CHAPTER 4: RELEVANT

INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
 SECTION I : DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION OF
RELEVANT EVIDENCE (PRAGMATIC RELEVANCE)

• Under Rule 403, A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following:
• unfair prejudice,
• confusing the issues and thus misleading the jury,
• undue delay and wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
 SECTION I : DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION OF
RELEVANT EVIDENCE (PRAGMATIC RELEVANCE)

• The case law recognizes that certain circumstances call for the exclusion of evidence
which is of unquestioned relevance.
• These circumstances entail risks which range all the way from inducing decision on a
purely emotional basis, at one extreme, to nothing more harmful than merely wasting
time, at the other extreme.
• Situations in this area call for balancing the probative value of and need for the
evidence against the harm likely to result from its admission.
 SECTION I : DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION OF
RELEVANT EVIDENCE (PRAGMATIC RELEVANCE)

• Unfair prejudice
• It is detriment to a person’s legal claims or rights resulting from the
exposure of a fact-finder to inadmissible evidence or information
that tends to provoke an emotional response sufficient to overcome
impartiality
• Similar occurrences are good example of undue prejudice save
for similar occurrences that are exempted from exclusion, such
as “accident history” or “habit”.
 SECTION I : DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION OF
RELEVANT EVIDENCE (PRAGMATIC RELEVANCE)

• Difference between Undue prejudice and Unfair surprise

• Although “Unfair surprise” is listed as an additional basis for exclusion under
some state rules, it was omitted under the Federal Rules on the theory that
surprise can be prevented by discovery and pretrial deposition and cross
examination, or mitigated by granting a continuance
• Unfair surprise occurs when a party to the dispute offer to introduce an item
of relevant admissible evidence at a very late stage of the proceedings despite
requirements of discovery. While it can scarcely be doubted that claims of
unfair surprise may still be justified despite procedural requirements of notice
and instrumentalities of discovery, the granting of a continuance is a more
appropriate remedy than exclusion of the evidence.
 SECTION 2 : POLICY BASED EXCLUSION OF
RELEVANT EVIDENCE

• Certain evidence of questionable relevance is excluded by the Federal Rules

because public policy favors the behavior involved.
• For example, the law encourages the repair of defective premises that cause
injury, and consequently, evidence of the subsequent repair may not be
admitted to prove antecedent negligence
 SECTION 2 : POLICY BASED EXCLUSION
OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE

• A. Liability Insurance
• Inadmissible to Show Negligence or Ability to Pay
 SECTION 2 : POLICY BASED EXCLUSION
OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE

• A. Liability Insurance
• Admissible offered:
• To Prove Ownership or Control
• Example: P sues D and alleges that D owned the building in which P fell on a defective staircase,
further alleging a cause of action for negligence. D denies all allegations, and thereby puts in issue the
question of ownership of the premises. P may show that D had insured the premises as evidence of
ownership, but the evidence will only be used for the limited purpose of proving that issue.
• To Prove Impeachment
• Impeaching a witness. Example: An investigator testifies on behalf of defendant. Plaintiff may
demonstrate the bias or interest of this witness by showing that she is employed by defendant’s liability
insurance company.
• As Part of Admission
• An admission of liability may be so coupled with a reference to insurance coverage that the reference
to insurance cannot be severed without lessening its value as an admission of liability. Example: “Don’t
worry; my insurance company will pay off.”