CHAPTER 11-2
RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS

11-2-1 Relevant Evidence.

“Relevant evidence” means evidence having 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. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution and By-laws, ordinance, this Title, or by other rules prescribed by the Court of Appeals pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

11-2-2 Exclusion of Evidence.

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

11-2-3 Character Evidence.

(A)    Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity on a particular occasion, except:

(1)    when offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same after the accused has offered such character evidence;

(2)    evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in Section 11-4-6, and 11-4-7.

(3)    evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

11-2-4 Proving Character.

In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct.

11-2-5 Habit or Routine.

Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.

11-2-6 Subsequent Remedial Measures.

When after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event, in order to encourage additional safety measures to be taken for the protection of the public whether or not the previous measures were sufficient to prevent a finding of negligent or culpable conduct.

11-2-7 Compromise and Offers to Compromise.

In order to encourage the non-judicial settlement of disputes, evidence of:

(A)    furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or

(B)    accepting or offering or promising to accept,

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. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible.

11-2-8 Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses.

In order to encourage non-judicial settlement of disputes and to encourage persons to assist one another for their joint benefit, evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay, or the payment of medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury. Evidence of payment of such charges may be introduced by the person making such payment for the purpose of reducing a judgment for damages.

11-2-9 Liability Insurance.

(A)    Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This Section does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.

(B)    In the sound discretion of the District Court, and subject to any exclusionary rule promulgated by the Court of Appeals, evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability and the limits of coverage and other relevant factors is admissible in a bifurcated jury or judge trial sounding in tort, or otherwise, in the second phase of the trial upon the issue of the amount of actual and consequential damages to be awarded, after liability has been determined in the first phase of the trial, as provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure.