CALIFORNIA BAR EXAM: EVIDENCE
2024 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Logical RELEVANCE - Answer- 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
prove or disprove a material fact in dispute.
Legal relevance - Answer- 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 outweighs its prejudicial effect, the evidence should be
admitted.
DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION - Answer- 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, misleading 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 - Answer- Evidence of liability insurance 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 - Answer- 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 - Answer- 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 - Answer- 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WITHDRAWN GUILTY PLEAS - Answer- Evidence of withdrawn guilty pleas, offers to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 - Answer- 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 - Answer- Character evidence goes to the general character
of a person and conveys a moral judgment. Habit evidence, by contrast, describes a
person's regular response to a specific set of circumstances and conveys no moral
judgment.
CA: Same as Federal Rule.
TYPES OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE - Answer- 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 -
Answer- Inadmissible unless:
1. Character is at issue (e.g. defamation)
2. MIMIC - if independently relevant (i.e. offered to prove something other than
character)
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 cases.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE offered in CRIMINAL case to prove DEFENDANT'S conduct
- Answer- 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.
2024 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Logical RELEVANCE - Answer- 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
prove or disprove a material fact in dispute.
Legal relevance - Answer- 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 outweighs its prejudicial effect, the evidence should be
admitted.
DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION - Answer- 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, misleading 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 - Answer- Evidence of liability insurance 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 - Answer- 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 - Answer- 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 - Answer- 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 - Answer- 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 - Answer- 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 - Answer- Character evidence goes to the general character
of a person and conveys a moral judgment. Habit evidence, by contrast, describes a
person's regular response to a specific set of circumstances and conveys no moral
judgment.
CA: Same as Federal Rule.
TYPES OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE - Answer- 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 -
Answer- Inadmissible unless:
1. Character is at issue (e.g. defamation)
2. MIMIC - if independently relevant (i.e. offered to prove something other than
character)
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 cases.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE offered in CRIMINAL case to prove DEFENDANT'S conduct
- Answer- 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.
