Finally, evidence of a victim`s sexual history is also limited. These restrictions are called “rape protection laws.” In civil and criminal cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, the law prevents a party from presenting evidence of the victim`s general sexual predisposition or sexual conduct in the past. There are some exceptions because evidence may be admitted if it is used for other purposes in criminal matters or if its probative value far outweighs the risk of unfair disadvantage or prejudice to a party. [xv] For example, if this evidence is necessary to prove consent, as in cases where these parties have had consensual rough sex in the past, a court may find that their probative value outweighs the risk of unjust discrimination. Given the sensitivity of this evidence, courts must consider very carefully the impact that the evidence could have on a case. Conversely, evidence is inadmissible if it is irrelevant. See, for example, State v. Roache, 358 N.C. 243 (2004) (evidence that was only “weakly related” was irrelevant); State v.
Baker, 320 N.C. 104 (1987) (the evidence was “too speculative” to be relevant); State v. Bodden, 190 N.C. App. 505 (2008) (a 9-millimetre bullet found near the crime scene was irrelevant if the bullets used to shoot the accused were .38 or .357 caliber); State v. Hart, 105 N.C. App. 542 (1992) (Evidence that does not tend to prove a disputed fact is irrelevant and rightly excluded). According to Barwick J. in Wilson,[25] “the basic rule for the admissibility of evidence is that it is relevant. In any case, the evidence presented must ultimately be brought to this touchstone. As a general rule, character evidence cannot be used to prove that a person acted in accordance with a character or character trait on a particular occasion.
[iv] Thus, if a plaintiff wished to present a statement suggesting that the defendant is known to be a violent person, that evidence could not be used in an assault case to prove that the defendant actually acted violently at the time of the alleged assault. This type of evidence carries the risk of unfair bias because it asks the court or jury to judge the accused based on his or her reputation rather than on the facts established at trial. All of these types of character evidence are admissible, if the behaviour reaches the level of a “habit, routine or practice”, then the evidence is admissible in itself. Evidence that a person has a habit, routine or practice can be used to show that the person acted in accordance with that habit on a particular occasion. [xiii] For example, if someone goes running on the same track every morning at 5:00 a.m., they have developed a habit. Thus, a court may admit evidence of the defendant`s habit of walking at 5:00 a.m. to show that the defendant was likely near the crime scene if the offense took place on the defendant`s usual route at the time the defendant is taking its course. This information is both relevant and acceptable as usual evidence. Unjust bias, one of the dangers that outweighs the probative value of evidence, is a good example. This is a common reason why relevant evidence is excluded. Consider a robbery case where the prosecutor tries to make a statement that a witness saw the accused using drugs near the store that was robbed about ten minutes before the robbery. This evidence is relevant because it shows that the defendant was near the store in time at the time of the theft.However, the probative value of this statement may be balanced by the risk of unfair disadvantage. This statement carries a risk of harm because it suggests that the accused may have committed the crime of drug use and is therefore a person who regularly commits crimes. A court may decide to exclude the finding that the defendant is using drugs in order to avoid the risk of unjust hardship to the defendant. “Relevant evidence” means evidence which tends to make the existence of a fact relevant to the decision on the act more or less likely than would be the case in the absence of such evidence. Various social policies lead to the exclusion of relevant evidence. As a result, there are restrictions on the use of evidence for liability insurance, subsequent remedies, settlement offers and plea hearings, primarily because it is believed that the use of this evidence prevents parties from purchasing insurance, establishing unsafe conditions, offering a settlement or pleading guilty. FRE 402 classifies relevant evidence as “inadmissible” if it is “provided elsewhere” by multiple sources of law. [10] However, FRE 403 refers to the “exclusion of relevant evidence”. [11] It is clear that evidence excluded under section 403 of the FRE is inadmissible. However, it is not clear that inadmissible evidence is considered “excluded” under the Federal Rules of Evidence. (a) it tends to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and All relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of North Carolina, the Act of Congress, the Act of the General Assembly, or these Rules. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
Evidence is relevant when it tends to make a material fact more or less likely in determining an issue of importance in the case. See G.S. 8C-401. To be relevant, the probative value of the evidence must be “only low”. State v. Miller, 197 N.C. App. 78 (2009).
The strength of the evidence lies in its weight and sufficiency – not in its relevance or admissibility. See State v. Smith, 357 N.C. 604 (2003) (evidence is relevant when it sheds “some light” on the subject); State v. Sloan, 316 N.C. 714 (1986) (“Evidence is relevant if, however small, it has a logical tendency to prove a disputed fact in this case.”); State v. Lych, 142 N.C. App. 576 (2001) (“in criminal cases, any circumstance intended to shed light on alleged crimes is admissible” and “the weight of such evidence rests with the jury”); Citation State v. Hamilton, 264 N.C.
277 (1965). Under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is more than outweighed by the risk of one or more of the listed grounds for exclusion. [11] The grounds for exclusion are as follows: In deciding whether relevant evidence should always be excluded, the court focuses on the legal issues of the case and avoids the distractions of certain evidence. In contrast, the trial court exercises its discretion (and thus enjoys a very respectful standard of review on appeal) when deciding whether the probative value of the relevant evidence under Rule 401 is balanced by the risks of unjust discrimination, confusion, waste of time or other grounds under Rule 403. See, for example, State v. Macon, 346 N.C. 109 (1997) (exclusion of relevant but adverse evidence is left to the discretion of the court); State v. Jones, 358 A.C. 330 (2004) (the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the registration was relevant and not unfairly disadvantageous). The Australian Rule of Evidence is a mixture of law and common law. [17] It has a single Evidence Act (UEA or the “Act”) consisting of the Commonwealth,[18] New South Wales,[19] Victoria,[20] Tasmania,[21] the Australian Capital Territory,[22] the Northern Territory,[23] and Norfolk Island.
[24] The rules of evidence are intended to ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted in a manner that is fair to both parties to the proceeding, with an emphasis on the consideration of the evidence. For example, in infringement proceedings, the most relevant and direct piece of evidence is usually the contract itself. The contract shows the court the obligations of each party. A party may also provide witness statements showing that the other party has not made a contractually required payment. All of this evidence is relevant to demonstrating that a party has failed to comply with the terms of the contract. Proof that a party has not complied with the contract is a relevant fact for the establishment of infringement proceedings. In order to obtain errors of law for the review, objections must be raised. [12] Objections are often raised to the introduction of evidence on the basis of relevance.However, the rules and statements show that the relevant evidence includes a significant portion of the evidence generally presented. Since objections must be specific and appropriate, a simple objection based on relevance can easily prevent the review of errors of law in appeal proceedings. [12] [13] In particular, an objection based on “relevance” does not preserve error under Rule 403. [13] Cases where no specific and timely objection is raised are sometimes referred to as “bad history” cases, as errors made by the lower court may not be reviewed on appeal. “The trial judge`s discretion to exclude admissible evidence does not exceed his duty to ensure that the jury`s opinion is not influenced by evidence of little probative value but having a material adverse effect. The exclusion of evidence on the ground that, although its probative value is indisputable, it was obtained by methods that the judge considers unfair has nothing to do with his duty to ensure a fair trial for the accused. Whenever a person testifies as a witness, the character evidence that relates to that witness`s propensity to tell the truth becomes relevant. Any party can challenge the credibility or veracity of a witness. [vii] If the veracity of a witness is challenged during a hearing or trial, proof of the truth or falsehood of that witness is admissible. Thus, if a witness is accused of not telling the truth on the witness stand, evidence may be presented to show that the witness has the trait of truthfulness. The two most important ways to demonstrate this are testimony about the witness` reputation in the community and statements of opinion.
[viii] For example, if witness Wendy is accused of not telling the truth about the number of drinks she saw consumed in a bar, then her friend James can testify that witness Wendy is known in his community as an honest and truthful person.