PRESENTED BY YUSSIF D. KABA RESIDENT CIRCUIT JUDGE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, CIVIL LAW COURT MONTSERRADO COUNTY, REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

 Something – including testimony, documents, and tangible objects – that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact. It is the collective mass of things, especially testimony and exhibits, presented before a tribunal in a given dispute.

 Proof is the establishment or refutation of an allege fact by evidence

 A Criminal Case – sometimes referred to as a Criminal Action or a Criminal Proceedings – is an action instituted by the government to punish offenses against the public

 Offenses or Crimes are acts that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty treated as the subject matter of a criminal proceedings.

 A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved; and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to an acquittal.  This presumption of innocent continues throughout the entire trial unless during the evaluation of the evidence by the court sitting as trial of fact and law, or by the jury sitting as trial of fact in their room of deliberation, when it is established that this presumption has been overcome by the evidence.

 A reasonable doubt is that uncertainty, or state of being unsure of something, that prevents one from being firmly convinced of a defendant’s guilt, or the belief that there is a real possibility that the defendant is not guilty.  It is that uncertainty about the truth or factual existence of something for which a reason exists and may arise from the evidence or lack of evidence. It is such an uncertainty as would exist in the mind of a sensible, fair, just, rational and logical person after fully, fairly, and carefully considering all of the evidence or lack of evidence.

There are two major kind or category of Evidence:- 1. Direct Evidence 2. Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption. It is that species of evidence that is given by a witness who testifies concerning facts that he or she has directly observed or perceived through the senses. I.e. Hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting and feeling.

Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation. It is all evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony. It is evidence of facts or circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence of other facts may be reasonably inferred from common experience.

The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either Direct or Circumstantial Evidence. One is not necessarily more or less valuable than the other.

The admissibility of circumstantial evidence in criminal case is well established. The rule is one of necessity, since only few conviction could be obtained if direct testimony of eye witnesses was required. However, Circumstantial Evidence may be excluded where it is so vague that it does not have any probative value. In criminal cases, all facts that tend to exhibit the res gestae, or to establish a chain of circumstantial evidence with respect of the act charged are admissible.

The quality or state of being allowed to be entered into evidence in a hearing, trial, or other proceedings.

 Conditional Admissibility :- The evidentiary rule that when a piece of evidence is not itself admissible, but is admissible if certain other facts make it relevant, the evidence becomes admissible on condition that counsel later introduce the connecting fact. If counsel does not satisfy this condition, the opponent is entitled to have the conditionally admitted piece of evidence struck from the record, and to have the judge instruct the jury to disregard it

 The rule that an inadmissible piece of evidence may be admitted if offered to cure or counteract the effect of some similar piece of the opponent’s evidence that itself should not have been admitted

 The principle that testimony or exhibit may be admitted into evidence for a restricted purpose. Common example are admitting prior contradictory testimony to impeach a witness but not to establish the truth, and admitting evidence against one party but not another. The trial court must, upon request, instruct the jury properly about the applicable limits when admitting the evidence.

 The evidentiary rule that, although a piece of evidence is inadmissible under one rule for the purpose given in offering it, it is nevertheless admissible if relevant and offered for some other purpose not forbidden by the rule of evidence.

The following constitute the qualities of admissible evidence during a trial or proceedings:  Relevant  Material  Competent

Relevant Evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable than it would be without the evidence. In other words, it is evidence tending prove or disprove a matter in issue. In other words, for evidence to be relevant that evidence must tend to affect the probability of the existence of a fact in dispute.

All Relevant evidence is admissible, with exception by law as follows:-  Hearsay Evidence  Untestable Evidence  Untrustworthy Evidence  Evidence contrary to scientific principles or natural law  Practical consideration of undue delay, confusion of issues, or risks of prejudice to a party  Evidence obtained illegally or in violation of basic rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and statutory law.

Material Evidence is evidence having some logical connection with the fact of consequence or issue. The term “material” means that the evidence tends to prove a matter that is properly at issue in the case. Material evidence are also said to be those that are of consequence to the merit of the litigation, while relevancy is a function of whether the evidence tends to make the existence of a material fact more or less probable.

Competent Evidence is evidence that follows the rules and/or provision of the law. These are evidence that conform to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law on evidence, the rule of court and other statutory requirements.

Character Evidence:- Evidence regarding someone’s general personality trait or propensities, of a praiseworthy or blameworthy nature; Evidence of a person’s moral standing in the community. Even though evidence of bad character and reputation of a criminal defendant may be logically relevant and of probative value, the courts, for sound reasons of policy, hold that it is legally irrelevant since the character of a person accused of a crime is generally held not a fact in issue in prosecution for such crime. However, once a defendant offers evidence as to a pertinent character trait, the prosecution may offer evidence in rebuttal.

 Real or Demonstrative Evidence:- Physical evidence that one can see and inspect (i.e., an explanatory aid, such as chart, map, and some computer simulation) and that, while of probative value and usually offered to clarify testimony, does not play a direct part in the incident in question.

Impeachment Evidence:- Evidence used to undermine a witness’s credibility.

Inculpatory Evidence:- Evidence showing or tending to show one’s involvement in a crime or wrong

Exculpatory Evidence:- Evidence tending to establish a criminal defendant’s innocence. The Prosecution has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence in its possession or control when the evidence may be material to the outcome of the case.

Expert Evidence:- Evidence about a scientific, technical, professional, or other specialized issue given by a person qualified to testify because of familiarity with the subject or special training in the field.

Incomplete or Inconclusive Evidence:- Evidence that will not independently establish a fact at issue, although otherwise relevant and of probative value. Such evidence is admissible if it tend to prove certain element of an ultimate fact necessary to be proved, and evidence is relevant and admissible if it tends to corroborate evidence of certain, although not all, elements of a necessary ultimate fact.

Impeachment Evidence:- Evidence used to undermine a witness’s credibility.

Opinion Evidence:- A witness’s belief, thought, inferences, or conclusion concerning a fact or facts. Generally it is only Opinion Evidence of Expert are admissible evidence.

 Evidence of Consciousness of Guilt  Evidence Admitted for Limited Purpose  Evidence Admissible only Against One Person

Illegally Obtained Evidence:- Evidence obtained by violating a statute or a person’s constitutional or other right.  Forced confession  Failure to acquaint with Miranda Rights

Hearsay Evidence:- Testimony that is given by a witness who relates not what he or she knows personally, but what others have said, and that is therefore dependent on the credibility of someone other than the witness

Remote Evidence:- Evidence that relates to a matter too remote in time to have probative value. Evidence of this nature are excluded as been irrelevant. However, the fact that evidence is remote in time or probative value does not itself preclude its admissibility, which depends on the nature and circumstances of the case.

Evidence, although relevant, may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighted 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. This is consider to be an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly, and the less drastic action of compelling compliance with conditions that will remove or alleviate the prejudicial effect is also authorized.

Our legal system follows the adversary procedural system as that of the Anglo-American legal system, involving active and unhindered parties contesting with each other to put forth a case before an independent decision maker or the court. The law in our jurisdiction conferred upon a criminal defendant the right of trial by a jury in cases cognizable before a circuit court or court of records.

A jury trial is a trial in which the factual issues are determined by a group of person selected according to law and given the power to decide questions of fact and return a verdict in the case submitted to them, while the trial judge during such trial is given the power to decide questions of law.

The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of each witness, and the sole judge of the value or weight to be given to the testimony of each witness.

The trial judge is the sole judge of the Sufficiency of the Evidence

 Credibility of a Witness or of Evidence:- is that quality that makes the witness or the evidence worthy of belief.  The weight of the evidence concerns the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.  The weight of the evidence is its weight in probative value, not the quantity or amount of evidence. It is not determined by mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing belief.

 Sufficiency of Evidence:- Adequate evidence of such quality, number, force or value as is necessary to support the finding of the trier of fact.  It is a test of adequacy. The final test for legal sufficiency of the evidence must always be whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair minded people to reach the verdict  It is a standard for reviewing a criminal conviction or verdict on the question of whether enough evidence exist to justify the fact trier’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 A conviction based on legally insufficient evidence constitute denial of due process.  In addressing the issue of insufficiency of evidence, a court must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict or judgment, without weighting the evidence or assessing witness credibility, and determine therefrom whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

In determining the weight of evidence, the jury may reject that which it finds implausible, but accept other parts which it finds to be believable, and is free to choose among reasonable interpretations or constructions of the evidence. However, a verdict may not be permitted to rest upon surmise, conjecture, inference, speculation or guesswork.

 The factfinder is free to determine the credibility of the witnesses. More specifically, a trier of fact has the power to accept or reject, in whole or in part, a witness testimony

The proof of the essential elements of a crime must be decided by the trier of fact and the test for the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.

 Number of witnesses:- The issue, in a criminal prosecution, of the guilt or innocence of the accused is not to be determined solely by counting the witnesses on one side or the other. Rather numerical preponderance is one circumstances to be considered along with other facts and circumstances in the testimony of the witnesses on either side. The testimony of one witness is sufficient to prove any fact. Additionally, a conviction may be sustained on the testimony of a single witness or victim.

 A trier of fact is free to believe or disbelieve an expert witness.  A jury is free to reject the testimony of a defendant where that testimony is inconsistent with other direct or circumstantial evidence.  In considering the testiminy of a witness, the trier of fact may take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, such as whether the testimony is reasonable and consistent with other evidence, the witness appearance, conduct, memory and knowledge of the facts; the witness’s interest in the trial; and the witness’s emotional and mental state.

 In general, a party is bound by its own testimony which is favorable to the adverse party, unless the testimony is later withdrawn, explain, or modified.  If a party testifies to a fact, not as a matter of opinion, estimate, appearance, inference, or uncertain memory, but as a considered circumstance of the case, the opposing party is entitled to hold him to it as an informal judicial admission.

 If hearsay evidence is admitted after a failure to object, the question presented becomes that of the weight, and not the admissibility of the hearsay.

 The fact that a witness makes inconsistent statement with regard to the subject matter does not render his testimony unworthy of belief. Such inconsistency does not make the testimony insufficient. It goes to the credibility of the witness and the testimony to be determine by the jury.

 Conflict and discrepancies between earlier statements and in-court testimony go to the weight, if any, the jury should give the testimony.

 Uncontroverted Testimony  Physical Fact Rule

 Photographs  Motion Picture

 Public and official books, records and documents;  Books of account;  Death Certificate

 Presence at scene of crime,  Time of offense;  Intent;  Venue;

 The jury are to determine the weight to be attached to a confession.  Where a confession is admitted during a trial, the jury must consider it in light of all the other evidence in the case