Article IV - Relevancy and Its Limits
Massachusetts Section | Corresponding Federal Rule | Comparison |
MGE § 401 | FRE 401 | Substantially similar. |
MGE § 402 | FRE 402 | Differences. Relevant evidence under FRE 402 is not rendered inadmissible by the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights or the Massachusetts common law of evidence. |
MGE § 403 | FRE 403 | Differences. FRE 403 does not include the Massachusetts distinction for prior bad act evidence. |
MGE § 404(a) | FRE 404(a) | Significant differences. |
MGE § 404(b) | FRE 404(b) | Differences. FRE 404(b)(2) contains a notice requirement to the defendant in criminal cases. Further, under the FRE so-called "prior bad acts" evidence is subject to the FRE 403 balancing test, whereas MGE § 404(b) requires exclusion where probative value is simply outweighed by unfair prejudice. |
MGE § 405(a) | FRE 405(a) | Differences. FRE 405(a) permits proof of a person's character, where admissible, in the form of reputation or opinion, rather than only by reputation. |
MGE § 405(b) | FRE 405(b) | Substantially similar. |
MGE § 405(c) | n/a | No corresponding FRE. |
MGE § 406(a) | FRE 406 | Differences. FRE 406 permits evidence of a personal habit to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the habit. Further, FRE 406 permits evidence of an "organization's routine practice" compared to MGE § 406(a), which is limited to "a business organization or of one acting in a business capacity ...." |
MGE § 406(b) | FRE 406 | No corresponding FRE. Subsection (b) of MGE § 406 is included, in part, to highlight the difference between Massachusetts and Federal evidence law regarding evidence of personal habit. |
MGE § 407(a) | FRE 407 | Differences. FRE 407 additionally prohibits proof of subsequent remedial measures to prove product defects, design defects, or the need for a warning or instruction. |
MGE § 407(b) | FRE 407 | Substantially similar. |
MGE § 408(a) | FRE 408(a) | Differences. FRE 408(a) prohibits the use of compromise offers and negotiations to impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction. FRE 408(a)(2) contains an exception that allows the use of compromise offers and negotiations in a criminal case if the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority. |
MGE § 408(b) | FRE 408(b) | Substantially similar. FRE 408(b) does not explicitly state that evidence of compromise offers and negotiations may be used to prove a witness's "other state of mind," as included in MGE § 408(b), but the list of permitted uses is open-ended. |
MGE § 409(a) | n/a | No corresponding FRE. |
MGE § 409(b) | FRE 409 | Identical. |
MGE § 409(c) | n/a | No corresponding FRE. |
MGE § 410(a) | FRE 410(a) | Significant differences. |
MGE § 410(b) | FRE 410(b) | Significant differences. |
MGE § 411 | FRE 411 | Identical. |
MGE § 412(a) | FRE 412(a) | Substantially similar. FRE 412(a)(2) references a victim's sexual predisposition rather than a victim's sexual reputation. |
MGE § 412(b) | FRE 412(b) | Differences. FRE 412(b)(1)(B) allows evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct with the defendant only to prove consent. |
MGE § 412(c) | FRE 412(c) | Differences. FRE 412(c) provides different and more detailed notice/procedural requirements that must be followed for evidence of a victim's sexual conduct to be offered and admitted. |
MGE § 412(d) | FRE 412(d) | Identical. |
MGE § 413 | n/a | No corresponding FRE. FRE 413 does not address the doctrine of first complaint. Instead, it addresses the admission of evidence of similar crimes in sexual-assault cases. |
MGE § 414 | n/a | No corresponding FRE. FRE 414 does not address the admission of industry and safety standards. Instead, it addresses the admission of evidence of similar crimes in child molestation cases. |