Evidence
Evidence tests what proof can reach the jury: relevance, hearsay, character evidence, impeachment, privilege, experts, and authentication. The examiner often hides a hearsay issue inside a statement that looks like a party admission or an excited utterance.
Core rules
- Relevant evidence is admissible unless a rule excludes it; Rule 403 permits exclusion for unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
- Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth; non-hearsay includes effect on the listener and impeachment by prior inconsistent statement under oath.
- Statements of a party opponent are non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2).
- Present sense impression and excited utterance are separate exceptions; both require timing and stress.
Worked example
A 911 caller says, 'A man in a red shirt just broke my window and ran east.' The prosecution offers the call to prove the man broke the window. Reasoning: The call is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, so it is hearsay unless an exception applies. The statement describes an event while the caller was perceiving it or immediately after, supporting present sense impression under Rule 803(1). The caller's stress may also support excited utterance under Rule 803(2). If the caller testifies, the recording may still be used for impeachment or as a prior consistent statement only if the rule's conditions are met.
Traps
- Treating every out-of-court statement as hearsay; effect on the listener matters.
- Using character evidence to prove conduct in a civil case without an exception.
- Forgetting the best-evidence rule for contents of writings.
- Missing the distinction between impeachment and substantive admissibility.