Download Evidence, Judicial Notice, and Admissibility in Legal Proceedings and more Study notes Law of Evidence in PDF only on Docsity!
Evidence Judicial Notice Case drafters looked at when drafting 201 Lee- The court took judicial notice that the area was a business district. Zoning knowledge expert ---not necessary b/c judicial notice P/ should have requested judicial notice that intersection is business district P/ should have inquired from d/ if there was any dispute Common knowledge in a jurisdiction OR Accurately and reasonably determined by a source that cannot be reasonably questioned. Civil – instructs jury they MUST accept judicial notice as true Criminal-instructs jury they MAY accept judicial notice as true. Adjudicative Facts, Facts Generally Known Judicial notice is a judicial short-cut, a doing away with the formal necessity for evidence because there is no real necessity for it. So far as matters of common knowledge are concerned, it is saying there is no need of formally offering evidence of those things because practically everyone knows them in advance and there can be no question about them. Evidence, Judicial Notice The three requirements of judicial notice, that the matter be one of common and general knowledge, that it be well established and authoritatively settled, be practically indisputable, and that this common, general and certain knowledge exist in the particular jurisdiction, all are requirements dictated by the reason and purpose of the rule, which is to obviate the formal necessity for proof when the matter does not require proof. Adjudicative Facts, Facts Generally Known The power of judicial notice is as to matters claimed to be matters of general knowledge one to be used with caution. If there is any doubt whatever either as to the fact itself or as to its being a matter of common knowledge evidence should be required Adjudicative Facts, Facts Generally Known The tests in any particular case where it is sought to avoid or excuse the production of evidence because the fact to be proven is one of general knowledge and notoriety are (1) is the fact one of common, everyday knowledge in that jurisdiction, which everyone of average intelligence and knowledge of things about him can be presumed to know; and (2) is it certain and indisputable. Rule 101. Scope
o These rules govern proceedings in all courts in the State of Colorado, to the extent and with the exceptions stated in Rule 1101. Rule 102. Purpose and Construction o These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined. Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence o (a) Effect of erroneous ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and (1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or (2) Offer of proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the Court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. Once the Court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. (Amended June 20, 2002, effective July 1, 2002.) o (b) Record of offer and ruling. The Court may add any other or further statement which shows the character of evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. It may direct the making of an offer in question and answer form. o (c) Hearing of jury. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury. o (d) Plain error. Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the Court. Rule 104. Preliminary Questions o (a) Questions of admissibility generally. Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence
Time- Statue of Limitations Have to be proven at trial State v. Graham Proving the element of speed D/ convicted of driving an auto transport in excess of 50mph- question is weather radar a scientific principle established to be accepted by the courts. Qualified expert testimony establishes radar as using exact laws of science and nature in the measurement of distance and speed. The troopers were qualified to use the device. The machine was properly tested and functional at the time of occurrence. Conclusion: Reliability of the radar device at the time of occurrence and in its then condition, was prima facie established and that the jury were entitled to receive and weigh such evidence along with the rest.
Muller v. Oregon - 208 U.S. 412, 28 S. Ct. 324 (1908)
Restrictions on females to no more than 10 hours per day employed in any
mechanical est, factory, or laundry. D/ violated and questions
constitutionality of statue.
Right to contract is protected by the 14th^ amendment. Violation of
substantive due process
Healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring- physical well being of
woman is an object of public interest. Woman spending long hours on their
feet tends to injure the body.
taking judicial notice of legislative facts
RULE:
Constitutional questions are not settled by a consensus of present public
opinion, for it is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in
unchanging form limitations upon legislative action, and thus gives a
permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be
lacking. At the same time, when a question of fact is debated and debatable,
and the extent of a constitutional limitation is affected by the truth in respect
to that fact, a widespread and long continued belief concerning it is worthy
of consideration. The court takes judicial cognizance of all matters of general
knowledge.
FACTS:
Curt Muller, the owner of a laundry, was convicted of allowing a female
employee to work longer than the maximum permitted hours for women.
Muller contended that restricting the employment hours of females
violated U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of state restrictions on the working hours of females.
ISSUE:
Did the state restrictions on the working hours of females violate the U.S.
Const. amend. XIV?
ANSWER:
No
CONCLUSION:
The United States Supreme Court affirmed, taking judicial notice of the
historical belief that women required protective legislation.
Roe v. Wade Under the 14th^ amendment the abortion statues of Georgia and Texas impermisably limit the performance of abortion necessary to protect the health of pregnant woman. Demonstrative evidence Substantial similarity test- Trial judge discretion 104E- Admissibility vs Credibility
--Nicholls was convicted of first degree felony murders of her three children, who died as a result of a fire her husband had set to their home. --During trial Nicholls mother testified that Nicholls had another child had died years earlier from SIDS and she had cried non stop for three days. However she did not grieve when the other three children died. --The cellmate also testified that the husband told him that Nicholls "killed her [second] baby," and that that child's death was ruled a SIDS death. --Nicholls argued that the trial court erroneously admitted her mother's testimony about Nicholls' reaction to her second child's death years earlier, and her husband's cellmate's testimony about that child's cause of death from sudden infant death syndrome ("SIDS"). Nicholls maintained that this testimony was both irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. Relevant evidence is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." CRE 401. Relevant evidence [687] may be excluded if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." CRE 403. Reviewing courts give great deference to trial court decisions under CRE 403 because a multitude of factors are considered in this balancing process. Absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court's ruling concerning the relative probative value and prejudicial impact of the evidence will not be disturbed on review. People v. Gibbens, 905 P.2d 604, 607 (Colo. 1995). To demonstrate an abuse of discretion, a petitioner must show that the trial court's decision was [32] manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair Regarding the mothers testimony, Supreme court ruled the testimony was relevant to show how differently Nicholls grieved the second child's death as compared to the deaths of the three child victims here. This evidence supported the People's theory that Nicholls conspired to kill the children for insurance money. Regarding the cellmates testimony Nicholls did not object at trial to this testimony under CRE 401 or 403 and therefore did not properly preserve this issue. Consequently, we review only for plain error. People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511, 519 (Colo. 1990). HN18 Under plain error review, reversal is required only if the appellate court, "after reviewing the entire record, can say with fair assurance that the error so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability [688] of the judgment of conviction." Wilson v. People, 743 P.2d 415, 420 (Colo. 1987). [61] We conclude that the trial court did not plainly err by admitting the cellmate's testimony about the second child's death
In the Defendants trial she was convicted of first degree felony murders of her three children, as well as a variety of other charges. Nicholls appealed that the trial court erroneously admitted her mother’s testimony that Nicholls second child had died of SIDS years earlier and that Nicholls cried non stop for three days following that childs death while she did not grieve when the other three children died.
1. Mother's Testimony [57] On redirect examination, the People asked Nicholls ' mother if she had seen Nicholls grieve a loss before and, if so, whether it was different from her reaction to the deaths of her three children in this case. Defense counsel objected on relevance and prejudice grounds, concerned that this line of questioning would lead the jury to draw unspecified "improper inferences." The trial court inferred that defense counsel was concerned that Nicholls would be "implicat[ed]... in somehow causing the death" of her second child. The trial court overruled the objection on the condition that the People lead the witness "so that she doesn't add anything to that with regard to thinking that [ Nicholls ] had some sort of responsibility" for her second child's death. The People then asked the mother about how Nicholls ' reaction to her second child's death compared with her reaction in this case. Again, defense counsel objected, and the trial court overruled the objection. Nicholls ' mother stated Nicholls ' reactions were "[c]ompletely different. [ Nicholls ] was sobbing and wailing after [her second child] died. I can see her sitting there crying for days. [33] And that was not the case at the hospital after [the three children] died" in the fire. The trial court also allowed the cellmate to testify that the husband told him that Nicholls "killed her [second] baby" and that that child's death was ruled a [*31] SIDS death. Nicholls argues that this evidence that her second child died of SIDS was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.no state confrontation error resulted from admitting nontestimonial statements the husband made to his cellmate; [3]- The statements were properly admitted as against interest under Colo. R. Evid. 804 because they were not blame-shifting; Habit evidence vs. character evidence
