How courts have applied the evidence rule in past cases

119 H. 60 (App.), 193 P.3d 1260 (2008). Where, pursuant to §231-40, the Cheek interpretation of the wilfulness requirement--that a jury must be permitted to consider evidence of a defendant's good faith belief that defendant's conduct did not violate the tax laws, even if that belief was not objectively reasonable, in determining whether defendant acted wilfully--was adopted and applied in construing §231-36(a), the trial court erred in excluding defendant's exhibit pursuant to this rule and rule 403 on the grounds that defendant's analysis of the tax laws was irrelevant and that evidence of defendant's legal theories would confuse the jury. 119 H. 60 (App.), 193 P.3d 1260 (2008). Trial court did not err in admitting seatbelt buckle patent into evidence under this rule and rules 402 and 403 for the limited purpose of showing a defect in the seatbelt where the language in the patent that "known mechanisms are complicated, and some do not positively retain the latch plate" may have evinced a defect in the seatbelt that could have resulted in inertial or inadvertent release in the case, as well as defendant's knowledge of such a defect. 121 H. 143 (App.), 214 P.3d 1133 (2009). There was no plain error in the admission of officer's statements regarding defendant's telephone conversation with wife while in custody to "clean the car", where statements had at least some bearing on defendant's consciousness of guilt and defendant's attempts to conceal evidence linking defendant to decedent's death, both facts at issue in the case, and there was no danger of confusing the jury as counsel for both sides noted in front of the jury that officer's testimony concerned events in 2007. 126 H. 40 (App.), 266 P.3d 448 (2011). Cited: 134 H. 376 (App.), 341 P.3d 1176 (2014). Mentioned: 129 H. 250 (App.), 297 P.3d 1106 (2013).