Key Rules and Case Law on Evidence and Testimony

602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.

- Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness's testimony.

611 - Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence

1(a): Control by the Court; Purposes (b): Scope -> The initial cross-examination is not limited to matters discussed on direct examination. Re-direct and re-cross examination are permitted.

Re-direct and re-cross examination are permitted. But any redirect examination may not go beyond the subject matter of the examination immediately preceding it and matters affecting the witness's credibility

c) Leading -> It should not be used on direct examination except when necessary to develop the witness's testimony.

(1) On cross

(2) When a party calls a hostile witness

Test for Relevance (401)

(a): it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence

(b): the fact is consequence in determining the action

Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness (701)

Rationally based perception, helpful to clearly understand the witness's testimony or determining a fact in issue, not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of rule 702.

Testimony by Expert Witness (702)

Requires specialized knowledge/education, sufficient facts or data, reliable principles or methods, and reliably applied method and principles to the case.

Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition (803(3))

A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind or emotional, sensory, or physical condition, but not including the statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant's will.

Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity (803(6))

A record of an act, event, condition, opinion or diagnosis if made at or near the time by someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, making the record was a regular practice, and all conditions shown by testimony or certification.

Hearsay Within Hearsay (805)

Not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule.

Opinion About a Voice (901(b)(5))

An opinion identifying a person's voice based on hearing that voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.

Richards v Mississippi BBQ

Experts can use hearsay to form an opinion, but they cannot simply repeat hearsay without adding their specialized knowledge.

Filteau v Wanek

As long as the proponent of the statement produces evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a given person made a particular statement, the court must assume for purposes of assessing its admissibility that the statement was made by that person.

Midlands Television Studios v Kosak

Instead of submitting an entire deposition as evidence, a party may choose to only read a specific portion onto the record. This may be taken out of direct or cross time.

Ginger v Heisman

Emails or text messages are properly authenticated when the proponent has produced evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would allow a reasonable jury to determine the author of the message.

Zomerfeld v Noto

Judges can use both admissible and inadmissible evidence when deciding if evidence is allowed at trial (under MRE 104(a)). This does not make the inadmissible evidence itself admissible — it's just part of the judge's decision-making process.

Dolly v Ringo

Under rule 801(d)(2), only one party can use statements made by the opposing party. For instance, the plaintiff can use statements made by the defence, and vice versa, but not their own prior statements.

Kaplan v Sikora

If an employee or agent makes a statement related to their job while still being employed, it can be used as evidence against their employer, even if it would normally count as hearsay.

Tarot Readers Association v Merrell Dow

When deciding if evidence is reliable under MRE 702, judges look at factors like whether the method has been tested, peer-reviewed, widely accepted, or has a known error rate. The factors help but are not required, as judges evaluate the big picture based on the circumstances.

Davis v Adams

Judges must ensure that scientific evidence is not only relevant but is also reliable. To determine reliability, they focus on the methods and data used, not the conclusions. The party presenting the evidence must prove it meets the requirements of MRE 702.