Relevance

Question 1

This makes all relevant evidence admissible in a criminal

case, even if it is objectionable under the CEC. The constitution overrules the CEC.

Answer 1

In a criminal case, mention the “Truth in Evidence” amendment to California

Constitution (Proposition 8).

Question 2

Important Exceptions to Prop. 8 (i.e., these objections are not overruled by Prop. 8):

Answer 2

(i) exclusionary rules under US Constitution such as the Confrontation Clause,
(ii) hearsay law,
(iii) privilege law,
(iv) limits on character evidence to prove the defendant’s

conduct,

(v) limits on character evidence to prove the victim’s conduct,
(vi) the

secondary evidence rule (California’s version of the Best Evidence Rule) , and

(vii) CEC 352 (court’s power to exclude if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value).

Question 3

Three step approach to applying California law on essay:

Answer 3

(i) raise all objections under CEC,
(ii) for each objection, mention if Prop. 8 overrules the objection (Is the evidence relevant? Do one of the exceptions to Prop. 8 apply?),
(iii) if evidence seems admissible under Prop. 8, balance under CEC 352.

Question 4

1. ) Relevance defined
2. ) What does Cali add to the defiition?
   3) Murder prosecution. Defendant admits to shooting the victim but pleads insanity. Prosecution witness testifies he saw defendant shoot victim. Relevant?

Answer 4

1. ) Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
2. ) California only adds the following: the fact of consequence also must be in dispute.
3. ) No. this is not of consequence to the case

Question 5

Exclusion of relevant evidence for policy reasons

Answer 5

1. ) Subsequent remedial measures or repairs.
2. ) Settlements, offers to settle and related statements.
3. ) Payment or offers to pay medical expenses.
4. ) Expressions of sympathy
5. ) Pleas later withdrawn, offers to plea, and related statements

Question 6

Exclusion of relevant evidence for policy reasons

1. Subsequent remedial measures or repairs (rule) and Difference
2. ) Products liability action against toy manufacturer. Plaintiff alleges toy’s sharp corners caused injury. To prove defective design, plaintiff offers evidence that defendant redesigned toy to remove sharp corners. Admissible?
3. Settlements, offers to settle and related statements. (rule) and Difference
4. ) Payment or offers to pay medical expenses (rule) and Difference
5. ) Plaintiff falls down stairs in defendant’s building. Defendant visits plaintiff in the hospital and says “I’ll pay your hospital bill. I shouldn’t have dropped that banana peel on the stairs.” Admissible?
6. ) Same case. Defendant says “If you will sign a release, I will pay your hospital bill. I shouldn’t have dropped that banana peel on the stairs.” Admissible?
7. ) Expressions of sympathy. (rule) and Difference
8. ) Personal injury action arising out of automobile collision. Defendant claims hewas not at fault and that plaintiff was not hurt. Plaintiff offers evidence that at the scene of the accident defendant said to plaintiff, “I am so sorry you are badly hurt. I should not have run the red light.” Admissible?
9. ) Pleas later withdrawn, offers to plea, and related statements. (rule) and Difference

Answer 6

1. ) Federal and California: Evidence of safety measures or repairs after an accident is inadmissible to prove negligence. Federal only: such evidence is also inadmissible to prove defective design in a products liability action based on theory of strict liability.
2. ) Federal Law: No. California: Admissible. Federal Law apples this rule in negligence AND S/L claims while Cali applies this rule in Negligence claims.
3. ) Federal and California: Evidence of settlements, offers to settle, and related statements are inadmissible to prove liability or fault. California only: discussions during mediation proceedings also inadmissible.
4. ) Federal and California: Evidence of payments or offers to pay medical expenses is inadmissible when offered to prove liability for the injuries in question. California also makes inadmissible admissions of fact made in the course making such payments or offers. Federal law only excludes such statements if part of a settlement offer.
5. ) Fed: First half inadmissible whilethe first halfis admissible. Cali: Excludes all of it!
6. ) This is settement discussion and FEd and Cali will exclude
7. ) California makes inadmissible in civil actions expressions of sympathy relating to suffering or death of an accident victim. But statements of fault made in connection with such an expression are not excluded. No comparable Federal rule.
8. ) “Im so sorry youre badly hurt is inadmissible. Stuff about running the light is admissible.
9. ) Inadmissible under both Federal Rules and CEC. But does Prop. 8 make this admissible in California? The law is unclear. On an essay, raise the issue and mention that, even if Prop. 8 applies to such evidence, the court still may exclude for unfair prejudice.