Rufo v. Simpson
California Court of Appeal
86 Cal. App. 4th 573 (2001)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
The representatives, heirs, and parents of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman (plaintiffs) brought civil actions against Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson (defendant) for the murder of Nicole and Ronald. A jury awarded the plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages. Simpson appealed the judgment on evidentiary grounds. Simpson argued that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in admitting into evidence (1) testimony from police officers who had responded to violent incidents between Simpson and Nicole as to what Nicole had said about those incidents, (2) testimony from the director of a battered-women’s shelter as to what Nicole had told her about Simpson’s abuse, and (3) letters and diary entries written by Nicole about Simpson’s abuse and her plan to terminate the relationship. Prior to admitting the statements Nicole had made to the director and in her letters and diaries, the trial court gave a limited instruction that the statements should be used only as circumstantial evidence of Nicole’s state of mind. Simpson argued that the evidence was hearsay and, in the alternative, not relevant because he had never disputed Nicole’s state of mind.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vogel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 829,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
