Evidence: Relevance, Hearsay, and Impeachment
Relevance and its limits
Relevance is the threshold: evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable. Even relevant evidence may be excluded under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct, but the mercy rule permits the accused to offer character for a pertinent trait, and the prosecution may rebut it. Habit evidence is admissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion.
Hearsay
The definition: an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If it is not offered for its truth, it is not hearsay. If it is hearsay, look for an exemption (party-opponent, prior consistent or inconsistent statements under oath) or an exception (present sense impression, excited utterance, then-existing state of mind, business records, public records, ancient documents).
Confrontation and impeachment
Testimonial hearsay triggers the Confrontation Clause; the witness must be unavailable and the defendant must have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. Impeachment methods include prior inconsistent statements, bias, conviction of a crime, and specific contradiction; extrinsic evidence is limited for collateral matters.
Worked example
A plaintiff offers a bystander's statement, "The car ran the red light," made moments after the crash. That is likely an excited utterance and admissible. If offered merely to show the bystander was excited, it would not be hearsay at all.
Traps
- Prior inconsistent statements under oath are substantive evidence; unsworn ones are only impeachment.
- Business records require a foundation of regular practice and contemporaneous entry.
- A statement offered to show its effect on the listener is not hearsay.