N.M. R. Evid. 11-402
Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States or New Mexico constitution, a statute, these rules, or other rules prescribed by the Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
N.M. R. Evid. 11-402
Committee commentary. - The language of Rule 11-402 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. Compiler's notes. - This rule is similar to Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This rule is deemed to have superseded that part of former Rule 43(a), N.M.R. Civ. P., which mandated the liberal admission of evidence (see now Rule 1-043 NMRA).
For procedures for the consideration of DNA evidence, see Section 31-1A-2 NMSA 1978. Exclusion of toxicology report showing victim's blood alcohol content to be .245 percent at the time of his death was proper. State v. Garcia, 2005-NMCA-042, 137 N.M. 315, 110 P.3d 531, cert. denied, 2005-NMCERT-004. Trend in American jurisprudence is toward greater admissibility of evidence consonant with need to safeguard the rights of the opposite party. State v. Schrader, 1958-NMSC-056, 64 N.M. 100, 324 P.2d 1025. Subject to important qualifications, any evidence which throws light on the question in issue should be admitted with trial court responsible for holding the hearing within reasonable bounds, and in doubtful cases doubt should be resolved in favor of admissibility. Brown v. General Ins. Co. of Am., 1962-NMSC-040, 70 N.M. 46, 369 P.2d 968. 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. When character admissible. - Where character is an element of the crime, claim or defense, there is no question as to its relevancy and its admission is governed by this rule, but in all other cases where character evidence is collateral, its admissibility is limited to the exceptions outlined in Rule 404 NMRA (now 11-404). State v. Smith, 1979-NMSC-020, 92 N.M. 533, 591 P.2d 664. 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. 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. Objections to irrelevant inquiries sustained. - Where the stated purpose of inquiries made by a party does not relate to a valid defense and the questions are not relevant on any other basis to any issue being litigated, objections to the inquiries are properly sustained. John Doe v. City of Albuquerque, 1981-NMCA-049, 96 N.M. 433, 631 P.2d 728. Restrictions on admissibility of polygraph test results incompatible with rules. - Rule that polygraph test results are inadmissible except when stipulated to by both parties to the case and not objected to at trial is: (1) mechanistic in nature, (2) inconsistent with concept of due process, (3) repugnant to announced purpose and construction of New Mexico Rules of Evidence and (4) particularly incompatible with purposes and scope of Rules 401, 402, 702 and 703 (now 11-401, 11-402, 11-702 and 11-703 NMRA). State v. Dorsey, 1975-NMSC-040, 88 N.M. 184, 539 P.2d 204. Fact that photographs were cumulative or repetitious does not make them inadmissible so long as they are "reasonably relevant" to the issues of the case. State v. Trujillo, 1973-NMCA-012, 84 N.M. 593, 506 P.2d 337 (decided before enactment of this rule). Doubt about evidence affects weight but not admissibility. - Doubt concerning an exhibit of evidence affected weight to be accorded exhibit, but such doubt did not render exhibit inadmissible. State v. Belcher, 1971-NMCA-135, 83 N.M. 130, 489 P.2d 410. 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. 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 and admissible 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 and admissible, 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 and admissible 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 and admissible 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. Unenforceable contract may constitute competent evidence of an admission. Van Orman v. Nelson, 1967-NMSC-069, 78 N.M. 11, 427 P.2d 896 (decided before enactment of this rule). Court may not indirectly exclude relevant evidence. - It would be reversible error for court to refuse to accord relevant and admissible evidence any weight where refusal would in effect amount to exclusion of the evidence. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Bassett, 1970-NMSC-051, 81 N.M. 345, 467 P.2d 11. Where materiality of evidence is doubtful, admission is within discretion of trial court, and its ruling will not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. State v. Wesson, 1972-NMCA-013, 83 N.M. 480, 493 P.2d 965. Admission of photographs discretionary. - Question of admission of photographs into evidence rests largely within discretion of trial court, and ordinarily its decision will not be disturbed. State v. Carlton, 1972-NMCA-015, 83 N.M. 644, 495 P.2d 1091, cert. denied, 83 N.M. 631, 495 P.2d 1078. Admission of evidence of defendant's driving style. - Admission of witness's testimony that, prior to the accident and some distance away, defendant revved his engine at high RPMs with his tires squealing and smoking for about 25 yards, was a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Richerson, 1975-NMCA-027, 87 N.M. 437, 535 P.2d 644, cert. denied, 87 N.M. 450, 535 P.2d 657. Permission for jury to view premises discretionary. - The trial court's refusal of appellant's request that the jury in condemnation case be permitted to view the premises was within the province of the trial court and should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion, and in this case no abuse of discretion was shown. El Paso Elec. Co. v. Landers, 1970-NMSC-001, 82 N.M. 265, 479 P.2d 769. Comment on defendant's silence inadmissible. - Where prosecutor comments on or inquires about defendant's silence, such a reference can have an intolerable prejudicial impact and may require reversal under the plain error rule (see Rule 11-103 NMRA); any reference to defendant's silence by the state, if it lacks significant probative value, constitutes plain error and as such requires reversal even if defendant fails to timely object. However, where a witness refers to defendant's silence, defendant must object to this testimony in order to preserve the error, the objection being that testimony is inadmissible under either this rule or Rule 11-403 NMRA. State v. Baca, 1976-NMSC-015, 89 N.M. 204, 549 P.2d 282; State v. Mirabal, 1982-NMCA-093, 98 N.M. 130, 645 P.2d 1386. Factors relevant to admissibility of confession. - Where prior to signing a confession without the advice of an attorney, defendant was advised of his rights to remain silent and to call an attorney, was offered the use of a telephone book to call an attorney and was again advised of his right to counsel and of his right to remain silent by assistant district attorney, totality of circumstances does not require exclusion of the confession. State v. Ortiz, 1967-NMSC-006, 77 N.M. 316, 422 P.2d 355. Confession is not ipso facto inadmissible if made while under the influence of drugs, but this is a factor to be considered in determining whether confession was voluntary. State v. Ortiz, 1967-NMSC-006, 77 N.M. 316, 422 P.2d 355. Where cross-examination of character witnesses concerning defendant's convictions not allowed. - Cross-examination of character witnesses concerning defendant's convictions 23 years prior to the trial will not be allowed when: (1) the trial judge conducted no in camera inquiry to determine whether the prior alleged events had occurred; (2) none of the witnesses had known the accused for more than six years; (3) the trial court did not instruct the jury at all concerning the limited purpose of the prosecutor's inquiry on the subject; (4) the defendant offered no evidence of specific prior acts, either good or bad, to the jury; and (5) the defense attorney did specifically object to the inquiry made by the prosecutor. State v. Christopher, 1980-NMSC-085, 94 N.M. 648, 615 P.2d 263. Past offense admissible as relating to retaliation charge. - In a prosecution for retaliation against a witness, it was not error to admit evidence regarding the name and nature of the prior felony offense which formed the basis for the charge to which the person was a witness. State v. Warsop, 1998-NMCA-033, 124 N.M. 683, 954 P.2d 748, cert. denied, 124 N.M. 589, 953 P.2d 1087. Prior business dealings in fraud case admissible. - Where defendants were charged with fraud after convincing an elderly couple to invest in a phony investment scheme, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a state's witness to testify about her prior business dealings with defendants when the probative value of the information provided by the witness explained how defendants' transfer of victims' funds to the state's witness was fraudulent, because part of the victims' funds were used to repay an unrelated, prior debt and were not invested as expected by the victims. The evidence was relevant and defendants failed to show that the fact of the transfer of funds to the state's witness to repay a prior debt confused any issues, misled the jury in any respect, created any undue delay, wasted any time, or needlessly presented cumulative evidence. State v. Maxwell, 2016-NMCA-082, cert. denied. Error to admit evidence outside record of prior suit. - In owner's negligence suit against contractor who had damaged the building that had been located on the land, it was error to admit evidence dehors the record of prior condemnation suit to vary terms of that prior judgment, and it was also error to refuse owner's instruction that he had not received compensation for his building in the condemnation suit. Owen v. Burn Constr. Co., 1977 -NMSC-029, 90 N.M. 297, 563 P.2d 91. 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. In products liability cases circumstantial evidence is sufficient to show existence of defect. Montoya v. GMC, 1975-NMCA-136, 88 N.M. 583, 544 P.2d 723, cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5, 546 P.2d 70 (1976). 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. Admission of drug paraphernalia. - Drug scale was admissible at trial to show that defendant had the means and intent to commit the crime charged, the sale of marijuana, even though he was not charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. State v. Vallejos, 1998-NMCA-151, 126 N.M. 161, 967 P.2d 836. Expert testimony on witness' prior drug addiction not admitted. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of defendant's expert witness about prior heroin addiction of state's witness where trial court found that the expert had not applied any particular psychological test with regard to state's witness, that the testimony would be highly prejudicial while having little probative value due to lack of clear connection between witness' prior addiction and her present ability to recall, and that evidence would not be helpful to jury. State v. Blea, 1984-NMSC-055, 101 N.M. 323, 681 P.2d 1100. Evidence relevant only as foundation for excluded expert testimony not admitted. - Since evidence of state witness' prior addiction to heroin was relevant only insofar as it laid the foundation for the testimony of defendant's expert, no such foundation was necessary once the testimony of the expert witness was properly excluded, and therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow cross-examination of witness on her prior addiction to heroin. State v. Blea, 1984-NMSC-055, 101 N.M. 323, 681 P.2d 1100. Testimony on co-defendant's dangerous disposition irrelevant. - Since the defendant indicated his intention to call a defense attorney with "20 years" experience, "someone who has seen literally thousands of defendants" and who would allegedly testify "that the co-defendant was the most dangerous he had ever seen," the judge properly did not allow the testimony as it was irrelevant. State v. Duncan, 1994-NMCA-030, 117 N.M. 407, 872 P.2d 380. Evidence of victim's prior gun play held irrelevant in murder prosecution. - In prosecution for first-degree murder, it was within trial court's discretion to exclude evidence that victim had pulled a gun on someone in another bar since this had no bearing on defendant's claim that he was not in the bar at the time of the shooting, nor did it relate to state witness' identification of defendant as victim's assailant. State v. Blea, 1984-NMSC-055, 101 N.M. 323, 681 P.2d 1100. Evidence of victims' injuries. - In a prosecution for homicide by vehicle and great bodily injury by vehicle, testimony concerning the victims' injuries was admissible. State v. Telles, 1999-NMCA-013, 126 N.M. 593, 973 P.2d 845. Evidence that victim's wounds were not immediately fatal. - Where defendant stabbed the victim thirty-one times piercing the victim's lungs repeatedly from the front and the back and severing the victim's jugular vein; the victim died quickly, before police and paramedics arrived; and the wounds were inflicted with such force that both of the knives used by defendant were bent, the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony that the victim's wounds were not immediately fatal. State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, 278 P.3d 1031. Identity of operator of motor vehicle may be proved by circumstantial evidence regardless of whether he was owner of the vehicle. Payne v. Tuozzoli, 1969-NMSC-017, 80 N.M. 214, 453 P.2d 384. Evidence of undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity requires admission. - A motion seeking the exclusion of evidence of alleged undue influence or the lack of testamentary capacity of a decedent is in the nature of a motion to exclude evidence on the grounds of irrelevance, waste of time or prejudice under this rule or Rule 11-403 NMRA and the trial court correctly denies such a motion; by express statutory provision it is required to determine the validity of, and the persons entitled to the decedent's property under any testamentary document filed for probate. Rutland v. Scanlan, 1982-NMCA-174, 99 N.M. 229, 656 P.2d 892. Evidence indicative of comments by testator concerning persons slighted in will or concerning persons accused of exerting undue influence is admissible, even when the comments were made after the will was executed. In re Will of Ferrill, 1981-NMCA-074, 97 N.M. 383, 640 P.2d 489. Evidence of post-execution business arrangements between testator and proponent of will. - There is no error in admitting evidence of business arrangements and financial transactions between the testator and the proponent of the will which occurred after the will was executed. In re Will of Ferrill, 1981-NMCA-074, 97 N.M. 383, 640 P.2d 489. 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. Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. - The burden rests upon the state to prove each and every essential element of the criminal offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not necessary, however, that the charge be established only by direct evidence; circumstantial evidence is sufficient if the circumstances point unerringly to the defendant and are incompatible with and exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than that of his guilt. State v. Slade, 1967-NMCA-027, 78 N.M. 581, 434 P.2d 700. Where circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon for a conviction such evidence must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused upon any rational theory and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis of the defendant's innocence. State v. Zarafonetis, 1970-NMCA-064, 81 N.M. 674, 472 P.2d 388, cert. denied, 81 N.M. 669, 472 P.2d 383. Guilty knowledge is rarely susceptible of direct and positive proof and generally can be established only through circumstantial evidence. State v. Zarafonetis, 1970-NMCA-064, 81 N.M. 674, 472 P.2d 388, cert. denied, 81 N.M. 669, 472 P.2d 383. Evidence of intoxication. - In a wrongful death action arising out of an automobile collision, evidence of the intoxication of a non-party driver was admissible as relevant to whether the driver could have avoided the accident by exercising due care, and evidence of the intoxication of the deceased passenger was admissible as relevant to whether he exercised due care by voluntarily riding with an impaired driver. Buffett v. Vargas, 1996-NMSC-012, 121 N.M. 507, 914 P.2d 1004. In a prosecution for homicide by vehicle and great bodily injury by vehicle, evidence of the blood alcohol level of the victims did not bear on any fact of consequence to determination of the charges and was not relevant. State v. Telles, 1999-NMCA-013, 126 N.M. 593, 973 P.2d 845. 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, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1979-80: Evidence," see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 159 (1981). For article, "Evidence," see 12 N.M.L. Rev. 379 (1982). 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). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 301 et seq. Admissibility, in negligence action against bank by depositor, of evidence as to custom of banks in locality in handling and dealing with checks and other items involved, 8 A.L.R.2d 446. Use and admissibility of maps, plats, and other drawings to illustrate or express testimony, 9 A.L.R.2d 1044. Admissibility of evidence as to tire tracks or marks on or near highway, 23 A.L.R.2d 112. Admissibility in evidence of unsigned confession, 23 A.L.R.2d 919. Physiological or psychological truth and deception tests, 23 A.L.R.2d 1306, 53 A.L.R.3d 1005, 47 A.L.R.4th 1202, 77 A.L.R.4th 927. Admissibility of evidence of unperformed compromise agreement, 26 A.L.R.2d 858. Admissibility in homicide prosecution for purpose of showing motive of evidence as to insurance policies on life of deceased naming accused as beneficiary, 28 A.L.R.2d 857. Lack of proper automobile registration or operator's license as evidence of operator's negligence, 29 A.L.R.2d 963. Valuation for taxation purposes as admissible to show value for other purposes, 39 A.L.R.2d 209. Admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain or contradict bank deposit slips, deposit entries in passbooks, certificates of deposit, or similar instruments, 42 A.L.R.2d 600. Admissibility of evidence of absence of other accidents or injuries from a customary practice or method asserted to be negligent, 42 A.L.R.2d 1055. Admissibility, in damage action arising out of explosion or blasting, of evidence of damage to other property in vicinity, 45 A.L.R.2d 1121. Admissibility, in action involving motor vehicle accident, of evidence as to manner in which participant was driving before reaching scene of accident, 46 A.L.R.2d 9. Admissibility of evidence showing plaintiff's antecedent intemperate habits, in personal injury motor vehicle accident action, 46 A.L.R.2d 103. Admissibility, in railroad crossing accident case, of evidence of other functional failures of railroad crossing devices and appliances of the same kind at other times, 46 A.L.R.2d 935. Blood grouping tests, 46 A.L.R.2d 1000, 43 A.L.R.4th 579. Admissibility in evidence of rules of defendant in action for negligence, 50 A.L.R.2d 16. Admissibility of mortality tables in personal injury action as dependent upon showing of permanency of injury, 50 A.L.R.2d 419. Admissibility of testimony of transferee as to his knowledge, purpose, intention, or good faith on issue whether conveyance was in fraud of transferor's creditors, 52 A.L.R.2d 418. Admissibility in evidence of colored photographs, 53 A.L.R.2d 1102. Admissibility of evidence as to experiments or tests in civil action for death, injury, or property damage against electric power company or the like, 54 A.L.R.2d 922. Admissibility and weight of party's admissions as to tort occurring during his absence, 54 A.L.R.2d 1069. Admissibility and permissible use, in malicious prosecution action, of documentary evidence showing that prior criminal proceedings against instant plaintiff were terminated in his favor, 57 A.L.R.2d 1086. Propriety, in trial of civil action, of use of skeleton or model of human body or part, 58 A.L.R.2d 689. Admissibility of evidence of precautions taken, or safety measures used, on earlier occasions at place of accident or injury, 59 A.L.R.2d 1379. Admissibility and propriety, in rape prosecution, of evidence that accused is married, has children, and the like, 62 A.L.R.2d 1067. Admissibility, in nonstatutory rape prosecution, of evidence of pregnancy of prosecutrix, 62 A.L.R.2d 1083. Admissibility of evidence as to manner or case of firing gun, in civil action involving issue of accidental death or suicide, 63 A.L.R.2d 1150. Admissibility of evidence of value or extent of decedent's estate in action against estate for reasonable value of services furnished decedent, 65 A.L.R.2d 945. Admissibility and propriety, in homicide prosecution, of evidence as to deceased's spouse and children, 67 A.L.R.2d 731. Admissibility, in homicide prosecution, of deceased's clothing worn at time of killing, 68 A.L.R.2d 903. Admissibility, in prosecution for maintaining liquor nuisance, of evidence of general reputation of premises, 68 A.L.R.2d 1300. Propriety, in trial of civil action, of use of model of object or instrumentality, or of site or premises, involved in the accident or incident, 69 A.L.R.2d 424. Admissibility of photograph of corpse in prosecution for homicide or civil action for causing death, 73 A.L.R.2d 769. Admissibility of experimental evidence to determine chemical or physical qualities or character of material or substance, 76 A.L.R.2d 354. Admissibility of experimental evidence as to explosion, 76 A.L.R.2d 402. Admissibility and weight of surveys or polls of public or consumers' opinion, recognition, preference, or the like, 76 A.L.R.2d 619, 98 A.L.R. Fed. 20. Admissibility of experimental evidence to show visibility or line of vision, 78 A.L.R.2d 152. Admissibility of experimental evidence, skidding tests, or the like, relating to speed or control of motor vehicle, 78 A.L.R.2d 218. Admissibility in wrongful death action of testimony of actuary or mathematician for purpose of establishing present worth of pecuniary loss, 79 A.L.R.2d 259. Admissibility of testimony of actuary or mathematician as to present value of loss or impairment of injured person's general earning capacity, 79 A.L.R.2d 275. Admissibility, in wrongful death action brought for benefit of minor children, of evidence of decedent's desertion, nonsupport, abandonment, or the like, of said children, 79 A.L.R.2d 819. Admissibility in evidence of receipt of third person, 80 A.L.R.2d 915. Admissibility, as against objection of remoteness, of evidence as to past earnings, upon issue as to amount of damages in an action for personal injury or death, 81 A.L.R.2d 733. Admissibility of evidence of plaintiff 's or decedent's drawings from partnership or other business as evidence of earning capacity, in action for personal injury or death, 82 A.L.R.2d 679. Propriety, in trial of criminal case, of use of skeleton or model of human body or part, 83 A.L.R.2d 1097. Admissibility in evidence of braces, crutches, or other prosthetic or orthopedic devices used by injured party, 83 A.L.R.2d 1271. Admissibility, in prosecution for assault or similar offense involving physical violence, of extent or effect of victim's injuries, 87 A.L.R.2d 926. Admissibility, on issue of testamentary capacity, of previously executed wills, 89 A.L.R.2d 177. Admissibility in civil action, apart from res gestae, of lay testimony as to another's expressions of pain, 90 A.L.R.2d 1071. Evidence of acquisition or possession of money, source of which is not traced, as admissible against defendant in criminal case, 91 A.L.R.2d 1046. What evidence is admissible to identify plaintiff as person defamed, 95 A.L.R.2d 227. Admissibility in evidence of sample or samples of article or substance of which the quality, condition, or the like is involved in litigation, 95 A.L.R.2d 681. Propriety and prejudicial effect of comment or evidence as to accused's willingness to take lie detector test, 95 A.L.R.2d 819. Admissibility, in wrongful death action for pecuniary loss suffered by next of kin, etc., of evidence as to decedent's personal qualities with respect to sobriety or morality, 99 A.L.R.2d 972. Admissibility of evidence of accused's reenactment of crime, 100 A.L.R.2d 1257. Admissibility, in criminal case, of evidence obtained by search by private individual, 36 A.L.R.3d 553. Admissibility, in criminal case, of statistical or mathematical evidence offered for purpose of showing probabilities, 36 A.L.R.3d 1194. Admissibility, in civil action, of disposal of property as bearing on question of liability, 38 A.L.R.3d 996. Admissibility of evidence of other accidents to prove hazardous nature of product, 42 A.L.R.3d 780. Admissibility of evidence that injured plaintiff received benefits from a collateral source, on issue of malingering or motivation to extend period of disability, 47 A.L.R.3d 234. Admissibility of evidence of neutron activation analysis, 50 A.L.R.3d 117. Admissibility of lie detector test taken upon stipulation that the result will be admissible in evidence, 53 A.L.R.3d 1005. Admissibility in evidence, on issue of negligence, of codes or standards of safety issued or sponsored by governmental body or by voluntary association, 58 A.L.R.3d 148. Admissibility in evidence of sound recording as affected by hearsay and best evidence rules, 58 A.L.R.3d 598. Remoteness in time of other similar offenses committed by accused as affecting admissibility of evidence thereof in prosecution for sex offense, 88 A.L.R.3d 8. Propriety and prejudicial effect of informing jury that accused has taken polygraph test, where results of test would be inadmissible in evidence, 88 A.L.R.3d 227. Admissibility in personal injury action of hospital or other medical bill which includes expenses for treatment of condition unrelated to injury, 89 A.L.R.3d 1012. Admissibility, weight, and sufficiency of blood-grouping tests in criminal cases, 2 A.L.R.4th 500. 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. Mental subnormality of accused as affecting voluntariness or admissibility of confession, 8 A.L.R.4th 16. Propriety and prejudicial effect of informing jury that witness in criminal prosecution has taken polygraph test, 15 A.L.R.4th 824. Admissibility of expert or opinion testimony on battered wife or battered woman syndrome, 18 A.L.R.4th 1153. Modern status of rules as to admissibility of evidence of prior accidents or injuries at same place, 21 A.L.R.4th 472. Admissibility in criminal case of evidence that accused refused to take test of intoxication, 26 A.L.R.4th 1112. Admissibility of evidence as to linguistics or typing style (forensic linguistics) as basis of identification of typist or author, 36 A.L.R.4th 598. Admissibility of bare footprint evidence, 45 A.L.R.4th 1178. Admissibility of police officer's testimony at state trial relating to motorist's admissions made in or for automobile accident report required by law, 46 A.L.R.4th 291. Admissibility of defendant's evidence of industry custom or practice in strict liability action, 47 A.L.R.4th 621. Admissibility of voice stress evaluation test results or of statements made during test, 47 A.L.R.4th 1202. Admissibility and weight of evidence of prior misidentification of accused in connection with commission of crime similar to that presently charged, 50 A.L.R.4th 1049. Products liability: admissibility of evidence of absence of other accidents, 51 A.L.R.4th 1186. Thermographic tests: admissibility of test results in personal injury suits, 56 A.L.R.4th 1105. Criminal law: dog scent discrimination lineups, 63 A.L.R.4th 143. Products liability: admissibility of experimental or test evidence to disprove defect in motor vehicle, 64 A.L.R.4th 125. Admissibility, in criminal cases, of evidence of electrophoresis of dried evidentiary bloodstains, 66 A.L.R.4th 588. Admissibility, in prosecution for sex-related offense, of results of tests on semen or seminal fluids, 75 A.L.R.4th 897. Admissibility of hypnotically refreshed or enhanced testimony, 77 A.L.R.4th 927. Permissibility of in-court demonstration to show effect of injury in action for bodily injury, 82 A.L.R.4th 980. Admissibility, in criminal prosecution, of expert opinion evidence as to "blood splatter" interpretation, 9 A.L.R.5th 369. Admissibility of evidence of absence of other accidents or injuries at place where injury or damage occurred, 10 A.L.R.5th 371. Admissibility of evidence of polygraph test result, or offer or refusal to take test, in action for malicious prosecution, 10 A.L.R.5th 663. Admissibility, in homicide prosecution, of evidence as to tests made to ascertain distance from gun to victim when gun was fired, 11 A.L.R.5th 497. Admissibility of evidence in homicide case that victim was threatened by one other than defendant, 11 A.L.R.5th 831. Admissibility of evidence of battered child syndrome on issue of self-defense, 22 A.L.R.5th 787. Admissibility in evidence of composite picture or sketch produced by police to identify offender, 23 A.L.R.5th 672. Search conducted by school official or teacher as violation of Fourth Amendment or equivalent state constitutional provision, 31 A.L.R.5th 229. Admissibility in homicide prosecution of allegedly gruesome or inflammatory visual recording of crime scene, 37 A.L.R.5th 515. Admissibility of expert testimony concerning domestic-violence syndromes to assist jury in evaluating victim's testimony or behavior, 57 A.L.R.5th 315. 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 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 759 et seq.; 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 197 et seq.