Relevance (law)

Last updated

Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. Probative is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove". [1] Probative evidence "seeks the truth". Generally in law, evidence that is not probative (doesn't tend to prove the proposition for which it is proffered) is inadmissible and the rules of evidence permit it to be excluded from a proceeding or stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel". [1] A balancing test may come into the picture if the value of the evidence needs to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.

Contents

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (United States)

Until the Federal Rules of Evidence were restyled in 2011, Rule 401 defined relevance as follows:

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

This definition incorporates the requirement that evidence be both material ("of consequence to the determination of the action") and have probative value ("having any tendency to make the existence of any [material] fact...more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence"). [2] The restyled Rule 401, however, separates these traditional concepts in order to make the rule clearer and more easily understood. [3] The amended language essentially rewrites the rule as a test, rather than a definition, for relevance:

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. [4]

Evidence and the matter properly provable

According to the notes of the Advisory Committee appointed to draft the Federal Rules of Evidence,

Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. [5]

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit explains the concept of "matter properly provable" as follows:

The initial step in determining relevancy is therefore to identify the "matter properly provable." As Professor James explained in a highly-regarded article, '[t]o discover the relevancy of an offered item of evidence one must first discover to what proposition it is supposed to be relevant." [6]

Relevance and admissibility

While all evidence must have probative value to be admitted, not all evidence with probative value is admisible. [7] However, relevant evidence is not admissible if prohibited by the Constitution, an Act of Congress, by the Federal Rules of Evidence, or by rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. [8] Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence may be excluded on the basis of enumerated grounds. [9]

For example, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value (its ability to prove or disprove a fact) is heavily outweighed by its prejudicial value (its ability to bias or confuse the jury). Under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial value. [10] The grounds for exclusion are: [11] [ further explanation needed ]

An example of inadmissible evidence is that the prosecution generally cannot present character evidence, such as old convictions for unrelated crimes. Courts have ruled that while past criminal behavior may have probative value (because it increases the probability of future criminal behavior) such evidence is too prejudicial to be allowed, as juries could convict defendants to punish them for past crimes. [12]

Preservation of the issue

To preserve legal error for review, objections must be raised. [13] Often objections against the introduction of evidence are made on the basis of relevance. However, the rules and opinions demonstrate that relevant evidence includes a significant portion of typically offered evidence. Since objections are required to be specific and timely, merely objecting on the basis of relevance, without more, may prevent the review of legal error on appeal. [13] [14] More particularly, making an objection based on “relevance” does not preserve an error based on Rule 403. [14] Cases that lack specific and timely objections are sometimes referred to as having "poor records" because errors made by the lower court may not be reviewed on appeal.[ citation needed ]

Public policy concerns

A variety of social policies operate to exclude relevant evidence. Thus, there are limitations on the use of evidence of liability insurance, subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, and plea negotiations, mainly because it is thought that the use of such evidence discourages parties from carrying insurance, fixing hazardous conditions, offering to settle, and pleading guilty to crimes, respectively.[ citation needed ]

Canada

The Canadian judiciary system uses the term "probative", which also signifies "prove to be worthy". [15]

In 1970, the Supreme Court of Canada was concerned with exclusionary discretion within the judicial system. In R. v. Wray, [15] the term "probative value" is used to explain that "judges in criminal cases do not have a discretion to exclude evidence because of how it was obtained." [16]

"The trial judge's discretion to exclude admissible evidence does not extend beyond his duty to ensure that the minds of the jury will not be prejudiced by evidence of little probative value, but of great prejudicial effect. Exclusion of evidence on the ground that, although its probative value was unquestionable, it was obtained by methods which the judge considers to be unfair, has nothing to do with his duty to secure a fair trial for the accused."

—  [15]

The sole discretion to exclude evidence is based on the weighing of prejudicial value and probative value. Where the material evidence is being considered for exclusion:

"...a judge must determine the value of the evidence based on reliability and the strength of the inference it led to, against the cost presented by such evidence, including things as diverse as the practicalities of its presentation, the fairness to the parties and to witnesses, and the potentially distorting effect the evidence can have on the outcome of the case."

—  [17]

Australia

Australian rule of evidence is a mixture of statute and common law, [18] together with the rules of court. [19] It has a uniform Evidence Act (UEA or the "Act") that consists of Acts of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory. [20] [21] This therefore applies in most, but not all, states and territories of Australia. [22] The rules of evidence work to ensure that criminal trials are conducted in a manner that is fair to both parties in the proceedings, with distinct focus on testing of evidence.

Relevance and admissibility

As per Barwick CJ in Wilson, [23] "The fundamental rule governing the admissibility of evidence is that it be relevant. In every instance the proffered evidence must ultimately be brought to that touchstone."

The scheme of Chapter 3 of the Act deals with admissibility of evidence. [24] Evidence which is relevant is generally admissible, and evidence which is irrelevant is inadmissible. [24] Evidence is relevant if it is evidence which, if accepted, could rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue in the proceedings. [25] Since evidence that is relevant has the capability to affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue, it is "probative". [26] This determination is known as logical relevance. Logical relevance merely requires evidence have a logical connection to the facts in issue. But neither s 55 nor s 56 of the Act requires that evidence be probative to a particular degree for it to be admissible. Evidence that is of only some, even slight, probative value will be admissible, just as it is at common law. [27] Therefore, evidence is either relevant or it is not and if the evidence is not relevant then no further question arises about its admissibility. [28] However, logical relevance isn't sufficient to establish the potential admissibility of the evidence and is still possible for the evidence to be inadmissible. This determination is known as "legal relevance" as opposed to logical relevance and sets a demanding test for discretionary exclusion (but one that is not obligatory) where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial. [29] Once the legal relevance of the evidence is established, the exclusionary principles and exceptions to those principles are also to be considered. [30]

Tendency and coincidence evidence

The definitions of these types of evidence and how they may be used differ slightly among some of the states. Under Victoria's Evidence Act 2008: [31]

Judges have to determine whether these types of evidence, based on how the parties are looking to use the evidence; this determines which admissibility test applies, and what directions to give to the jury. [31]

John Stratton, NSW Deputy Senior Public Defender, opined at a 2008 legal conference that there was no clear dividing line between the two, although some cases had determined precedents for use. He thought that "the tendency and the coincidence principles should be regarded as alternative and overlapping avenues by which material may be introduced into evidence". [32]

Relevance and reliability

Reliability considers the probative force of the evidence (the legal relevance), rather than the evidence's ability to affect the probability of the existence of a fact in issue (the logical relevance). [33]

See also

Related Research Articles

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained from it is tainted as well.

In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.

Character evidence is a term used in the law of evidence to describe any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person. In the United States, Federal Rule of Evidence 404 maps out its permissible and prohibited uses in trials. Three factors typically determine the admissibility of character evidence:

  1. the purpose for which the character evidence is being used
  2. the form in which the character evidence is offered
  3. the type of proceeding in which the character evidence is offered

In the law of evidence in the United States, public policy doctrines for the exclusion of relevant evidence encompass several types of evidence that would be relevant to prove facts at issue in a legal proceeding, but which are nonetheless excluded because of public policy concerns. There are five major areas of exclusion that arise out of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE"): subsequent remedial measures, ownership of liability insurance, offers to plead guilty to a crime, offers to settle a claim, and offers to pay medical expenses. Many states have modified versions of the FRE under their own state evidence codes which widen or narrow the public policy exclusions in state courts.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States, this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the Supreme Court case Weeks v. United States and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the case Mapp v. Ohio. Both of these cases involved law enforcement conducting warrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being described inside them. Consciousness of guilt is admissible evidence.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.

In common law, a foundation is sufficient preliminary evidence of the authenticity and relevance for the admission of material evidence in the form of exhibits or testimony of witnesses. Although the word "Foundation" does not appear in the Federal Rules of Evidence, scholars have argued that its existence is displayed, albeit implicitly, when viewing all the rules in context.

In the law of criminal evidence, a confession is a statement by a suspect in crime which is adverse to that person. Some secondary authorities, such as Black's Law Dictionary, define a confession in more narrow terms, e.g. as "a statement admitting or acknowledging all facts necessary for conviction of a crime", which would be distinct from a mere admission of certain facts that, if true, would still not, by themselves, satisfy all the elements of the offense. The equivalent in civil cases is a statement against interest.

<i>R v Béland</i> Case of the Supreme Court of Canada

R v Béland [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.

Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

<i>R v Mohan</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80, [1994] 2 SCR 9 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of expert witnesses in trial testimony.

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), discussed the limitation on admitting relevant evidence set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under this rule, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay, wasting time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. In this case, Old Chief offered to stipulate to the fact of a prior conviction, which was an element of the crime with which he was charged. The prosecution resisted this stipulation, arguing that it had the right to present its case in any manner it chose. In Old Chief, the Court applied Rule 403 to the particular situation presented by this case, and concluded that Rule 403 required the trial court to accept the defendant's stipulation to a prior conviction over the prosecution's objection.

In United States law, a declarationagainst interest is an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that they would not have made the statement unless they believed the statement was true. For example, if a driver in an automobile accident boasts publicly that they were speeding, it may represent a legal admission of liability. The Federal Rules of evidence limit the bases of prejudices to the declarant to tort and criminal liability. Some states, such as California, extend the prejudice to "hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community." It is analogous to the criminal equivalent, the statement against penal interest which is a statement that puts the person making the statement at risk of prosecution. In the United States federal court system and many state courts, statements against interest by individuals who are not available to be called at trial may be admitted as evidence where in other circumstances they would be excluded as hearsay.

In the law of the United States of America, an objection is a formal protest to evidence, argument, or questions that are in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law. Objections are often raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony, and may also be raised during depositions and in response to written discovery.

The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.

<i>OBrien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police</i>

O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 was an English evidence law decision of the House of Lords which held that evidence of previous bad behaviour, known as similar fact evidence, may be admitted in civil case proceedings if it is probative of a relevant matter.

<i>Mahomed v R</i>

Mahomed v R [2011] NZSC 52 was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand concerning the admissibility of propensity evidence against defendants facing criminal prosecution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evidence Act 2006</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings.

References

  1. 1 2 Hill, Gerald N.; Hill, Kathleen (2002). The people's law dictionary : taking the mystery out of legal language. New York, NY: MJF Books. ISBN   9781567315530.
  2. ↑ Fisher, George. Evidence. pp. 18–19. Foundation Press, 2002. ISBN   1-58778-176-X
  3. ↑ See H.R. Doc. No. 112–28, at 117 (2011).
  4. ↑ Fed. R. Evid. 401 (2011).
  5. ↑ Advisory Committee's Note to Rule 401, Fed. R. Evid.
  6. ↑ United States v. Foster 986 F.2d 541 (D.C. Cir. 1993) citing James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Cal. L. Rev. 689, 696 n. 15 (1941).
  7. ↑ Fed. R. Evid. 402 (2011).
  8. ↑ Id.
  9. ↑ See Fed. R. Evid. 403 (2011).
  10. ↑ Fed. R. Evid. 403 (2011).
  11. ↑ https://law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/b723/05prej/T05.pdf
  12. ↑ Jennifer Y. Schuster, Uncharged Misconduct Under Rule 404(b): The Admissibility of Inextricably Intertwined Evidence , 42 U. Mia. L. Rev. 947 (1988).
  13. 1 2 Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)
  14. 1 2 United States v. Wilson, 966 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1992)
  15. 1 2 3 The Queen v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272, 1970 CanLII 2 (S.C.C.), 1970-06-26, p. 273, Accessed 2007-01-05.
  16. ↑ Paciocco, David M. & Stuesser, Lee. The law of evidence. IRWIN Law Inc., Third Edition, 2002, p. 30.
  17. ↑ Paciocco, David M. & Stuesser, Lee. The law of evidence. IRWIN Law Inc., Third Edition, 2002, p. 29.
  18. ↑ Jill Hunter et al., The Trial: Principles, process and Evidence (The Federation Press, 2015), p 129.
  19. ↑ "The movement towards a uniform evidence law". Australian Law Reform Commission . 16 August 2010. Retrieved 27 March 2022.
  20. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995". Australasian Legal Information Institute . Retrieved 27 March 2022.
  21. ↑ Evidence Act 1995 (series) Federal Register of Legislation.
  22. ↑ "Evidence Law: Legislation". Australian National University . LibGuides. Retrieved 27 March 2022.
  23. ↑ R v Wilson (1970) 123 CLR 334 at [337].
  24. 1 2 Evidence Act 1995, s 56.
  25. ↑ Evidence Act 1995, s55; Smith v The Queen [2001] HCA 50.
  26. ↑ Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 at [81].
  27. ↑ IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14.
  28. ↑ R v Smith [2001] WASCA 102.
  29. ↑ Evidence Act 1995, s135.
  30. ↑ Evidence Act 1995, s 90, s136, s137, s138.
  31. 1 2 "4.18 - Tendency Evidence". Judicial College of Victoria . 23 October 2019. Retrieved 27 March 2022.
  32. ↑ Stratton, John (September 2008). "Tendency and Coincidence Evidence". The Public Defenders. NSW Government . Retrieved 27 March 2022.
  33. ↑ IMM v R [2016] HCA at [43], [49].
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.