your analysis (but feel free to provide a statement)

o Do discuss all “colorable” (i.e. reasonable) objections.

§ I.E. Do I need to address FRE 401 relevance in each question; or the definition of hearsay.

§ Instead of saying rule 403 says the following

§ Can say that here the prosecution will argue the admissibility of the evidence under rule 403 because its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial value for reasons x,y,z

Ø as in class hypos and examples make all reasonable arguments for and against a particular position.

o Example admissibility for multiple purposes and therefore if something is admissible for one reason but then not for another the need and purpose of a limiting instruction.

Ø Analysis analysis analysis.

1: Form à How is the evidence being introduced?

– Direct, Cross?

o Purpose: The evidence has a tendancy to make fact that X happened more or less probable.

2: Objections to questions and answers.

– Rule: Character evidence can only be etc.

– P will argue evidence admissible as an exception under x,y,z rule

RULE-401:

Standard: “Any Tendency” [this is a low standard to meet]



2 Parts Materiality: Bears consequence

-Substantive law determine if something is or is not a fact of consequence.

Probativeness: Makes more or less probable

CONDITIONAL RELEVANCE

RULE 104(b):

· When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court MAY admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later.

STANDARD: is decided on basis of common sense and Judge makes determination upon preponderance of evidence. “Judge must determine ONLYU that a reasonable jury COULD make the requisite factual determination based on the evidence before it. NOT required to weigh the credibility of the evidence.

TEST: is there sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could make the requisite factual determinations.

· DIF THEN R 401 Does it make a fact of consequence more possible?

· HERE 104(b) Reasonable jury could be satisfied…

(2)PG 32 COX v. STATE

FACTS: Victim shot in bed. Victim had an allegation against Δ’s friend for child molestation. The Δ’s friend was currently awaiting a bond hearing of which the prosecutor wanted to enter into evidence as a motive.

ISSUE: Whether evidence about bond hearing can be entered into evidence;

R104(b): If he heard about the meeting then the conditional fact would satisfy and connect the two.

HERE: the info is admissible is only allowed upon or subject to the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the conditional fact (i.e. connecting the two)

Evidence/facts introduced to support and satisfy 104(b) are

1) Δ good friends with them

2) Δthere all the time

*Court concludes that 104(b) satisfied thus the evidence is admissible.

-This does not equate to his guilt because the jury still is required to weight that evidence in determining guilt.

(3) State V. Bocharski

Facts: Δ moved in with his friend who gave him a knife. Killed neighbor lady.

At trial six gruesome photos were tried to be entered into evidence.

ISSUE: Should trial court of allowed the pictures into evidence under rule 403?

ANALYSIS: “If Δ NOT contest the pictures were of consequence then the relevant probative value = min.”

-HERE Δ not challenge the victims injuries.

-If time of death were a question THEN YES pics probative.

– Further the pictures do NOT demonstrate the type of weapon.

· Rule 105: “Limiting Instructions”

· “The trial judge originally allowed x,y,z pictures to be admitted to show angles however, prosecutor never elicited testimony concerning the angles or their importance…. Although the pictures met the bare standard of relevance (any tendency to make a fact of consequence more likely) They had little tendency to establish any disputed issue in the case thus we are left to conclude that they were introduce to INFLAME JURY”

(4) p54 MYERS

– Δ alleged to have robbed bank with gun. Δ’s friend looks same; pled guilty to it. FBI tried catching him once in Florida and then once in California.

– Fact that Δ ran NOT sufficient for guilt BUT if proved can be considered by jury in determining…

– *The jury should consider the motive prompting the flight.

(5) OLD CHIEF P77

FACTS: Δ on trial for violating statute that says any person convicted of x crime is x,y,