What Evidence Can I Bring to My Minnesota Court Trial?
Evidence in Minnesota Trials
If you have an upcoming court trial or evidentiary hearing, you will give information (called “evidence”) to a judge or jury who will decide the outcome of your case. This evidence may include information you or someone else tells the court (“testimony”), as well as items like emails, text messages, documents, photos, and objects (“exhibits”). Because there are very specific rules that must be followed in presenting your evidence, it is crucial that you seek the help of an attorney to ensure that your evidence is presented in a proper way. Although the rules regarding evidence can be confusing, they are designed to protect your rights, and are implemented to ensure that the court makes decisions based on good information, rather than on gossip or guesswork. This article will discuss the most important rules pertaining to the presentation of evidence, and will provide you with an insight into the evidence you may present at your upcoming Minnesota court trial.
Relevance
In order for evidence to be admissible in court, it must be relevant to your case. All irrelevant evidence is never admissible in court. Relevant evidence means evidence that has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that may determine the outcome of your case more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In other words, any evidence is relevant if it logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue. While all relevant evidence is generally admissible at trial, other rules (which are discussed below) may provide otherwise.
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value (relevance) is substantially outweighed by the danger of (1) unfair prejudice; (2) confusion of the issues or misleading the jury; or (3) undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative (repetitive) evidence. You can think of this as a balancing test, where, if relevance is on the left side of the scale and one or more of the above concerns is on the right side of the scale, the scale must be tipped considerably toward the right side before the evidence may be excluded. If evidence is minimally relevant, it may be outweighed by even a moderate risk of unfair prejudice, while highly relevant evidence may be admissible even when the evidence is “highly damaging” to the other party’s case. Thus, the balancing test favors admissibility of the evidence, and courts will only exclude the evidence if its relevance is substantially outweighed by one of the above concerns.
Character Evidence
In general, evidence of a person’s character is not admissible in court to prove that an individual, in a specific instance, acted in conformity with his or her character. For example, evidence that a person is generally a violent person may not be used in court to prove that that person acted in a violent manner. Nevertheless, a defendant in a criminal case may introduce evidence of his or her good character to prove his or her innocence. Such evidence may be admitted through his or her own testimony, or by calling character witnesses to give their opinion or describe the defendant’s good reputation. However, if a criminal defendant presents such evidence, the prosecutor is then free to introduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character. Conversely, in most civil trials, general good character evidence is not admissible, unless the trial is for defamation, family law/parental rights, negligent hiring, or negligent failure to protect.
Furthermore, in certain instances, the character of a crime victim may be admissible in court. Evidence concerning a victim’s reputation for violence may be shown, in self-defense scenarios, for the purpose of determining (1) whether the defendant was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm; or (2) who in fact, was the initial aggressor. In murder cases, the prosecution may introduce evidence that the victim was a generally peaceful person to disprove any evidence offered by the defendant that the victim was the first aggressor.
Impeachment
Impeachment evidence challenges a witness’s honor, credibility, truthfulness, and reputation. A witness may be impeached by any party, including the party that has called the witness to testify. For the purposes of impeachment, a party may show that (1) the witness is biased or corrupt; (2) the witness has a sensory or mental defect that prevents an accurate account of the facts; (3) the witness made a prior inconsistent statement; (4) the witness’s testimony is contradicted by other evidence; (5) the witness is a dishonest person; or (6) the witness has prior criminal convictions.
A party may introduce opinion or reputation evidence regarding a witness’s dishonesty, and may ask a witness questions on cross-examination about the witness’s specific acts of dishonesty. Once the honesty of a witness has been attacked and called into question, the opposing party may introduce opinion or reputation testimony to support (and rehabilitate) the witness’s honesty, and may ask the witness questions regarding the witness’s specific acts of honesty.
A party may also attack the credibility of a witness by offering evidence of the witness’s prior criminal convictions. Evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime will be admitted if the crime is classified as a felony, and the court determines that the conviction’s relevancy outweighs the conviction’s prejudicial effect. Even if a crime is not classified as a felony, evidence of the conviction will be admitted if the underlying crime involves dishonesty or a false statement. Furthermore, evidence of a conviction will not be admissible in court if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of conviction or release from jail, unless the court determines that the conviction’s relevance substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Lastly, when a witness testifies about an incident, the in-court testimony is likely not the first time the witness has talked about it. The witness has likely either discussed the subject matter of their testimony with someone, or provided a statement regarding the matter. During the cross-examination of the witness, a party may challenge the credibility of the witness’s testimony by asking the witness about prior statements he or she made that are inconsistent with the in-court testimony.
Opinions and Expert Testimony
Opinion testimony, whether given by lay witnesses or presented through the use of an expert, plays a large role in litigation. Certain issues that arise in your case may require you to explain complicated technical concepts. In these situations, it may be beneficial to obtain the services of an expert who can educate the judge or jury on the technology or science, and provide his or her opinion concerning its application to the legal issue at hand.
Opinion testimony by most witnesses must be based on firsthand knowledge, and must be helpful to the judge or jury in determining a fact in issue, or in understanding the witness’s testimony. To the contrary, the testimony of expert witnesses is not based on the expert’s personal knowledge. Rather, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge would assist the judge or jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue, a witness may testify about the specialized knowledge as long as the witness is an expert. A witness is qualified as an expert if they possess the requisite knowledge, skill, or experience that would provide the background necessary for a meaningful opinion on the subject. Lastly, the methods used by the expert to arrive at his or her opinion must be reliable, and, if they involve a novel scientific theory, must be generally accepted in the general scientific community.
Hearsay
Hearsay is a rule which is commonly accompanied by many misconceptions. At its core, the rule against using hearsay evidence is to prevent out-of-court, second hand statements from being used as evidence at trial given their potential unreliability. While hearsay statements are generally inadmissible in court, there are numerous exclusions and exceptions to this rule.
Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement, which is reiterated in court, used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. If the out-of-court statement is being offered for some other purpose, such as to prove knowledge, notice, or for impeachment purposes, it is not hearsay. These out-of-court statements do not have to be spoken words, but can also be documents or even body language (i.e. nod of the head; finger point; or deliberate silence).
Statements Which are Not Hearsay
Certain statements, while, at first glance, may look like hearsay, are excluded from the general hearsay rule. For instance, a statement is not hearsay if the person making the statement testifies at the current trial, and the statement is either:
Inconsistent with their testimony and made under oath at a previous trial, hearing, proceeding, or deposition;
Consistent with their testimony and helpful to the judge or jury in assessing the witness’s credibility;
A statement concerning the identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or
A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the witness was perceiving the event or condition (or immediately thereafter).
Additionally, a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party in the trial and is either:
The party’s own statement;
A statement the party has adopted or believed to be true;
A statement by a person authorized by the party to make the statement;
A statement by the party’s agent or employee concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment (made during the existence of that relationship); or
A statement by the party’s co-conspirator.
Hearsay Exceptions
There are numerous exceptions to the rule against hearsay, where a statement—while technically hearsay—will still be admissible in court. These exceptions are grouped into one of two categories: (1) those exceptions which are not affected by the availability or unavailability of the speaker (declarant) to testify at trial; and (2) those exceptions which require that the declarant be unavailable to testify before the hearsay statement is admissible.
Declarant’s Availability Immaterial
Excited Utterance
The first hearsay exception in which the declarant’s availability is immaterial is the excited utterance. In order for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance, (1) there must be a startling event or condition; (2) the statement must relate to the startling event or condition; and (3) the declarant must be under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
State of Mind
The second hearsay exception in this grouping is known as the “state of mind” exception. To qualify under this exception, the statement must describe the declarant’s current mental, emotional, or physical condition (i.e. “I feel dizzy”). When seeking to admit a statement under the “state of mind” exception, (1) the statement must be contemporaneous with the mental state sought to be proven; (2) there must be no suspicious circumstances suggesting a motive for the declarant to lie; and (3) the declarant’s state of mind must be relevant to an issue in the case.
Medical Diagnosis or Treatment
Similarly, statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment which describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pain, sensations, or the general cause of the injury are admissible under the “medical diagnosis or treatment” hearsay exception. While statements made to treating physicians for these purposes are certainly admissible under this exception, statements made to non-treating physicians are admissible as well, if made for the purpose of diagnosis.
Recorded Recollection
A memorandum or record may be read into evidence if (1) the witness has personal knowledge about the matter; (2) the witness presently lacks sufficient recollection to testify fully and accurately about the matter; (3) the recorded statement was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was still fresh in the witness’s memory; and (4) the statement accurately captures the witness’s personal knowledge. The record may be created from notes, police reports, or some other form of preservation.
Business Records Exception
Under the commonly recognized “business records exception,” a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses may be admitted into evidence if (1) they were made at or near the time the conditions occurred; (2) by a person with knowledge; (3) if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; and (4) if it was regular practice of that business activity to make such a record. All records prepared in anticipation of going to trial are not admissible under this exception.
Public Records
Under the “public records” hearsay exception, records, reports, statements, or data compilations of public offices or agencies (i.e. police departments) will be admissible in court if (1) they set forth the activities of the office or agency; or (2) matters observed if there was a legal duty to report. However, in criminal cases, matters observed by police officers and recited in a police report will not be admissible against the criminal defendant.
Declarant Must be Unavailable
A declarant of a hearsay statement is considered unavailable if the witness (1) asserts their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (2) refuses to testify despite a court order to do so; (3) testifies as to a lack of memory concerning the statement; (4) is deceased or severely sick; or (5) is absent from the hearing and the party wishing to admit the statement has been unable to procure the declarant’s attendance. The following hearsay exceptions only apply when the declarant is unavailable to testify at trial.
Former Testimony
In a civil case, the former testimony of the declarant in the same or different proceeding will be admitted into evidence if (1) the declarant is unavailable; and (2) the party against whom the testimony is being offered or another party with substantially the same interest, had a prior opportunity and motive to develop the testimony through direct, cross, or redirect examination. In a criminal case, this exception only applies when there is a retrial of the same defendant for the same or an included offense.
Dying Declaration
In a murder trial, or in any civil trial, a declarant’s statement may be admitted into evidence under the “dying declaration” hearsay exception if (1) the statement was made by the declarant while the declarant believed that he was about to die; and (2) the statement concerned the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.
Statements Against Interest
Statements which, at the time they were made, are so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, are likely to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or would render the declarant’s claim against another party invalid, will be admissible at trial if a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement without believing it to be true.
MINNESOTA TRIAL ATTORNEYS
As you can see, there are numerous hurdles that evidence must jump over before being admitted into evidence. The evidence must be relevant to the case and not be unfairly prejudicial to the opposing party. If you wish to introduce evidence tending to show the character of an individual, there are a number of character evidence rules which must be followed. Additionally, there are a number of ways you can discredit a witness through the use of impeachment methods. If you wish to introduce expert testimony, there are even more procedures which must be followed. Lastly, statements which constitute hearsay will not be admitted into evidence, unless, of course, an exclusion or exception applies. The rules stated above are only some of the most common Minnesota evidentiary rules.
With so many rules and exceptions, it is important to retain the services of a trial attorney to ensure that your case is presented properly, and that all the evidence you wish to be admitted at trial is seen by the judge or jury. The trial attorneys at RAM Law PLLC are trained in the rules of evidence. If you have an upcoming court case, contact us now to schedule your free consultation.