Evidence
Evidence: codification of common law
Relevancy: Article 4:
General Principles: 401-403:
401: Definition of “Relevant Evidence”: Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence
– Two components:
o Tending to make more/less likely: E law: probative value
o A fact of consequence: determined by substantive law of the charge + pleadings
402: Relevant E Generally Admissible: all relevant E is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Const, act o’ C, by these rules, or by other S Ct rules. Irrelevant E is not admissible
403: Exclusion o’ Relevant E on Grounds o’ Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, causing undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence:
– 402 and 403: a balancing act: evidence is allowed as long as its probative value outweighs any 403 (prejudicial) concerns
– Deference given to trial judge’s determination of admissibility: admissibility/exclusion can be reversed on appeal only for arbitrary or irrational decision
Character:
A. Evidence Concerning the Accused in a Criminal Case
i. The General Prohibition Against Character Attack in the Case in Chief:
Rule: 404:
A): can’t introduce character evidence to show propensity to commit crime
– Prosecution can’t bring character witnesses first or turn eye witness into character witness: Gilliland: Pros couldn’t ask son-in-law questions about accused forger + car thief’s character through past acts
o Bad character testimony forbidden for pros, good character allowed for D, why:
§ Logically good character is more probative than bad: when D pleads innocent
ii. D’s use o’ Character Witnesses and the Pros response:
Overview: Character o’ D E + interaction w/ 608 +609
– The D can put in E o’ D’s character, then Pros can rebut this
o Pros can’t introduce character T, until D opens the door and then only to the trait D opened door to
– The D can put in E o’ the V’s character, then Pros can show this same trait in D
o Ex: V was violent, pros can show D was violent
o If D puts in E o’ V’s character, Pros can rebut this
o Only in Homicide’s, if D claims self-defense, pros can show V was a peaceful person
– In all these cases: the E o’ character must be in the form o’ rep/opinion, until the other side cross-examines the W, then the other side may use rep/opinion or acts: NO CHARACTER E o’ ACTS TILL CROSS
o EXCEPTION: if character trait is an element o’ charge/claim/defense character E to prove this trait may be made through Character E o’ acts/conduct
– EXTRINS
nd as a W
o If pros attacks D’s character for truthfulness, D can rehab it
A) i): D can offer character testimony, pros can rebut it, if D puts forth trait o’ victim then pros can show that trait by D
– Who can and when:
o D
o Pros on rebuttal, or D on rebuttal: call own witnesses
§ If D opens door to character, Pros can rebut
o Cross-examination o’ either’s witnesses
– Failure to call character witnesses: pros may not refer to this
o It is reversible error to raise D’s character at issue when D hasn’t done so first
B): not admissible to prove the character of a person to show propensity; admissible to prove: motive, opp, intent, etc: inclusive list
405: Methods o’ Proving Character
A): Reputation or Opinion: proof o’ trait may be made by rep or opinion; on cross, pros can ask about relevant specific instances o’ conduct on cross
– What:
o Reputation
o Opinion
§ Not specific acts until cross: ie: can only ask about acts on cross; D’s character or p’ rebuttal can’t talk about acts
· Specific acts on cross not to prove D’s acts, but to test knowledge + credibility o’ witness
· Form: have you heard/do you know
