 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Graber v. City Of Ankeny9/7/2000
scope of review.
Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. See Iowa R. Evid. 402. The converse proposition—that relevant evidence is admissible—is not automatically true. See id. committee comment—1983 ("Statutes, rules of procedure, constitutional and policy considerations may require the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence."). Even relevant evidence should not be admitted when "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury . . . ." Iowa R. Evid. 403. Therefore, the decision to admit evidence requires a two-step inquiry: (1) is the evidence relevant? and (2) if so, is its probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice or confusion?
Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Iowa R. Evid. 401. A determination of the probative value of relevant evidence focuses on the strength and force of the tendency of the evidence "to make a consequential fact more or less probable." McClure v. Walgreen Co., ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2000). "Unfair prejudice arises when the evidence prompts the jury to make a decision on an improper basis . . . ." Waits v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 572 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Iowa 1997).
We review the court's decision to admit relevant evidence for an abuse of discretion. See McClure, ___ N.W.2d at ___; see also State v. Brewer, 247 N.W.2d 205, 214 (Iowa 1976) (holding that once evidence was determined to be relevant, "trial court was obliged to exercise its discretion and determine whether its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect"). An abuse of discretion occurs when "the court exercise discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable." Waits, 572 N.W.2d at 569 (quoting State v. Maghee, 573 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 1997)). A ground or reason is untenable when it is not supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous application of the law. See id.
Not every erroneous admission of evidence requires reversal. See McClure, ___ N.W.2d at ___. Only when "a substantial right of the party is affected" is reversal warranted. Id. (quoting Iowa R. Evid. 103(a)). We presume prejudice from the admission of irrelevant evidence. See Lewis v. Kennison, 278 N.W.2d 12, 15 (Iowa 1979). Accordingly, reversal is required unless the record shows a lack of prejudice. See McClure, ___ N.W.2d at ___. Thus, despite the discretionary nature of the trial court's decision to admit evidence, we do not hesitate to reverse "when the jury was allowed to consider plainly irrelevant and prejudicial evidence." State v. Oppedal, 232 N.W.2d 517, 520 (Iowa 1975).
B. Legal principles governing the admission of evidence of settlement.
Iowa Rule of Evidence 408 deals specifically with the relevancy of settlement evidence:
vidence of . . . accepting . . . a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. . . . This rule does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness. . . . Iowa R. Evid. 408.
This language is taken verbatim from Federal Rule of Evidence 408. The advisory committee notes that accompanied the federal rule when it was proposed gave this explanation of the rule:
xclusion may be based on two grounds[:] (1) he evidence is irrelevant,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|