criminal evidence exam 2

Admissibility of relevant evidence

Subject to some exceptions - all relevant evidence is admissible. Where the opposing party objects, that party carries the burden to exclude evidence. Where offered evidence tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue, it generally should be admitted. Example: A defendant's net worth attained through drug smuggling would not help prove or disprove any issue in a case in which he has been charged with illegally spray-painting a church or synagogue. Commonwealth v. Prashaw- text p. 807 The evidence the prosecutor wanted to introduce is not logically relevant What to get out of this case: there is evidence the prosecutor might want to introduce they don't affect the probabilities it should be excluded for not being legally relevant

Presumption situations

That a Person Intends the Ordinary Consequences of Voluntary Acts General Rule: The law presumes that a person intends the usual and ordinary consequences of his or her activity. The defendant may rebut the initial presumption by evidence, but where the presumption is included in a jury instruction without explanation, reversible error may exist. Generally, this presumption may not be used to prove an element of the crime. When a court states that intent may be inferred from conduct, the inference may pass constitutional muster because the effect is not as strong as a presumption.

presumptions

"A presumption is a legal device that permits or requires the fact finder to assume the existence of an ultimate fact, after certain predicate or basic facts have been established." 2003 Ill. Lexis 7 (2003). A presumption permits a deduction that if one fact exists, then another unproven fact may also exist. A presumption has been described as a deduction of fact that common sense, enlightened by human experience and knowledge, draws from the connection and coincidence of facts with each other. Federal Rule 301and state versions do not address presumptions in criminal cases. Rule leaves the development of presumptions to judicial decisions and case law. In criminal cases, the parties must consult and follow state statutes and court decisions, as well as controlling federal court decisions, for trial court use of presumptions.

Circumstances preceding the crime

A defendant's activity prior to a crime may indicate guilt Talking to other people about a future crime or physical preparation may relevant The use of aliases, planning directed toward criminal activity, and efforts to disguise ownership of objects may be relevant as to guilt Prior hostility of a victim or group toward the defendant may show self-defense

Presumptions of facts

A presumption of fact involves the mental process whereby the existence of one fact is deduced from proof of another fact. A rational connection must exist between the proved fact and the deduced fact. Example: The prosecutor introduces evidence that no person has seen or heard from the alleged deceased victim for seven years. The deduced fact is that the alleged victim must be dead. The presumption in the example above may be rebutted by the brother of the alleged victim telling the court that he saw his brother last week.

Presumptions of law

A presumption of law is a deduction of fact that the law generally requires* from proof of the existence of an established fact or facts Examples: All defendants are presumed innocent at the start of the trial A defendant is presumed to be mentally competent The accused is presumed to be sane at the time of the crime A person is presumed to have intended the natural and probable results of his or her conduct Presumptions of law are generally rebuttable when sufficiently contradicted *No criminal jury can be required to draw a presumption

presumption of Possession of fruits of crime

A presumption that a person knowingly possessed recently stolen property may arise when: 1. The property has recently been stolen 2. The accused possessed exclusive dominion and control 3. The possession is unexplained by any innocent origin Some criminal courts refer to this presumption as an inference that represents an effort to show that the presumption does not have to be drawn, but that it may be drawn

Stipulations

A stipulation is an agreement between two parties to a lawsuit as to: The existence or nonexistence of a fact. The contents of a document, writing, or recording. The substance of what a possible witness would have said if the witness actually testified. The admissibility of particular evidence. A court may accept or reject a stipulation,but once accepted, the court may find the existence of the stipulated fact without any proof. The prosecutor does not have to agree with stipulations Trial courts may not require the parties or either party to stipulate to facts. The offered stipulation to a fact generally does not have to be accepted by an adverse party. Defense stipulation to prior felonies does not usually prevent the prosecution from proving the existence of earlier felonies. The jury and the judge are allowed to disregard stipulations

Inferences-

An inference is a deduction of fact that such fact exists upon proof of a related precedent fact. An inference is a deduction of fact that jurors may make, but are not required to make. Compared to inferences, presumptions have been described as deductions of fact that must be made. In a criminal case, if a jury rejects the presumed fact upon proof of the initial fact, a court cannot force the jury to a different conclusion.

Defenses

Burden of proof may be placed on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense Defense of insanity, intoxication, alibi, entrapment, self-defense, mistake of fact, and mistake of law must be proved by relevant evidence and meet additional requirements for admissibility Insanity: The first issue of a mental defense focuses on the defendant's state of mind at the time the alleged crime occurred. Burden of proof for insanity may rest on the defendant to show that his or her mental condition meets the requirements for that jurisdiction's insanity defense. A minority of states recognize a temporary insanity defense. Voluntary intoxication will not excuse a person from criminal responsibility, as a general rule. Where a crime required a complicated mens rea (e.g., premeditation) that might not be capable of being formed due to voluntary intoxication, some states will recognize voluntary intoxication as a defense. Most jurisdictions recognize affirmative defenses and will allow evidence that tends to prove the defense. Courts will allow the introduction of evidence of entrapment, alibi, self-defense, defense of others,and mistake of law, as well as other evidence of affirmative defenses.

Character evidence

Contrary to common perception, evidence of a person's character is not admissible to show that he or she acted in conformity with his or her character. Rule 404(a) The defense may introduce evidence of personal good character that the prosecutor can rebut. The defense may offer character evidence of a victim, but the prosecutor can rebut. All witnesses, by testifying, place their character trait for honesty at issue.

Experimental and scientific evidence

Evidence and results of testing such as weapons, bullets, fingerprints, DNA collection and care protocols, photographs, motion pictures, X-rays, tape recordings, maps, drawings, alcohol impairment tests, and results from computer hard drive examinations that may point toward guilt or innocence may be admissible. Results of scientific tests may be admissible where they are deemed reliable. The scientific theory must have been tested. The theory must have been peer-reviewed. The error rate must be known, and standards must control the operation of the tests. The testing process must be generally accepted in the scientific community.

Subsequent incriminating or exculpatory circumstances

Evidence of flight, concealment, resistance to arrest, use of alias, and additional crime to finance continued flight may be admissible Flight following a crime may be evidence of consciousness of guilt Generally, flight in the absence of other factors does not allow an inference of guilt Changes in appearance, such as coloring hair or shaving or growing a beard, may constitute relevant evidence of guilty knowledge

Proof of other crimes, wrongs, or acts

Evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or bad acts cannot be used to prove a person's character or that he or she acted in conformity with the character. Prior acts cannot be admitted to prove that the defendant had a predisposition to commit the charged crime or that the evidence proves the defendant is a bad person. 10/25 The prosecution may use character evidence to prove common scheme, plan, intent, motive, opportunity, identity, lack of mistake, or lack of accident. The philosophy supporting the general rule that excludes evidence of other crimes or other bad acts committed by the accused is designed to prevent the government from punishing people for their character. However, evidence of a person's character may be admissible as an exception to the rule Wise v. State- pg 813 in textbook No proof he ever looked at the pictures Case page 234 Case page 235 Evidence of earlier misdeeds may be admissible to establish an element or elements of the crime charged as an exception to the general rule. For prior activity to be admissible,the prosecution must show that probative value outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. Where a prior crime involved an elderly victim of a robbery that was committed at night, a court properly allowed evidence that the same defendant had previously been convicted for entering an elderly woman's home, knocking her down, taking her wallet, and fleeing the scene. Prior crime was sufficiently similar to be a "signature" of the perpetrator.

presumptions, inferences, and stipulations Introduction

General Rule: Each party has the obligation to introduce evidence to support its legal position and theory of the case. Substitutes for evidence include not only judicial notice, but presumptions, inferences, and stipulations. Presumptions and inferences arise from statutory law, case law, and state and federal constitutions. Stipulations are agreements between the parties that resolve matters that were initially at issue in the litigation.

Polygraph tests

General Rule: Results of polygraph examinations are not admissible in most state and federal courts. Some courts will admit polygraph evidence when the parties stipulate concerning its admissibility. Requiring stipulation of all parties prior to admission of polygraph evidence does not violate the due process rights of a defendant.

presumption of innocence

General rule: all criminal defendants are presumed to be innocent until a contrary verdict is rendered The presumption of innocence is really an initial assumption that lasts throughout the trial The prosecution's evidence may be sufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence Concerning jury instruction on this presumption: the better practice is to give an instruction informing the jury of this presumption The presumption of innocence ends with every guilty verdict

presumption of sanity

General rule: all defendants are presumed to be sane and competent Insanity in federal courts must be proved by the defendant by clear and convincing evidence. While state practice varies Some states require the prosecution to prove sanity when the defendant brings some evidence of insanity; other states place the burden on the defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence Expert and lay witnesses may be used to prove or rebut sanity

relevancy and materiality Introduction

General rule: all evidence is admissible Except: upon proper objection, it can be excluded under the rules of evidence Except: upon proper objection, constitutional reasons or case law interpretations may exclude evidence Persons involved in the collection and presentation of evidence must develop an understanding of relevancy and materiality Generally if there is no objection to evidence it is admissible in court

presumption of suicide

General rule: all victims or other deceased persons are presumed to have died by causes other than suicide Under appropriate circumstances, death by accident is presumed over the possibility of death by suicide With clear proof of suicide, the presumption against fails or may be said to have never existed, under the circumstances

Graham v. United states- text page 800

Graham appealing that the jury has lack of evidence, and they admitted hearsay evidence Ultimately his conviction is upheld

Specific presumption situations cont.

Knowledge of the Law If everyone were not presumed to know the law, evasion of the law would become possible through everyone's claim of ignorance. Another way to phrase this proposition is that ignorance of the criminal law will not excuse transgressions and legal consequences. Police officers and judges are presumed to know the law of their jurisdiction. Limitation: No one can predict future court decisions, so no one is presumed to know the future outcome of a court's interpretation of a law. Flight or Concealment General Rule: Flight of the accused or concealment efforts, alone, do not create a legal presumption or inference of consciousness of guilt. Flight or concealment may constitute some evidence of guilt and may be considered by the trier of fact, along with other evidence. Where a flight or concealment jury instruction has been offered, the court must generally caution the jury that flight may be caused by many factors. Unexplained Absence as Death Common law presumption: When a person has not been seen or heard from for seven years, the person is dead. Modern law: New York presumes death at the end of a three-year period, where, after diligent search, the person has not been seen or heard of or from, and whose absence has not been satisfactorily explained. Estate of Cosentino, 676 N.Y.S.2d 856 (1998). Case law varies when the alleged dead person was a fugitive from justice because of the special motive to disappear. Regularity of Official Acts "[G]overnment officials are presumed to act in good faith . . ." 702 F. 3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Courts presume that public officials have properly discharged their statutory duties. Clear and convincing evidence to the contrary will rebut this presumption. Grand juries are presumed to have acted appropriately and within the law. Lawyers, judges, jurors, and post office officials are presumed to execute their duties properly.

Bozeman v. State- text pg. 804

Later found that he did have some control of the vehicle

Classes of presumptions

Presumptions may be classified as either conclusive or rebuttable. If labeled conclusive, a court will not allow any evidence to contradict the conclusive presumption. Example: In years past, when a child was born to a married couple, neither husband nor wife could introduce evidence that the husband was not the father, regardless of whether the case was civil or criminal. Example: A motor vehicle not returned within five days after the rental agreement expiration is presumed to have been embezzled by holder. This conclusive presumption was overturned on due process grounds by Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263 (1989). Rebuttable presumptions require the trier of fact to consider the deduction true until contrary evidence appears. Mandatory and permissive presumptions are recognized in some states. In criminal cases, the finder of fact can actually ignore a mandatory presumption and suffer no judicial consequences. Mandatory presumptions that shift the burden of proof to the defendant are unconstitutional because they violate due process.

ch.6 Summary

Presumptions, inferences, and stipulations offer cost and time savings to courts and all criminal litigants. Presumptions cannot be mandatory or conclusive, and no criminal jury may be required to make use of a presumption, inference, or stipulation. Due process tests for constitutionality have effects of limiting the creation of some presumptions.

Reasons for exclusion of relevant and material evidence

Relevant evidence may be excluded by the trial court where: The probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Admission could create confusion of the issues. Admission would or could mislead the jury. Delay, waste of time, or presentation of cumulative evidence would occur. Unfair surprise may happen to a party if evidence is admitted. Would probably allow defendant to testify of alibi without notice but not other individuals to testify on alibi without notice Prior criminal activity that shows common scheme or plan,motive,intent,identity, lack of mistake,knowledge to commit the crime can sometimes be allowed in as evidence. State v. Jackson- text page 810 Probative Value is Substantially Outweighed by the Danger of Unfair Prejudice: Where the probative value of the evidence is slight and the danger of unfair prejudice is great, evidence may be excluded. Gruesome photographs of a murder victim may carry too high of a risk of unfair prejudice where a prosecutor used photos of a decaying body when unnecessary. Appellate courts review a trial judge's decision to admit evidence on an abuse of discretion standard. Introduction of the Evidence Would Confuse the Issues: Evidence may be excluded where side issues or collateral issues may be injected in a trial. Prior crimes committed by a defendant may be excluded because proof of those crimes could confuse the jury. Confusion could arise where a defendant wanted to introduce evidence that a third party had failed a polygraph test concerning the matter for which the defendant was being tried. The Evidence Would Mislead the Jury Where evidence might have a tendency to mislead the jury to an incorrect decision,a judge may refuse to admit the evidence. For example, where the prosecution had unsuccessfully attempted to find incriminating statements that a defendant might have made to friends, the defense can be prevented from introducing the fact that the prosecution found no incriminating oral evidence. 10/20 The Evidence Would Unduly Delay the Trial of the Case, Waste Time, or Needlessly Present Cumulative Evidence For example, evidence of prior financial transactions between a government witness and a defendant that occurred more than 10 years ago would waste time and delay the progress of the trial. Evidence that repeats evidence previously presented may be excluded where the judge determines that the evidence is cumulative of the earlier evidence. The Evidence Would Unfairly and Harmfully Surprise a Party Who Has Not Had Reasonable Opportunity to Anticipate That Such Evidence Would Be Offered Example: Exclusion of evidence would be proper due to unfair surprise when a defendant first claimed an alibi defense at trial and offered a third party as a witness to support alibi. Example: A judge could exclude a prosecution's expert witness from testifying where the prosecutor failed to place the expert witness on the pretrial witness list.

Relevancy defines

Rule 401. Test for relevant evidence Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action Something has to be logically relevant before it is legally relevant Relevancy may be divided into logical relevancy and legal relevancy An item of evidence may meet the logical relevancy test if it sways the trier of fact, either way, concerning the existence or nonexistence of any important fact It would help prove or disprove something. Example: showing photo of a victim's body when found to prove someone has died is logical to show in court If an item of evidence has logical relevancy, it may be legally relevant if its ability to prove or disprove an item of evidence has probative value that outweighs any chance of undue prejudice or unfairness Example: Introduction of gruesome color photo of deceased body would be logically relevant to prove that the individual was dead. An argument could be offered that the photo was legally irrelevant because the unfair prejudice to the defendant created by admission of the photo creates an unfair prejudice to defendant's case because it might enrage the jury to act out of emotion and not logic.. Black's Law Dictionary [2009] defines relevant evidence as "[e]vidence tending to prove or disprove a matter in issue." Evidence is relevant if reasonable inferences can be drawn therefrom regarding, or if any light is shed upon, a contested matter. Relevant evidence may be excluded according to the rules of evidence as applied by the judge exercising discretion. Material Evidence: Black's Law Dictionary [2009] defines material evidence as evidence that has "some logical connection with the consequential facts or the issues." Materiality measures the importance of evidence. Evidence can be considered material when it significantly affects the matter at issue. Some evidence may be considered immaterial when it very slightly or remotely affects matters at issue in the case. Materiality and Relevancy Distinguished: Relevancy refers to evidence that will help prove or disprove a matter in issue, while materiality refers to the probative weight of the evidence. Evidence can be relevant but excluded because it is immaterial. Example: In a battery case, the prosecutor would not be permitted to introduce evidence of a bar fight that happened 20 years prior to the case being tried.

ch.7 summary

Rules of admission and exclusion of evidence are generally designed to promote the truth. Evidence may be excluded when it would be unfair to admit the evidence where it has little value or has a tendency to mislead a jury. Trial judges possess great latitude in determining what evidence to admit and what evidence to exclude.

Specific presumption situations

Some jurisdictions hold that presumptions are not considered evidence Other jurisdictions hold that a presumption has the same force and effect as evidence Reviewing courts will closely scrutinize criminal case presumptions Reason: to assure that unconstitutional burdens are not placed on defendants Presumptions will not be permitted to prevent the offering of a defense

Identity of persons

The defendant's identity as the perpetrator may be the sole issue in a case. Constitutional due process guarantees may create problems with identification. The way lineups, showups, or photo identifications occurred may involve due process or right to counsel considerations. Prior crimes and illegal acts that were not prosecuted may be admitted in limited situations to establish identity. The Five Factors Test- from Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972): "The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal,the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation." 10/23 Evidence of a suspect's prior criminal activity may, in some contexts, be used to prove identity Where prior crime was committed pursuant to a common scheme or plan and seems similar to current crime so that the present crime was probably committed by the same person, such evidence may show identity Scientific tests for identity may be admitted, e.g., DNA results

Identity of things

The identity of objects such as clothing, footprints, tire prints, fingerprints, bite marks, clothing, and weapons may assist in identifying defendants Scientific tests that identify blood and DNA samples may not only show identity, but also demonstrate, physically, where the defendant has been

stipulations

To make a stipulation, the parties to the lawsuit agree that certain facts exist, or that they do not exist, for purposes of the litigation. The prosecution and defense may agree about a fact, a writing or its contents, or the substance of what a witness would have said. As a general rule, the trial judge is not bound by the stipulations of the parties, and such stipulations are not binding on a criminal jury.

Constitutionality tests for presumptions and inferences

To meet federal constitutional tests, a presumption must demonstrate: "that a rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed..." existed.Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463 (1943). The United States Supreme Court overturned a conviction based on a presumption that a person found next to an illegal alcohol still had possession and control of the still. U.S. v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136 (1965). The presumed fact must be more likely than not to follow from the proved fact in order to be constitutional. Example: Possession of heroin proved as a fact presumes that the holder knew the heroin was illegally imported.

Reasons for presumptions and inferences

Use of inferences and presumptions expedites the judicial process by taking the place of time consuming actual proof Inferences and presumptions, as circumstantial evidence, may be considered as important as direct evidence General rule: circumstantial evidence based on inferences or presumptions is sufficient by itself, in the absence of any direct evidence, to prove even the most serious of crimes. A. Procedural Technique Where one party has introduced evidence of one fact from which the presumed fact would be the logical deduction: 1. The presumption should prevail. 2. Unless the opposing party introduces some contradictory evidence to rebut the presumption. If a presumption exists and contrary evidence to rebut the presumption has been introduced and believed, the presumption ceases to exist. Jury is then free to conclude what it wishes. B. Public Policy Presumptions of law are sanctioned by courts and legislatures for public policy purposes. Examples: A child born to a married couple is presumed to be the child of the husband and to be legitimate. A person is presumed to know the natural and probable consequences of his or her activities. All persons are presumed to know the law. Two individuals who have undergone a ceremonial marriage are presumed to be legally married to each other C. Allowance of normal government activities There is an initial presumption that government officials have acted properly and in good faith in conducting their official duties For governmental documents that must be recorded, there is a presumption that the documents were properly recorded There is a presumption that police officers have conducted themselves in a lawful and constitutional manner

Relevancy of particular matters

Venue and jurisdiction are relevant matters for the court. Elements of the crime or of the defense constitute relevant matters. Identities of the defendant and of witnesses are always relevant. The truthfulness of witnesses is always relevant. Evidence that tends to prove jurisdiction of the court, proper venue, identity of a defendant, elements of the crime,and a defendant's mental state are provable by one type of evidence or another. Some evidence may be excluded that would otherwise might be relevant, e.g., prior sexual history of an alleged rape victim, but might be admissible where third-party DNA was found on victim at the relevant time.