Rules of Evidence Article 4

## Rules of Evidence

* Art. 1 - General Provisions
* Art. 2 - Judicial Notice
* Art. 3 - (Reserved)
* **Art. 4 - Relevance**
* Art. 5 - Privilege
* Art. 6 - Witnesses
* Art. 7 - Expert Testimony
* Art. 8 - Hearsay
* Art. 9 - Authentication
* Art. 10 - Contents of Writings

*See Rules of Evidence.*

## Rule 401.  Relevance.

Evidence is relevant if:

a. It has a tendency to make a fact in question more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

b. The fact in question is of consequences to the court’s ruling on the case.

## Rule 402.  Admissibility Based Upon Relevance.

a. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

b. Relevant evidence is admissible unless one of the following provides otherwise:

1. the Laws of Stormwind;
2. these rules; or
3. any other rules prescribed by the Justices of the Courts of Law and Equity.

## Rule 403.  Excluding Relevant Evidence.

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:

a. unfair prejudice;

b. confusing the issues;

c. misleading the jury;

d. undue delay;

e. wasting time; or

f. needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

## Rule 405.  Character Evidence and Evidence of Past Crimes.

a. *Character evidence*.  Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

b. *Past criminal history*.  Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a different occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

c. *Permitted uses*.  This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

d. *Proving Character by Reputation or Opinion*. When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.

e. *Proving Character by Specific Instances of Conduct*. When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.

f. *Use of the Holy Light on a Party or Witness*.  A party or witness’s adverse reaction to the Holy Light is not admissible to demonstrate the party or witness’s character, honesty, or clarity of conscience in the matter.

## Rule 406.  Habit and Routine Practice.

Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.

## Rule 407.  Liability Insurance.

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.

## Rule 408.  Negotiations.

a. Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of either party to prove or disprove the validity of a claim or charge, except as provided elsewhere within these rules:

1. An offer of settlement or negotiation therefor;
2. Offers to pay medical expenses arising from an injury alleged in the case;
3. A guilty plea later withdrawn;
4. A nolo contendere plea;
5. Any plea bargain or negotiation therefor; or
6. Conduct or statements made during the above negotiations.

b. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

## Rule 409.  Subsequent Remedial Measures.

When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:

a. negligence;

b. culpable conduct;

c. a defect in a product or its design; or

d. a need for a warning or instruction. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.

***This rule was created by Jeremaias-MoonGuard and Arranax-MoonGuard based upon the Federal Rules of Evidence of the United States of America.***