| LATEST EXAM UPDATES| 2024/25 |CALIFORNIA BAR EXAM: EVIDENCE EXAM REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, GRADED A+

1 CALIFORNIA BAR EXAM: EVIDENCE EXAM REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWER S, GRADED A+ Logical RELEVANCE - ✅✅ -Evidence is logically relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequences to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. CA: Same as Federal Rule: Under the CEC, evidence is logically relevant if it tends to p rove or disprove a material fact in dispute. Legal relevance - ✅✅ -logically relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. If the court finds that the probative value of the evidence outwe ighs its prejudicial effect, the evidence should be admitted. DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION - ✅✅ -A trial judge has discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misl eading the jury, undue delay, or waste of time. CA: Same as Federal Rule. Proposition 8 makes all relevant evidence admissible in criminal cases subject to CEC 352 balancing and a few other exceptions. LIABILITY INSURANCE - ✅✅ -Evidence of liability insur ance is not admissible to prove negligence or ability to pay but is admissible to prove ownership or control or to impeach a witness. CA: Same as Federal Rule. SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES - ✅✅ -Evidence of safety measures or repairs after an accident is inadmissible to prove negligence or to prove defective design in a products liability case but it is admissible to prove ownership or control, to rebut a claim of no feasible precaution, or to prove destruction of evidence. CA: Same as Federal rule except it does not apply in products liability cases. Thus, evidence that a product was redesigned is admissible to prove the original design was defective because it is not offered to prove negligence. SETTLEMENT OFFERS - ✅✅ -Evidence of offers to settle a claim disputed as to validity or amount is inadmissible to prove liability or fault. Statements made during settlement discussions are also inadmissible. CA: Same as Federal Rule. Also applies to discussions during mediation proceedings. OFFERS TO PAY MEDICAL EXPENSES - ✅✅ -Evidence of payments or offers to pay medical expenses is inadmissible to prove liability for the injuries in question. Accompanying admissions of fact, however, are admissible. CA: Same as Federal Rule except accompanying admissions of fact are inadmissible. WITHDRAWN GUILTY PLEAS - ✅✅ -Evidence of withdrawn guilty pleas, offers to plea, and related statements are inadmissible. CA: Same as Federal Rule. Whether Proposition 8 would make such evidence admissible in a criminal case is unclear. EXPRESSIONS OF SYMPATHY - ✅✅ -No corresponding Federal Rule. CA: Expressions of sympathy relating to the pain, suffering, or death of an accident victim are inadmissible in civil cases. However, accompanying statements of fault are admissible. CHARACTER EVIDENCE - ✅✅ -Character evidence goes to the general character of a person and conveys a moral judgment. Habit evidence, by contrast, describes a person's regul ar response to a specific set of circumstances and conveys no moral judgment. CA: Same as Federal Rule. TYPES OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE - ✅✅ -1. Specific Instances of conduct (SIC) 2. Opinion Testimony (OT) 3. Reputation within the community Testimony (RT) CA: Same as Federal Rule. CHARACTER EVIDENCE offered in a CIVIL case to prove DEFENDANT'S conduct - ✅✅ -Inadmissible unless: 1. Character is at issue (e.g. defamation) 2. MIMIC - if independently relevant (i.e. offered to prove something other than charact er) 3. Evidence of prior sexual assault or child molestation when offered in a civil case arising out of sexual assault or child molestation CA: Same as Federal Rule except there is no exception for sexual assault or child molestation evidence in civil ca ses. CHARACTER EVIDENCE offered in CRIMINAL case to prove DEFENDANT'S conduct - ✅✅ -Inadmissible unless: 1. Defendant opens the door by offering evidence of his good character. OT and RT admissible on direct examination; OT, RT, and SIC admissible on cross -examination. 2. If court has admitted evidence of victim's character offered by defendant, prosecution can offer evidence that defendant has same character trait. 3. Evidence of prior sexual assault or child molestation when offered in a criminal case ari sing out of sexual assault or child molestation. 4. MIMIC - if independently relevant (i.e. offered to prove something other than character). 5. Character is at issue. CA: Same as Federal Rule except: 1. When defendant opens the door by offering evidence of her good character, OT and RT are admissible on both direct examination and cross -examination. SIC not allowed on direct or cross.