NCA Evidence key terms

The obligation of a party to introduce enough evidence for a reasonable factfinder to decide a disputed issue in that party's favor. Failing it lets the judge rule against the party without sending the issue to the jury.

The obligation to convince the factfinder that a disputed fact is true to the required degree. It determines which party loses if the evidence is evenly balanced at the close of the case.

The usual standard in civil cases, satisfied when the evidence shows a disputed fact is more likely true than not, meaning the scales tip even slightly in the proponent's favor.

A civil standard requiring proof that the claimed fact is highly probable and that the factfinder holds a firm belief or conviction, used in fraud, termination of parental rights, and similar serious matters.

The criminal standard requiring proof so convincing that no reasonable person could harbor doubt about the defendant's guilt. It does not require absolute certainty, only doubt for which a reason exists.

The principle that a criminal defendant is treated as not guilty until the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the defendant need not present any evidence at all.

The minimum evidence a party must present on each required element to avoid a directed verdict and allow the factfinder to consider the claim. It is a threshold showing, not proof of the ultimate issue.

A judge's ruling that removes a case or issue from the jury because the evidence, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, is legally insufficient to support a contrary finding.

A judge's acceptance of a fact as true without formal proof because it is generally known or readily verifiable from reliable sources. Civil juries are told to accept it; criminal juries may be so instructed.

A rule allowing a factfinder to infer one fact from another proven fact. Some presumptions shift the burden of production, while others merely permit the inference absent contrary evidence.

Evidence that, if believed, proves a disputed fact without any inference or presumption, such as an eyewitness describing what the defendant did or a recording of the words spoken.

Evidence that requires an inferential step to prove a disputed fact, such as fingerprints on a weapon suggesting the defendant handled it. It can be as probative as direct evidence.

The tendency of evidence to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Both materiality and probative value are required.

The connection between offered evidence and a fact that matters to the outcome under the governing substantive law and the pleadings. Evidence can be probative yet immaterial if the fact is not in issue.

The degree to which evidence tends to prove or disprove a fact of consequence. It is weighed against dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion, and delay when the judge applies discretion.

The discretionary test permitting exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

The danger that evidence will provoke an emotional or punitive response from the jury rather than a rational assessment. It does not mean evidence that is merely damaging to the opposing party.

A logical deduction the factfinder draws from proven facts to reach a conclusion not directly established by testimony or exhibits. Reasonable inferences must rest on evidence, not speculation.

A repair, design change, or safety step taken after an injury or harm, generally inadmissible to prove negligence, culpability, or a defect, though admissible for impeachment or to show ownership or control.

Evidence of a person's general traits offered to show conduct in conformity with those traits. It is generally barred in civil cases and restricted in criminal cases, with exceptions for certain defenses and impeachment.

Evidence of a person's regular, automatic response to a specific recurring situation, such as buckling a seatbelt on entering a car. Unlike character evidence, habit may be admitted to show conduct on a particular occasion.

Proof of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered for a purpose other than showing propensity, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.

Testimony in the form of an opinion by a witness not qualified as an expert, permitted when rationally based on the witness's perception, helpful to understanding testimony or determining a fact, and not based on specialized knowledge.

A witness qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education who may offer opinions if they rest on sufficient facts, use reliable methods, and would help the factfinder.

The preliminary showing that a piece of evidence is what its proponent claims and is admissible, such as identifying a witness's personal knowledge or authenticating a document before it is received.

A witness's direct awareness of events gained through the senses, which is required before the witness may testify about a matter. It excludes testimony based on rumor or another person's account.

Evidence offered to attack a witness's credibility, commonly through prior inconsistent statements, bias, sensory or mental capacity problems, character for truthfulness, or contradictory evidence.

The believability of a witness or other source of evidence, judged by factors such as perception, memory, consistency, motive to lie, and demeanor. The factfinder decides how much weight to give testimony.

An earlier statement by a witness that conflicts with current testimony. It may be used to impeach, and it becomes substantive evidence if made under oath at a proceeding and the witness is available for cross-examination.

A hearsay exception for a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it, valued for its spontaneity and lack of time to fabricate.

A hearsay exception for a statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement it caused, which reduces the likelihood of reflection and fabrication.

A hearsay exception for a declarant's statement that was so contrary to the declarant's proprietary, pecuniary, or penal interest when made that a reasonable person would not have said it unless true. Unavailability is required.

An out-of-court statement by a party offered against that party, which is not barred by the hearsay rule and requires no showing of unavailability or personal knowledge of the declarant.

An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in it. If offered for another purpose, such as showing notice or effect on the listener, it is not hearsay.

A category of out-of-court statements defined as non-hearsay rather than as exceptions, including admissions by party opponents, prior sworn inconsistent statements, and prior consistent statements offered to rebut charges of fabrication.

A privilege protecting confidential communications between a client and lawyer made to obtain legal advice. It belongs to the client, may be waived, and survives the termination of the relationship.

A qualified protection for materials prepared by or for a party in anticipation of litigation, discoverable only on a showing of substantial need and undue hardship, and never for mental impressions and legal theories.

Two related protections: the confidential marital communications privilege, which covers private statements between spouses, and the testimonial privilege, which in criminal cases lets a witness spouse decline to testify against the defendant spouse.

The intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known privilege, often by disclosing protected information to a third party or by failing to object in time. Waiver is typically limited to the disclosed subject matter.