Evidence Outline
Wellborn-Summer 2008
RELEVANCY
401- “Relevant Evidence”
402- Relevant Evidence generally admissible; Irrelevant evidence inadmissible
403- Exclusion of relevant evidence on special grounds:
-unfair prejudice-relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial- it is only unfair prejudice when the probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial effect
-Confusion of the issues
-Misleading the jury
-Undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence
-Surprise
àTX & Fed. Rules are the same
-to be relevant the evidence must have:
(1) Probative Value – Evidence must make a proposition more likely or less likely.
(2) Materiality – The proposition must be of consequence to the determination of the action (must prove something that is at issue)
-evidence need not be conclusive to be relevant
Probative Value
State v. Kotsimpolus (p.1)
-guy stole pork from the meat-packing plant where he was an inspector; claimed he was framed by Carver, a meat plant employee, who wasn’t too fond of him
-ISSUE: was evidence that Carver had threatened Kotsimpolus, “I’m going to see to it that you lose your job,” properly excluded?
-HOLDING: (alternative holdings)
-evidence that he was fired was irrelevant and properly excluded under RULE 401- but if it didn’t come under RULE 401 (that is, if the evidence was relevant) then it was properly excluded under RULE 403 because it would confuse the jury
-WELLBIE
-the first holding is better, because its not likely that the jury would be confused by the evidence
-the ultimate question is: “was the man framed?”
-circumstantial evidence can prove that a man did an act
-motive and opportunity are 2 diff kinds of circ evidence that can prove a man did an act à the ex-boss had motive but probably not the opportunity to plant the evidence
State v. Nicholas (p.4)
-woman was raped on 2 different occasions; after the 2nd rape, police found the D nearby
-DNA tests showed ∆ fell into a category that 60% (sicà53%) of males fall into (atleast for the 2nd rape); there was also other circumstantial evidence: face scrapes, bloodhound tracked him, found sweaty & with an erection, clothing matched victim’s description of what she felt the rapist was wearing.
-likely that the rapists was the same guy on both occasions, but without any other evidence, that the D was found to have done the 2nd rape, doesn’t mean that he did the 1st one
-ISSUE: was evidence from the DNA test properly admitted? (D argues the DNA test caused unfair prejudice b/c it didn’t prove he was the rapist, only that he had the same bloo
e
U.S. v. McRae (p. 10)
-D shoots wife in the head but claims it is an accident
-D appeals arguing that the trial ct. committed error under Rule 403 in admitting 2 pieces of evidence
1.) admitting photos of his wife’s corpse had no probative value and posed unfair prejudice by appealing to the jury’s emotion
-Wellborn: judge reasoned that each side is allowed to present their story, and the pictures enable the prosecution to tell their story (illustrates position of the body, entry and exit of bullet, etc.)
-judge also said that the photos were not flagrantly gruesome when compared to the crime
2.) admitting evidence of his intimate relationship with another woman which began 2 months after his wife’s death
-Wellborn: this piece of evidence probably would not have been admitted had the D not presented evidence of his overwhelming grief over his wife’s death.
Simon v. Kennebunkport (p.17)
-elderly lady trips on sidewalk and falls and her hip breaks, she sues the Town claiming a defect in the sidewalk
