N.M. R. Evid. 11-401
Evidence is relevant if
N.M. R. Evid. 11-401
Committee commentary. - The language of Rule 11-401 NMRA was amended in 2012 to be consistent with the restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective December 1, 2011, to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on admissibility.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012, rewrote the title of the rule and the rule to make stylistic changes. I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION. Compiler's notes. - This rule is similar to Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Breath alcohol content results. - Where defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor under Subsection A of Section 66-8-102 NMSA 1978; defendant's breath alcohol content was tested approximately forty-seven minutes after defendant was stopped; and there was no evidence relating defendant's blood alcohol content results of .07 and .08 back to the time of driving, the breath alcohol content results showed that defendant had alcohol in defendant's system and were relevant evidence. State v. Pickett, 2009-NMCA-077, 146 N.M. 655, 213 P.3d 805. Arguments of counsel are not evidence. State v. Herrera, 1972-NMCA-068, 84 N.M. 46, 499 P.2d 364, cert. denied, 84 N.M. 37, 499 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1110, 93 S. Ct. 918, 34 L. Ed. 2d 692 (1973) (decided prior to enactment of this rule). "Relevancy" defined. - Relevancy is that which tends to establish a material proposition. State v. Romero, 1974-NMCA-015, 86 N.M. 99, 519 P.2d 1180. Generally, whatever naturally and logically tends to establish a fact in issue is relevant. Wright v. Brem, 1970-NMCA-030, 81 N.M. 410, 467 P.2d 736. Evidence which is offered to prove an issue in a case and which sheds light on that issue is material and should be admitted. State v. Gutierrez, 1968-NMCA-090, 79 N.M. 732, 449 P.2d 334, cert. denied, 80 N.M. 33, 450 P.2d 633. Under this rule, there must be an important fact in the case to be determined. Whatever naturally and logically tends to establish a fact in issue is relevant. Wilson v. Hayner, 1982-NMCA-120, 98 N.M. 514, 650 P.2d 36. Determination of relevancy within trial court's discretion. - Because of difficulty of precisely defining the term "relevant evidence" or of circumscribing by specific and categorical rules the substance or content of evidence which falls within the area of "relevancy," the determination of relevancy, as well as of materiality, rests largely within the discretion of the trial court. Wright v. Brem, 1970-NMCA-030, 81 N.M. 410, 467 P.2d 736 (decided prior to enactment of this rule). See also Glass v. Stratoflex, Inc., 1966-NMSC-153, 76 N.M. 595, 417 P.2d 201. The determination of relevancy, as well as materiality, rests largely within the discretion of the trial court. Wilson v. Hayner, 1982-NMCA-120, 98 N.M. 514, 650 P.2d 36; In re Plains Elec. Generation & Transmission Coop., 1988-NMCA-011, 106 N.M. 775, 750 P.2d 475. Relevant evidence decided on case-by-case basis. - There is, and can be, no fixed rule delineating relevant and irrelevant evidence. The problem must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Ohlson v. Kent Nowlin Constr. Co., 1983 -NMCA-008, 99 N.M. 539, 660 P.2d 1021. Real evidence is admissible to show commission of crime charged; to connect the accused with the commission of the crime; to show fingerprints, palmprints or footprints in order to establish the identity of the wrongdoer; to illustrate, explain or throw light on the criminal transaction; to show that a person accused of homicide was armed when he went to the scene of the crime; to show malice, knowledge and preparation, purpose, intent or a lustful disposition; to show the ability to commit a crime; to show the nature and location of a wound; to show the ownership and value of stolen property; to corroborate a witness or admissions of the defendant; to contradict defendant's theory of self-defense by showing that the victim's skull had been crushed by the use of excessive force or that the victim's gun had not been discharged; and to contradict the defendant's testimony. State v. Gray, 1968-NMCA-059, 79 N.M. 424, 444 P.2d 609, aff'd, 1969-NMCA-102, 80 N.M. 751, 461 P.2d 233. Court's decision admitting evidence upheld where admissible under any theory. - Where evidence is admissible under any theory, the trial court's decision to admit it will be upheld. The same ruling will apply even more forcefully to evidence presented to the grand jury. State v. Ballinger, 1983-NMCA-034, 99 N.M. 707, 663 P.2d 366, rev'd on other grounds, 1984-NMSC-003, 100 N.M. 583, 673 P.2d 1316. Items are admissible which show either an admission by conduct or consciousness of guilt. State v. Vallejos, 1982-NMCA-146, 98 N.M. 798, 653 P.2d 174. II. SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. Defendant's accusations against the victim. - Where defendant was charged with the first degree murder of the victim; defendant was embittered by the victim's rejection of defendant and the breakup of the relationship between defendant and the victim; and defendant made accusations to the ex-wife of the victim and police that the victim intended to sodomize the victim's son, tie the victim's son up, kill the victim's son, and drop the victim's son by a river, defendant's accusations were relevant evidence to prove defendant's motives and malicious intent toward the victim. State v. Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, 147 N.M. 542, 226 P.3d 641. Evidence of methamphetamine manufacturing process. - Where the state's witness testified using a PowerPoint presentation that described the manufacture methamphetamine; the PowerPoint included a manufacturing step that involved anhydrous ammonia; no anhydrous ammonia was not found in the defendant's possession; the witness acknowledged that no anhydrous ammonia was found in the defendants' possession; and the witness testified that it was not necessary to have anhydrous ammonia to manufacture methamphetamine, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the entire manufacturing process to be described as context for the items that were found in the defendant's possession. State v. Vance, 2009-NMCA-024, 145 N.M. 706, 204 P.3d 31, cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-001. Evidence of lawful business dealings. - Defendant may introduce evidence of lawful business dealings to rebut the prosecution's evidence of fraudulent intent under this rule. State v. Mercer, 2005-NMCA-023, 137 N.M. 36, 106 P.3d 1283, cert. denied, 2005-NMCERT-002. A defendant's refusal to take a chemical test is relevant to show his consciousness of guilt and fear of the test results. McKay v. Davis, 1982-NMSC-122, 99 N.M. 29, 653 P.2d 860. Evidence illuminating accused's arrest, conduct and condition relevant. - Evidence tending to show circumstances of the arrest of an accused, his acts and conduct, his physical and mental condition and any declarations by him are pertinent and admissible evidence. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-38. Evidence of flight relevant to show consciousness of guilt. - Evidence of flight or the aborting of defendant's plan for flight is relevant because it tends to show consciousness of guilt. State v. Smith, 1976-NMCA-048, 89 N.M. 777, 558 P.2d 46, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-085, 89 N.M. 770, 558 P.2d 39. Testimony of prehypnotic recollections is admissible in the sound discretion of trial court. State v. Hutchinson, 1983-NMSC-029, 99 N.M. 616, 661 P.2d 1315. Post-traumatic stress disorder testimony admissible. - Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) testimony is admissible to show sexual abuse, as potentially probative of whether in fact a rape occurred, because it is grounded in scientific knowledge, assists the trier of fact and is not unduly prejudicial under Rule 11-403 NMRA. PTSD however is inadmissible as to credibility of victim, defendant identification and causality of symptoms. State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047, 116 N.M. 156, 861 P.2d 192. Rape and kidnapping conviction relevant to civil harassment suit. - In tort action against employer based on sexual harassment, evidence of harasser's conviction for kidnapping and rape was relevant to show employer's knowledge of and reaction to employee's conduct. Coates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1999-NMSC-013, 127 N.M. 47, 976 P.2d 999. Rape trauma syndrome testimony inadmissible. - Expert testimony concerning rape trauma syndrome is inadmissible mainly because it is not part of the specialized manual DSMIII-R used by the American Psychiatric Association. State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047, 116 N.M. 156, 861 P.2d 192. Money in defendant's possession upon arrest relevant. - Amount of money in defendant's possession upon arrest, a short distance and in a short period of time after cashing forged check, certainly tended to throw light on the criminal transaction and was therefore admissible as evidence. State v. Belcher, 1971-NMCA-135, 83 N.M. 130, 489 P.2d 410. Evidence of defendant's wealth. - In a drug trafficking prosecution, evidence of unexplained wealth may be highly relevant. State v. Rael, 1999-NMCA-068, 127 N.M. 347, 981 P.2d 280, cert. denied, 127 N.M. 390, 981 P.2d 1208. Evidence of drinking relevant to carelessness. - Evidence of drinking has a tendency to make the existence of carelessness or lack of due caution more probable than it would be without the evidence; said evidence is thus relevant, though it is but one circumstance to consider when the prosecution is for reckless driving. State v. Sandoval, 1975-NMCA-096, 88 N.M. 267, 539 P.2d 1029. Blood-alcohol content of other driver, passenger not relevant. - In trial of driver for vehicular homicide and great bodily injury by vehicle while under the influence, the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the blood-alcohol concentration of the driver of the struck motorcycle, which was below the legal limit for intoxication, and that of the motorcycle's passenger, since neither fact was relevant to the case. State v. Telles, 1999-NMCA-013, 126 N.M. 593, 973 P.2d 845. Documents submitted to insurer relevant to show fraud. - Where exhibits were documents submitted by defendant to insurance company grouped as to each count of fraud, where as to each group of papers there was testimony that they were received from defendant, and where at least one paper in each group bore the signature of defendant, the record fully established their relevancy. State v. Archuleta, 1970-NMCA-131, 82 N.M. 378, 482 P.2d 242, cert. denied, 82 N.M. 377, 482 P.2d 241 (1971). Testimony of polygraph examiner relevant to show degree of crime. - Where testimony of polygraph examiner would have been that defendant was telling the truth on questions about intent and provocation, said testimony would be crucial in determining whether defendant had committed murder in the second degree or voluntary manslaughter; therefore the tendered evidence was admissible as relevant evidence. State v. Dorsey, 1975-NMCA-022, 87 N.M. 323, 532 P.2d 912, aff'd, 1975-NMSC-040, 88 N.M. 184, 539 P.2d 204. Pistol and shells relevant in armed robbery prosecution. - Exhibits of automatic pistol and empty shells are properly admitted as material and relevant evidence in armed robbery prosecution where pistol is identified as one used during robbery and shells were found at the scene. State v. Beachum, 1967-NMSC-215, 78 N.M. 390, 432 P.2d 101, cert. denied, 392 U.S. 911, 88 S. Ct. 2068, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1369 (1968). Videotape of trail to father's house relevant to connect defendant with burglary. - In burglary case where arresting officers had fired at suspect fleeing service station that had been broken into, where defendant was found wounded at a hospital shortly thereafter, where defendant's fingerprints matched those found at scene of crime, where officers made videotape of trail of small red splotches, alleged to be bloodstains, leading to or near residence of defendant's father and where an officer who was present at the taping testified at the trial that such tape was true and accurate as to what it purported to represent, defendant's contention that, absent proof that the spots were blood, the tape was not relevant and therefore was inadmissible was without merit since the tape tended to connect defendant with the burglary whether or not the spots were blood. State v. Thurman, 1972-NMSC-040, 84 N.M. 5, 498 P.2d 697. Content of surveillance video was probative to a determination as to whether defendant committed burglary of a vehicle. - Where defendant was charged with four counts of burglary of a vehicle, and the state introduced surveillance video taken in the parking lot where defendant was alleged to have broken into several vehicle, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the surveillance video, because in addition to showing the pictured person's body-type and gait, information from which a person familiar with the person pictured could make an identification, the surveillance video also showed the pictured person arriving and departing in a dark-colored pickup truck and removing items from several vehicles, and along with inferences to be drawn from other admitted evidence that defendant owned a dark-colored pickup truck and that defendant made a statement to law enforcement that he did not remember what he took from the vehicles or the whereabouts of those items, the content of the surveillance video was probative to a determination as to whether defendant was the person pictured. State v. Sweat, 2017-NMCA-069, cert. denied. Proposal for redesign of parking lot relevant in condemnation suit. - In a condemnation suit exhibits and testimony offered by the state proposing a redesign of the parking area and utilization of this area by reducing width of striped stalls from 10 feet to eight and one-half feet was an element to be considered in determining the difference between the "before" and "after" fair market values, particularly in view of the fact that property owner was permitted to introduce evidence to show that the effect of the taking was to substantially reduce rental area of the proposed building because of lost parking space. State ex rel. State Hwy. Dep't v. Kistler-Collister Co., 1975-NMSC-039, 88 N.M. 221, 539 P.2d 611. Evidence of similar incidents relevant to show agent's authority. - Testimony concerning the chemical Eradicane's damage to fields of other farmers and negotiation and settlement of those claims by defendant company was relevant as tending to show that these other claims were investigated and settled by a certain individual on behalf of the company and to show the authority of the individual. Jesko v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 1976 -NMCA-117, 89 N.M. 786, 558 P.2d 55. Other cigarettes relevant to show use of marijuana. - Where defendant smoked a cigarette made up from loose material in plastic bag, where cigarettes in question were also made from the loose material in the plastic bag, where defendant "used" a cigarette made from same material as cigarettes in question and where cigarettes in question contained marijuana, cigarettes in question were relevant to question of defendant's use of marijuana, and were properly admitted. State v. Covens, 1971-NMCA-141, 83 N.M. 175, 489 P.2d 888. Conduct of others relevant to safety of product. - Conduct of others is proper evidence for a jury to consider in determining whether the tendency of the thing is dangerous or defective. Testimony as to the reputation of the corporation which manufactures the safety device on the rifle in question, and the reputation of the corporation which manufactures rifles which have the same safety device as rifle in question, was relevant to the issue of whether the safety device on the rifle was unsafe or safe. Lopez v. Heesen, 1961-NMSC-122, 69 N.M. 206, 365 P.2d 448. Evidence of accidents other than one in question ordinarily not admissible. - Evidence of the happening of accidents at other places is ordinarily not admissible to show whether the danger of such an accident exists at the place in question. Ruiz v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 1981 -NMCA-094, 97 N.M. 194, 638 P.2d 406. Evidence of prior accidents is relevant to prove the existence of a hazard. - Evidence of prior accidents or injuries is not relevant to prove a specific act of negligence, but may be relevant to show either the existence of a danger or hazard or a defendant's knowledge of the danger. Evidence of prior accidents or injuries is relevant where the circumstances surrounding the prior incidents are substantially similar to the circumstances surrounding the incident at issue. Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2015 -NMCA-109. In a personal injury action, where plaintiff was injured while setting a handbrake on a locomotive while employed as a locomotive engineer with defendant railway company, evidence that other railway employees were injured operating handbrakes was relevant to whether railway company had notice of a pattern of handbrake injuries; the district court properly admitted the injury reports because they were substantially similar to the plaintiff's claim. Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2015 -NMCA-109. Evidence of training and safety relevant in negligence action. - In a personal injury action, where plaintiff was injured while setting a handbrake on a locomotive while employed as a locomotive engineer with defendant railway company, evidence that railway company developed and used a handbrake trailer for safety training prior to plaintiff's injury was relevant because evidence related to defendant's training and safety tools would have a tendency to make more or less probable plaintiff's claim that his handbrake injury resulted form negligent training; the trial court's admission of evidence related to the handbrake trailer was not an abuse of discretion. Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2015 -NMCA-109. Mortality table relevant. - Mortality table showing life expectancy of a person of plaintiff's age is admissible into evidence where there is substantial evidence tending to show that injuries are permanent. Maisel v. Wholesome Dairy, Inc., 1968-NMCA-038, 79 N.M. 310, 442 P.2d 800. Fingerprint substantial evidence of identity. - Where person appears in the case on trial under a different name from the name of the person elsewhere convicted, the fingerprint will be substantial evidence of identity. State v. Miller, 1968-NMSC-054, 79 N.M. 117, 440 P.2d 792. Photographs competent evidence. - Photographs are the pictured expressions of data observed by a witness; they are often more accurate than any description by words, and give a clearer comprehension of physical facts than can be obtained from the testimony of witnesses. Ordinarily photographs are competent evidence of anything which it is competent for a witness to describe in words. When photographic evidence constituted visual explanations of testimony of witnesses and was corroborative of said testimony, photographs were admissible for those purposes. State v. Carlton, 1972-NMCA-015, 83 N.M. 644, 495 P.2d 1091, cert. denied, 83 N.M. 631, 495 P.2d 1078. Photograph of victim before victim was medically attended to was relevant because it depicted the extent of the victim's injuries and it made more probable than not the potential of great bodily harm, which is an element of aggravated battery for which the defendant was on trial. The photograph was also relevant because it illustrated the treating physician's testimony concerning the injuries to the victim. State v. Pettigrew, 1993-NMCA-095, 116 N.M. 135, 860 P.2d 777. Photograph of weapon used in aggravated battery admissible. - Where defendant, who was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, challenged the chain of custody of the knife that was admitted at trial through a photographic exhibit, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph of the knife where the evidence established that the knife was relevant to the stabbing incident between defendant and the victim, that the investigating officer acquired the knife from defendant's wife while interviewing defendant after the incident, that the photograph offered by the state was a picture of the knife the officer received from defendant's wife, and that the photograph was a fair and accurate depiction of the knife that he received. State v. Lopez, 2018-NMCA-002, cert. denied. Photographs competent evidence even where merely corroborative of testimony. - Photograph taken by police of items stolen, which merely corroborated testimony of police, was relevant evidence as corroboration of a witness. State v. Baca, 1974-NMCA-022, 86 N.M. 144, 520 P.2d 872. Mug shot shows defendant's appearance and agent's abilities. - Admission into evidence of a mug shot went to ability of undercover agent to identify with people suspected of dealing in narcotics, and shows defendant's appearance. State v. Mordecai, 1971-NMCA-139, 83 N.M. 208, 490 P.2d 466. Newspaper clippings admissible. - Newspaper clippings with a sizeable headline concerning the crime found in defendant's home are admissible into evidence. State v. Vargas, 1994-NMCA-041, 117 N.M. 534, 873 P.2d 280. One reason for admitting an exhibit is to illustrate, explain or throw light on a criminal transaction. State v. Belcher, 1971-NMCA-135, 83 N.M. 130, 489 P.2d 410. Exhibits must be shown to be connected with defendant, victim or crime. - Insofar as a foundation or identification of evidentiary exhibits is concerned, in order to establish the requisite relevancy sufficient to permit their proper admission they should in some manner be shown to be connected with the defendant, the victim or the crime itself. State v. Gray, 1968-NMCA-059, 79 N.M. 424, 444 P.2d 609, aff'd, 1969-NMCA-102, 80 N.M. 751, 461 P.2d 233. Ultimate use of exhibit not important. - Where exhibit was connected with the crime and was identified as a device capable of being used in committing the crime with which defendants were charged, it was relevant and material to preparation and intent of defendants, even though there is no evidence that, in fact, the exhibit was so used. State v. Hardison, 1970-NMCA-043, 81 N.M. 430, 467 P.2d 1002. Safe punch relevant to show possession of burglary tools. - A specially made up burglary tool used as a safe punch was properly admitted in burglary and possession of burglary tools prosecution under Sections 30-16-3 and 30-16-5 NMSA 1978, even where there was no evidence that a safe had been opened during any of the burglaries. State v. Everitt, 1969-NMCA-010, 80 N.M. 41, 450 P.2d 927. Drawing of stick figure in child sexual abuse case. - In a child sexual abuse case, where the court drew a stick figure to help the victim testify, the drawing was relevant, and the court's leading questions to the victim tended to clarify the evidence. State v. Benny E., 1990-NMCA-052, 110 N.M. 237, 794 P.2d 380. Officer's testimony on speed of defendant admissible. - In an action arising out of an automobile-pedestrian accident, an officer's testimony that he clocked the defendant driving at an excessive rate of speed is relevant as tending to make the existence of defendant's excessive speed more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; additionally, it is relevant to the credibility of a statement by the defendant that he had not exceeded the speed limit the night of the accident. Estrada v. Cuaron, 1979-NMCA-079, 93 N.M. 283, 599 P.2d 1080, cert. denied, 93 N.M. 172, 598 P.2d 215. Testimony linking bat, splinters and defendant admissible. - Testimony showing that a bat which was admitted into evidence was cracked and that wood splinters were removed from the hand of the defendant on the day following a murder has a tendency to make more probable the state's theory that the defendant had struck the victim with the cracked baseball bat, although the splinters which were removed were unavailable. State v. Stephens, 1979-NMSC-074, 93 N.M. 368, 600 P.2d 820. Photograph admissible if corroborates other evidence. - The fact that a photograph may be cumulative of other evidence does not necessarily render it inadmissible so long as it serves to corroborate other evidence. Harrell v. City of Belen, 1979-NMCA-067, 93 N.M. 612, 603 P.2d 722, rev'd on other grounds, 1979-NMSC-081, 93 N.M. 601, 603 P.2d 711. Probable cause to search not relevant to credibility. - Whether a police officer had probable cause to search the nearby house trailer of the defendant's brother does not tend to prove that the officer lied in connection with defendant's sale of heroin to the officer, and so the probable cause testimony would not be relevant evidence. State v. Barela, 1978-NMCA-034, 91 N.M. 634, 578 P.2d 335, cert. denied, 91 N.M. 610, 577 P.2d 1256. Inquiry into basis of witness' information, accuracy, credibility is almost universally admissible. State v. Christopher, 1980-NMSC-085, 94 N.M. 648, 615 P.2d 263. Evidence of pending lawsuit admissible to attack defendant's credibility. - Where defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after taking a gun inside a Las Cruces club, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that defendant had a pending lawsuit against the city of Las Cruces, because the evidence was admissible for the purpose of attacking defendant's credibility, and the State used the evidence of defendant's pending lawsuit to undermine defendant's credibility by inferring that he had reason to be untruthful in his testimony because the outcome of the criminal trial could affect the civil lawsuit. State v. Jimenez, 2017-NMCA-039, cert. denied. Relevancy of child victim's prior sexual conduct. - A child victim's prior sexual conduct, whether with defendant or another, is relevant and admissible insofar as it tends to show that defendant coerced the victim to submit to sex. State v. Gillette, 1985-NMCA-037, 102 N.M. 695, 699 P.2d 626. Error in perjury prosecution to admit evidence of acquittal entered in prior case, from which the allegation of perjury arose, because the perjury defendant could have told the truth, but not been believed by the jury because of his faulty memory, reputation, and demeanor. State v. Naranjo, 1979-NMCA-150, 94 N.M. 413, 611 P.2d 1107, rev'd on other grounds, 1980-NMSC-061, 94 N.M. 407, 611 P.2d 1101. Government standards in related area not relevant to manufacturer's duty. - Standards and government codes relating to safety of cranes during operation near electric power lines had no bearing on the duty of a manufacturer to install a safety device on its crane, and thus were irrelevant and inadmissible in products liability suit against manufacturer. Jasper v. Skyhook Corp.., 1976-NMCA-024, 89 N.M. 98, 547 P.2d 1140, rev'd on other grounds, 1977-NMSC-017, 90 N.M. 143, 560 P.2d 934, overruled on other grounds, Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp., 1992-NMSC-008, 113 N.M. 153, 824 P.2d 293. Subsequent remedial measures. - The prohibition against admitting evidence of subsequent remedial measures, stated in Rule 11-407 NMRA, does not apply to measures taken by non-defendants. Thus, evidence that an employer, subsequent to an injury, added a safety device next to a machine was highly relevant in an action by an employee against the manufacturer of the machine and any prejudice to the manufacturer was mitigated by the court's instructions to the jury. Couch v. Astec Indus., Inc., 2002-NMCA-084, 132 N.M. 631, 53 P.3d 398, cert. denied, 132 N.M. 551, 52 P.3d 411. Evidence of prior accidents to prove the existence of a hazard is admissible. - Evidence of prior accidents or injuries is not relevant to prove a specific act of negligence, but may be relevant to show either the existence of a danger or hazard or a defendant's knowledge of the danger. Evidence of prior accidents or injuries is relevant where the circumstances surrounding the prior incidents are substantially similar to the circumstances surrounding the incident at issue. Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2015 -NMCA-109. In a personal injury action, where plaintiff was injured while setting a handbrake on a locomotive while employed as a locomotive engineer with defendant railway company, evidence that other railway employees were injured operating handbrakes was relevant to whether railway company had notice of a pattern of handbrake injuries; the district court properly admitted the injury reports because they were substantially similar to the plaintiff's claim, and the prejudicial effect of the injury reports did not substantially outweigh their probative value. Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2015 -NMCA-109. Mere desire to take polygraph test not relevant. - Defendant's desire to take a polygraph test did not tend to make it more probable or less probable that defendant was an armed robber. Until a valid test was performed and there was a meaningful result, evidence of defendant's desire was no more than self-serving evidence which was properly excluded. State v. Duran, 1977-NMCA-091, 91 N.M. 35, 570 P.2d 36, cert. denied, 91 N.M. 3, 569 P.2d 413, 435 U.S. 972, 98 S. Ct. 1615, 56 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1978). Rating of positive three on polygraph test was irrelevant and inadmissible as it did not prove that defendant's truthfulness was more likely or less likely. State v. Bell, 1977-NMSC-013, 90 N.M. 134, 560 P.2d 925. Conflicting custom not relevant where statutory standard. - Evidence is not admissible to show a custom in conflict with standard imposed by statute or ordinance. Sanchez v. J. Barron Rice, Inc., 1967-NMSC-077, 77 N.M. 717, 427 P.2d 240. Testimony not persuasive at another trial still relevant. - Even though defendant had been tried and acquitted for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquors on the same facts under which he was presently charged with reckless driving, testimony by arresting officer that defendant appeared intoxicated was competent to prove all of the circumstances at the time of the alleged criminal act, including defendant's condition, movements and conduct. State v. Platter, 1959-NMSC-094, 66 N.M. 273, 347 P.2d 166. In negligent entrustment case, evidence of prior specific acts indicating incompetence or unfitness are relevant and admissible on the separate questions of the entrustee's competence or fitness and the entruster's knowledge. McCarson v. Foreman, 1984-NMCA-129, 102 N.M. 151, 692 P.2d 537. Evidence of crime other than the one charged. - The state may not introduce into evidence a handgun not used in the perpetration of a crime for which the defendant is charged if the state does so to link the defendant to the commission of another crime. State v. Espinosa, 1988-NMSC-050, 107 N.M. 293, 756 P.2d 573. Possession of marijuana inadmissible in vehicular homicide case. - In a vehicular homicide case, evidence that the victims possessed marijuana was evidence of a criminal act, but it was not "relevant" evidence which would tend to be probative of the victims' negligence and of their being the sole cause of the accident. State v. Lopez, 1982-NMCA-163, 99 N.M. 791, 664 P.2d 989. An explanation of defendant's prior conviction for commercial burglary was irrelevant to his credibility or to the charges of aggravated burglary, criminal sexual penetration in the second degree, and kidnapping for which he was being tried. State v. Noland, 1986-NMCA-067, 104 N.M. 537, 724 P.2d 246. Evidence of plaintiff's mental state relevant, but excluded. - In action for mental distress arising out of sexual harassment, evidence of plaintiff's husband's incarceration for murder, while somewhat probative as to plaintiff's mental state, was properly excluded because of the danger of unfair prejudice. Coates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1999-NMSC-013, 127 N.M. 47, 976 P.2d 999. Statistical evidence relating to quality of seller's goods held relevant. - In seller's suit against buyer for purchase price and buyer's counterclaim for breach of contract, statistical evidence relating to quality of seller's goods was relevant because it depicted seller's regular "habit" or course of conduct over a 22-year period which bore directly on probabilities that buyer received large percentage of poor quality goods. Kirk Co. v. Ashcraft, 1984-NMSC-065, 101 N.M. 462, 684 P.2d 1127. Carbon copy of letter sent by insured's attorney is relevant evidence since there is an inference that because carbon copy was received by insured the original was mailed to and received by insurer. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Price, 1984-NMCA-036, 101 N.M. 438, 684 P.2d 524, overruled on other grounds, Ellingwood v. N.N. Investors Life Ins. Co., 1991 -NMSC-006, 111 N.M. 301, 805 P.2d 70. Prior judge's ruling in insurance dispute was relevant, but of limited probative value. - In a dispute between plaintiffs and their insurance company as to whether plaintiffs' policy was in force at the time of a car accident, where the district court excluded evidence relating to a prior judge's summary judgment ruling, which had been reversed on appeal, that plaintiffs lacked insurance coverage for the accident, the district court did not err in excluding the evidence, because although the previous judge's determination that the plaintiffs' policy did not provide coverage, although wrong, tended to show that the insurance company may have denied the claim for reasons which are reasonable under the policy and was therefore relevant to the issue of bad faith, evidence of the prior summary judgment ruling was of limited probative value because the ruling was a legal determination based on a selective portion of the insurance policy, to the exclusion of other extrinsic evidence, was made after the insurance company initially decided to contest coverage, and the issues of coverage and bad faith were fact-based and did not depend solely on a legal interpretation of plaintiffs' insurance policy. Progressive Cas. Co. v. Vigil, 2018-NMSC-014, rev'g 2015-NMCA-031, 345 P.3d 1096. Admission of prior judge's ruling in insurance dispute would have confused the issues.- In a dispute between plaintiffs and their insurance company as to whether plaintiffs' policy was in force at the time of a car accident, where the district court excluded evidence relating to a prior judge's summary judgment ruling, which had been reversed on appeal, that plaintiffs lacked insurance coverage for the accident, the district court did not err in excluding the evidence, because although evidence of the prior summary judgment ruling on coverage was relevant to the issue of bad faith, it would have been confusing to admit the evidence at trial, because to fairly weigh evidence of the summary judgment ruling, the jury would have required significant explanation about summary judgment, appellate procedures, the meaning of reversal and remand, and other legal doctrines. Progressive Cas. Co. v. Vigil, 2018-NMSC-014, rev'g 2015-NMCA-031, 345 P.3d 1096. Evidence of previous judge's ruling was relevant in insurance bad faith claim. - Where insurer was found at trial to have acted in bad faith in failing to pay a first party claim, evidence of a previous judge's ruling that there was no coverage was relevant, because whether the insurer acted reasonably in disputing the issue of coverage was a fact of consequence in determining the action of bad faith, the fact that the previous judge thought there was no coverage, albeit mistakenly, tended to make the fact that the insurer acted reasonably more probable than it would without the evidence because it supported the notion that the issue of coverage was debatable, and the exclusion of the evidence prejudiced the insurer because it concealed from the jury the fact that a neutral decision maker had validated the insurer's position; the exclusion of the evidence of the previous judge's ruling was an abuse of discretion. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Vigil, 2015-NMCA-031, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-003. Evidence that insurer settled third-party claims was relevant in insurance bad faith claim. - Where insurer was found at trial to have acted in bad faith in failing to pay a first party claim, evidence that the insurer settled claims brought against the insured under a reservation of rights was relevant to the bad faith claim, because the fact that the insurer settled claims tended to make it less probable that the insurer acted in bad faith over the course of the coverage dispute, it prevented the insured from having to defend against personal injury and wrongful death claims from third-party claimants at the same time that the insured was litigating with the insurer, and the exclusion of the evidence deprived the jury of the whole picture in determining whether the insurer acted unreasonably over the long course of the coverage dispute; the exclusion of the evidence of the previous judge's ruling was an abuse of discretion. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Vigil, 2015-NMCA-031, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-003. Testimony regarding accident scene. - Evidence pertaining to the seriousness of the injuries, the extent of the wreck and the heroic efforts required of rescuers to deal with the devastation was admissible in the trial of the perpetrator as proof of the elements of depraved mind murder. State v. Landgraf, 1996-NMCA-024, 121 N.M. 445, 913 P.2d 252. Testimony by police and fire officers that they quit their jobs as a consequence of involvement in a high speed chase and wreck involving serious injuries was admissible in the trial of the perpetrator as proof of the elements of depraved mind murder. State v. Landgraf, 1996-NMCA-024, 121 N.M. 445, 913 P.2d 252. Evidence held relevant to show motive. State v. Garcia, 1983-NMSC-008, 99 N.M. 771, 664 P.2d 969. Circumstances affecting relevancy of testimony. - Neither the small amount of the material involved nor the lack of positive identification upon the initial view provided basis for holding, as a matter of law, that the officer did not have a reasonable belief that the substance was marijuana, where officer had served in the narcotics division of the state police for six years and during his service had observed over 1000 samples of marijuana per year. State v. Miller, 1969-NMCA-017, 80 N.M. 227, 453 P.2d 590, cert. denied, 80 N.M. 198, 453 P.2d 219. Witness's negative opinion of defendant. - Where the defense counsel elicited testimony from a prosecution witness that the witness did not respect the defendant and the prosecution subsequently examined the witness regarding her reasons for not respecting the defendant, the reasons were helpful to the jury in evaluating the weight to be given the witness's testimony and therefore met the relevancy standard of this rule. State v. Abril, 2003-NMCA-111, 134 N.M. 326, 76 P.3d 644, cert. denied, 134 N.M. 320, 76 P.3d 638. Hearsay evidence can be relevant. - Recitals of heirship in a deed, although hearsay, can become competent evidence to prove the truth of the facts recited when admitted in evidence by stipulation or without objection. Caranta v. Pioneer Home Imps., Inc., 1970-NMSC-030, 81 N.M. 393, 467 P.2d 719. Law reviews. - For article, "Rape Law: The Need for Reform," see 5 N.M.L. Rev. 279 (1975). For article, "The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence Under the New Mexico and Federal Rules of Evidence," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 187 (1976). For article, "Evidence I," see 13 N.M.L. Rev. 407 (1983). For article, "Evidence II: Evidence of Other Crimes as Proof of Intent," see 13 N.M.L. Rev. 423 (1983). For note, "Lie Detector Evidence - New Mexico Court of Appeals Holds Voice-Stress Lie Detector Evidence Conditionally Admissible: Simon Neustadt Family Center, Inc. v. Bludworth," see 13 N.M.L. Rev. 703 (1983). For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1982-83: Evidence," see 14 N.M.L. Rev. 161 (1984). For survey of 1990-91 criminal procedure and evidence, see 22 N.M.L. Rev. 713 (1992). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 301 et seq. Admissibility of evidence that defendant escaped or attempted to escape while being detained for offense in addition to that or those presently being prosecuted, 3 A.L.R.4th 1085. Admissibility and effect, on issue of party's credibility or merits of his case, of evidence of attempts to intimidate or influence witness in civil action, 4 A.L.R.4th 829. Admissibility of evidence of fingernail comparisons in criminal case, 40 A.L.R.4th 575. Admissibility of evidence of commission of similar crime by one other than accused, 22 A.L.R.5th 1. Modern status of rule relating to admission of results of lie detector (polygraph) test in federal criminal trials, 43 A.L.R. Fed. 68. Propriety, in federal court action, of attack on witness' credibility by rebuttal evidence pertaining to cross-examination testimony on collateral matters, 60 A.L.R. Fed. 8 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 197 et seq.