Example—Admissible. "The district court's determination that it 'was not satisfied that the voice on the tape was that of Davis' * * * is inconsistent with these principles. So long as a jury is entitled to reach a contrary conclusion, it must be given the opportunity to do so. * * * [Title district court erred in excluding the tape on authentication grounds without making a finding that no rational juror could have concluded that Davis made the statement at issue." Ricketts v. City of Hartford, supra, 74 F.3d at 1411.
EVIDENCE IRRELEVANT UNDER RULE 401
From, Hawaii Cases
State v. Ortiz, 93 Haw. 399 (2000) (events occurring after prison escape were not relevant to prove that the escape was the product of duress).
State v. Moore, 82 Haw.202, 921 P.2d 122 (1996) (gunshot victim's statement to police were erroneously admitted to reflect her state of mind because victim's “emotional and mental condition were not facts of consequence to the determination of Moore's guilt.”)
State v. Fukusaku, 85 Haw. 462 (1997) (defendant's use of homicide victim's credit card, months before the killing, offered to prove lack of finances and motive to kill for nonpayment of debt, was not relevant).
Kealoha v. County of Hawaii, 74 Haw. 308 (1993) (because motorcyclists have no duty to wear helmets in Hawaii, evidence that plaintiff did not wear a helmet was not admissible to reduce damages).
State v. Sanchez, 82 Haw. 517 (1996) (defendant's inmate status and violation of four-hour job search pass were not relevant to prove intent in terroristic threatening cases).
Expert medical testimony that “permanent, serious disfigurement” would have resulted absent medical attention irrelevant where that result was an element of the charged offense. State v. Malufau, 80 H. 126, 906 P.2d 612 (1995).
Trial court did not err in ruling that evidence of motorcyclist's nonuse of helmet was not relevant under this rule, and thus, not admissible under rule 402. Kealoha v. County of Hawaii, 74 H. 308, 844 P.2d 670 (1993).
Evidence that victim had $2,300 in cash on person after the shooting irrelevant where fact of consequence was defendant's state of mind at the time of shooting and reasonableness of that state of mind. State v. Kupihea, 80 H. 307, 909 P.2d 1122 (1996).
Defendant's failure to proclaim defendant's innocence to cellmate was irrelevant under this rule and, thus, not admissible by virtue of rule 402. State v. McCrory, 104 H. 203, 87 P.3d 275 (2004).
Testimony by defendant's cellmate that defendant desired a reduction of the murder charge to manslaughter was irrelevant under this rule under the circumstances of the case; defendant's reference to a reduction of the charges against defendant did not make the existence of any fact regarding whether defendant committed the murder “more or less probable than it would be without” this testimony. State v. McCrory, 104 H. 203, 87 P.3d 275 (2004).
The fact that defendant purchased bras for daughter and complaining witness and the allegation that the girls had been sitting at table in their underwear “a couple of days” before the incident were not relevant to any of the events which occurred on date of incident, where, inter alia, the purchase of bras by defendant would not tend to make more probable any fact relating to the elements of sexual contact by defendant. State v. Toro, 77 H. 340, 884 P.2d 403 (1994).