28. Should the court admit this evidence?

Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 401 defines «relevant» evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of an action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. A trial judge, however, has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Under FRE 411, «Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.»

C is correct. Although this evidence is certainly not conclusive that the defendant committed arson (many people fully insure their houses), it is relevant to the issue of whether the defendant would have had a financial incentive to commit the arson. The defendant might be able to generate cash more quickly by burning down the house and collecting insurance proceeds than by attempting to sell the house. To be relevant under FRE 401, the evidence need only have «any tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.» Therefore, evidence that has only the slightest probative value can be admitted under this rule.

A is incorrect. Although the probative value of this evidence on the issue of whether the defendant intentionally burned her house down is not particularly strong, the evidence is relevant to the issue of a possible motive. Under FRE 403, relevant evidence should be admitted unless its probative value is «substantially outweighed» by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, undue delay, etc. Here, the evidence of insurance is neither unfairly prejudicial nor particularly confusing.

B is incorrect. It is true that under FRE 411, evidence that a person was insured is generally not admissible to prove that the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. However, such evidence may be received for other purposes, and proof of motive is one of those purposes.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The evidence is relevant and admissible, for the reasons explained above. There is no general rule that allows any conduct by one party to be admitted against that party.