ovate RULES OW EvoRnce rae ma ses reg ‘SEcge o's deemie ct = SSE S Sag tn ad ‘he Led Sats Supreme Cou ober tin Til on eqre “eeeralecceganes” a eRe ‘iui ee enoy ada ‘towne he sent Frye standard pace Meee yt ac as gueeeper wen fee sie eol ope sete tntnony. Tha tries preinay determination of ee aie ofr testimony scenic knowlege ee ero vl mis he er of fr tS TEES Sacmine «fc in sue The flange ‘Miss ta sok! be coostered by he jee Tato Mory ced wil ear om he Ing, {isdag wir the cory o teh gun ‘nt Cabs Ben) tere, wbthe ap Sijaed to et renew and pbs, tet ‘er hn acted. widespread secpime Hower the standards reno exclusive: The ingyen, ad frum be ‘iy im pines and methology, not oa te ores ca conaions that they seer. Taupo ieee Sa os se tat nth ba Sf eset ae in nee mae fio ayer ut rar int aa ee < Tevng ace kee Ecos md oe on oh Seg Se se. $3 Opinion of ordinary witnesses, — The Sfnion of a witness, for which proper basis ts Shen, may be received in evidence regarding — (a) The identity of a person about whom he frst has adequate kaowedge; 0) A handwriting with which he ar she has © affctent familiarity; and (The mental sanity of a person with whom he ar she fs sufficiently nequainte ‘Te witness may also testify on his or her pressions of the emotion, behavior, condition teappearance of a person. (50a)Be ‘Revseo RULES ON Evmence ote, that there is @ substantial diference ccd ceness and an expert Witness. The epeeree=® & any wines may be received in evidence reqargon, (a) erty of © person oUt whom be hay fate tne: « 6) ahandrting with which he has suffice o arity; and fam (© the mena sny of person with whom beg fey acne The Wines may toms impressions ofthe emotion, behavigs © tion or appeatance ofa person." ml. ‘The opinion fa exper witness may be received in ence on ater requiring special knowledge, ski, ee nc taining which he shown to posses. ‘ects do aimed cord probe var» an aid expert testimony, much les to an unobjeana ‘inary testimony respecting special knowledge. The ten {Sth the probative value of an expert testimony does noe tna simple exposition of the experts opinion. Rather, ig trig les in the assistance that che expert witness nay ‘lord the cours by demonstrating the facts which serve a2 tas for hi opinion andthe reasons on Which the loge of is fonclson founded. Note thatthe mental retardation can be proven by e- ence ote than medicl/clinical evidence, such a8 the Notes so Cases 2s of witnesses and even the observ ont he observation by the trial seb ht af uainted. Thus, in People vx Cassa 3 eh ci es neem Cal he 1 aha wines ge eae cemeteries the in Sas een ten i Feed es $B and conduct of the peson in quesuon ome ah pon be hese en es eae AEN Sma eh ie ego ene 2 nan same enw a a echoed rn comer dang hk hh eh re re Siocon kos sine ncn ln eco 5, for which nce regarding 8. Character Evidence see. 54. Character evidence not generally ad- niesible; exceptions. — Evidence of a ' haracter or a trait of character is not admis 5 the ‘of proving action in confor. nit a particular of ‘except:Rowse RULES OV EvoeNce (a) In Criminal Cases: (The character of the offen ree aroved ieee try, {ish-in-any-reasonable probability oF improbabiiie ‘offense charged. 4 (2) The accused may prove his or ood moral character, pertinent’ the moral trait involved in the co fense charged. However, the py cation may not prove his ur ne ‘bad moral character unless om cc, Duttal. Note, the general rule is that evidence of a penons character of trait of character Is not admissible frag purpose of proving action In conformity therewith eas parialarocesson. The exception are: in criminal cases) (1) the charaer ofthe ofended party may be proved iit tends to esa in any reasonable degree the probability or improbabity of the offense charged: (2) the accused may prove his other od oral character, pertinent to the moral trait nv Invbe offense charged. However, the prosecution mayne prove his her bad moral character unless on rebut ‘Note to consider that the “character” aspect has some ‘hing todo with he offense charged, as (0) In Givi Case: ita areca tear ‘isis settexplanatory 1n Criminal and Civil Cases: idence of the good character of a wi isnot admissible until such character hy ingeached. ot, thatthe law does not confer any favorable pre: sapien on behalf of a witnes, Ie precily dae sote Spence of any legal presurpon thatthe witness teling fhetrth that he or she is subjected to cros-enamination te not his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom fom inte ces, ofthe reverse, and 0 ele al importa facts bearing spon he nse" The Rules provide that the witness may Be Coscermined by the adverse party ab to any matters stated Siitbe dew examination, or connected’ therewith with ‘iene filles and freedom.” A witness maybe impeached Sy conraditory evidence, by evidence that his general ‘euon for truth, honesty, or integsity& bod, or by vt lene that he has made at her ies satementsinconss test his present testimony."=”may be made _ sot py testimony in-the fo r 8: imation it evant specific instances of cond a tm cases in which character_or haracigr of person i “iarge, claim or defense, proof specific insta that person ae 152) ast (61a; 14 ‘hese provisions are slf explanatory. RULE 181 [BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE ‘AND PRESUMPTIONS Section 1. Burden of proof and burden dence, — Burden of proof is the duty of a party sary to establish his or her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Burden of proof never shifts burden of evidence is the du tv to resent evidence sufficient (0 establish of fact in issue to establish a prima facie case Surden of evidence may shi ries 5, Nene sn BO oa he party ee SS 2 point he burden fea a ise ase ene oot ce ee eae Cd cea ee ae ra a, wo brated te ess eres reece caste Trin ef ce ate Stet cme be be bones ee see ‘gece shits to defendant 10 controve pails prea