![[Contents]](../icons/rule_toc.gif){kind=icon}
Evidence means testimony, writings, material objects or other things presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact.
Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence proves a fact without an inference and, if true, conclusively establishes that fact. Circumstantial evidence proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn.
An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.
The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as to the degree of proof required; each is a reasonable method of proof. Each is respected for such convincing force as it may carry. | TOP |
You are not required to decide any issue according to the testimony of a number of witnesses, which does not convince you, as against the testimony of a smaller number or other evidence, which is more convincing to you. The testimony of one witness worthy of belief is sufficient to prove any fact. This does not mean that you are free to disregard the testimony of any witness merely from caprice or prejudice, or from a desire to favor either side. It does mean that you must not decide anything by simply counting the number of witnesses who have testified on the opposing sides. The test is not the number of witnesses, but the convincing force of the evidence. | TOP |
If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered by a party, when it was within such party's ability to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust. | TOP |
If you find that a party willfully suppressed evidence in order to prevent its being presented in this trial, you may consider that fact in determining what inferences to draw from the evidence. | TOP |
In determining what inferences to draw from the evidence you may consider, among other things, a party's failure to explain or to deny such evidence. | TOP |
[Certain evidence was admitted and limited to one or more parties. Do not consider it as to any other party.]
[Certain evidence was admitted for a limited purpose. Do not consider it for any other purpose.]
Your attention was called to these matters when the evidence was admitted. | TOP |
Testimony has been read from [a] deposition[s]. A deposition is testimony taken under oath before [the] trial and preserved in writing. You must consider that testimony as if it had been given here in court. | TOP |
An interrogatory is a written question asked by one party of another, who must answer it under oath in writing. You must consider interrogatories and the answers thereto just as if the questions had been asked and answered here in court. | TOP |
In this case the [plaintiff] [defendant] served on the [defendant] [plaintiff] a written request to admit the truth of certain facts. All facts which were expressly admitted by the [defendant] [plaintiff] or which [defendant] [plaintiff] failed to deny must be accepted as conclusively proved. | TOP |
Counsel have stipulated that _______________________ shall be deemed to have been called and testified to certain matters. You must consider that stipulated testimony as if it had been given here in court.
[A stipulation is an agreement [between] [among] counsel as to matters relating to the trial]. | TOP |
You are the sole and exclusive judges of the believability of the witnesses and the weight to be given the testimony of each witness.
In determining the believability of a witness you may consider any matter that has a tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the testimony of the witness, including but not limited to the following:
The demeanor and manner of the witness while testifying;
The character and quality of that testimony;
The extent of the capacity of the witness to perceive, to recollect, or to communicate any matter about which the witness testified;
The opportunity of the witness to perceive any matter about which the witness has testified;
The existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive;
A statement previously made by the witness that is [consistent] [or] [inconsistent] with the testimony of the witness;
The existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by the witness;
The attitude of the witness toward this action or toward the giving of testimony;
[An admission by the witness of untruthfulness.]
[The character of the witness for honesty or truthfulness, or their opposites.]
[The witness' prior conviction of a felony.] | TOP |
Discrepancies in a witness's testimony or between such witness's testimony and that of other witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that [any] [such] witness should be discredited. Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is not uncommon. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction often will see or hear it differently. Whether a discrepancy pertains to an important matter or only to something trivial should be considered by you. | TOP |
A witness false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. You may reject the entire testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely on a material point, unless, from all the evidence, you believe that the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars. | TOP |
The fact that a witness has been convicted of a felony, if such be a fact, may be considered by you only for the purpose of determining the believability of that witness. The fact of such a conviction does not necessarily destroy or impair a witness's believability. It is one of the circumstances that you may take into consideration in weighing the testimony of such a witness. | TOP |
A statement made by a party before trial which tends to prove or disprove any material fact in this action and which is against such party's interest is an admission. [Evidence of an oral admission not made under oath should be viewed with caution.] | TOP |
If you find that following the [accident] [incident] involved in this case that a party (1) [failed to reply] [or] [made an evasive answer] to a statement concerning such party's conduct in relation to the [accident] [incident] ;(2) heard and understood the statement; (3) had a reasonable opportunity to reply; (4) was in such physical and mental condition that a reasonable person in such condition could be expected to reply; and (5) the statement was made under such circumstances that it would normally call for an answer, you may, but are not required to, infer that the party adopted the statement or believed it to be true.
If you do not find each of the five circumstances to [be true] [exist] you must disregard any evidence of the party's silence or evasive answer. | TOP |
If, [at a deposition] [in answers to interrogatories] a privilege not to testify with respect to any matter [or to refuse to disclose or to prevent another from disclosing any matter] has been exercised, no assumption of fact is to be made by you because of the exercise of such privilege, and you must not draw any inference therefrom as to the believability of the witness or as to any matter in issue in this trial. | TOP |
Evidence has been received that a [witness] [party] who also was involved in the accident in question compromised and settled a claim. Such evidence may be considered by you solely for the purpose of showing a fact from which an inference may, but need not, be drawn of any interest or bias on the part of the witness. It may not be considered by you as any admission of liability for any loss or damage. | TOP |
[A witness] [Witnesses] who [has] [have] special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in a particular subject [has] [have] testified to certain opinions. Any such witness is referred to as an expert witness. In determining what weight to give any such opinion, you should consider the qualifications and believability of the witness, the facts or materials upon which each opinion is based, and the reasons for each opinion.
An opinion is only as good as the facts and reasons on which it is based. If you find that any such fact has not been proved, or has been disproved, you must consider that in determining the value of the opinion. Likewise, you must consider the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons on which it is based.
[You are not bound by an opinion. Give each opinion the weight you find it deserves.]
[However, you may not arbitrarily or unreasonably disregard the __________ (medical, scientific, etc.) opinion testimony in this case which was not contradicted. Therefore, unless you find that it is not believable, it is conclusive and binding on you.] | TOP |
In resolving the conflict in the testimony of expert witnesses, you should weigh the opinion of one expert against that of another. In doing this, you should consider the qualifications and believability of each witness, the reasons for each opinion and the matter upon which it is based. | TOP |
A hypothetical question is a question in which an expert witness is asked to assume that certain facts are true and to give an opinion based upon that assumption. If any fact assumed in such a question has not been established by the evidence, you should determine the effect of that omission upon the value of an opinion based on that fact. | TOP |
Evidence has been received that [the plaintiff] [a patient] made statements to a [physician] [__________] for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment. That evidence may not be considered as proof of the truth of the facts stated; you may consider it only to the extent it does show the information upon which the physician's opinions are based.
[However, you may consider the [plaintiff's] [patient's] statements about [his] [her] existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation [and any statements made constituting an admission of fact adverse to the [plaintiff's] [patient's] interest] as proof of the truth of the matter so stated.] | TOP |
Plaintiff is seeking damages based upon [a] claim[s] of ____________________.
Plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all of the facts necessary to establish:
[The essential elements of [each separate] [the] claim. The essential elements of [the] [each separate] claim [is] [are] set forth elsewhere in these instructions. In addition to these essential elements, plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all of the facts necessary to establish the nature and extent of the [damages] [injuries] claimed to have been suffered, the elements of plaintiff's damage and the amount thereof.]
[_______________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________.]
[The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all of the facts necessary to establish:
________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________.]
"Preponderance of the evidence" means evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If the evidence is so evenly balanced that you are unable to say that the evidence on either side of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the party who had the burden of proving it.
You should consider all of the evidence bearing upon every issue regardless of who produced it. | TOP |
The defendant has admitted liability for any injury the plaintiff may have suffered resulting from the [accident] [incident] in question.
Thus you are required to determine:
1. What injury, if any, the plaintiff sustained that was caused by the [accident,] [incident,] and
2. The amount of damages, if any, to which the plaintiff is entitled as compensation for such injury.
The admission of liability should not prejudice you for or against the defendant. | TOP |
[The plaintiff has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence all of the facts necessary to establish:
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________.]
"Clear and convincing" evidence means evidence of such convincing force that it demonstrates, in contrast to the opposing evidence, a high probability of the truth of the fact[s] for which it is offered as proof. Such evidence requires a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
You should consider all of the evidence bearing upon every issue regardless of who produced it. | TOP |